Sitting of 25 January 1996

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

  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as were made by him in the last Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered again on Thursday 1 February

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Action for Community Employment
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received concerning the funding of action for community employment. [9626]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): Many representations have been received from the voluntary sector and others concerning the reduction in next year's ACE budget. Unemployment, while still a problem, is no longer the major problem that it was when ACE was introduced and the need to fund temporary jobs has diminished with the improving
    464
    economic situation. During the 12 months to September 1995, almost 11,000 new jobs have been created in Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Godman: The Northern Ireland Office has a policy of targeting social need, but the decision to cut ACE so savagely flies in the face of that principle. How does the Minister justify that decision? More importantly, will he now reverse it? That would be welcomed in both communities and by all political parties. There must be money somewhere in the Northern Ireland Office budget which would allow him to take such a principled step.
    Mr. Ancram: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am sure that he would agree that it is necessary to reflect changing circumstances when deciding how to allocate resources to maximum benefit. There have been many substantial changes in economic circumstances since the early 1980s when the programme was introduced. That was at a time of very high and rising unemployment, which has now fallen to its lowest level in 14 years. Long-term unemployment has fallen by more than 5,000 and there are 7,500 job vacancies, which is a record level. That suggests that it is right that resources should now be allocated to promote the growth which exists within the Northern Ireland economy and which can provide real long-term and lasting jobs.
    Mr. Beggs: I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on his question and draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 273, which I am pleased to say had the support of all the Northern Ireland political parties and many other parties in the House. The suddenness of the proposed cuts will have a devastating effect on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society, who often live in areas where there is high unemployment and social deprivation. We are concerned that some of the charities that are dependent on ACE workers may be forced to close. Again, the disabled in particular could be further disadvantaged. I appeal to the Minister to undertake to review the damage that is being done. The fact that those who have given commitments are demoralized—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I regret to have to call the hon. Gentleman to order, but he is making a statement. I have not yet heard him put a question to the Minister.
    Mr. Beggs: May I ask and appeal to the Minister to review the funding to ACE with a view to increasing resources?
    Mr. Ancram: I cannot give that undertaking—nor, I suspect would the hon. Gentleman expect me to. However, it has been made clear to ACE providers that they are best placed to decide how to manage the reduction and they have flexibility to ensure that key posts of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred are not left unfilled. Real jobs are what all of us involved in Northern Ireland should be looking for, particularly in growth areas such as tourism. Substantial additional resources have been allocated to the growing tourist industry, especially for training. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the emphasis being put on training people within the growth areas in the Northern Ireland economy to take on real and long-lasting jobs. That must be our joint objective.
    Mr. John Marshall: May I thank my hon. Friend for his first answer and welcome the improvement in the economic situation, which is partly the result of the peace process and partly due to the fact that this country has not signed the social chapter and is not committed to a national minimum wage which would destroy jobs in Northern Ireland as it would elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which will be accepted by all those who work in the Northern Ireland economy. His point is valid. Peace and the lack of a social chapter have indeed helped to promote economic prospects in Northern Ireland. We are trying to make sure that those prospects are even more enhanced by ensuring that resources are spent in the right areas.
    Mr. McGrady: From the replies so far, the Minister appears not to understand the problem being created by the 25 per cent. immediate cut in the budget of the Training and Employment Agency. That 25 per cent. has been translated into cuts of 30 per cent. in the south-east and 15 per cent. elsewhere. When that decision was made, was the Minister aware that it would impact on the elderly, the aged and the sick, and on training in areas where there is no employment, such as the training given by ACE? That will have serious social consequences. If the Minister is not prepared to review that decision, will he provide further finance through the Department of Health and Social Services to replace those services?
    Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman will write to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is responsible for health and social services, I am sure that my hon. Friend will respond. Indeed, my hon. Friend will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has just said. The reduction is not an abandonment of the programme. It was made because it was felt that at this point in the economic circumstances of Northern Ireland resources could be better applied in ways that would create real and lasting jobs. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other Northern Ireland Members would criticise the Government if we did not seek to promote the growth that now exists in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Illsley: I accept that unemployment has fallen, but in Northern Ireland it is still more than 11 per cent. The key figure is that 55 per cent. have been out of work for more than a year. With the fragility—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I must instruct the House that this is Question Time and not the time to make statements. We must have questions to Ministers. We have been going for nearly 10 minutes and we have not yet finished question No. 1. I want questions to Ministers and brief answers to them.
    Mr. Illsley: In view of the fragility of the Northern Ireland economy, as evidenced by the problems at Shorts, does the Minister consider that the decision to cut ACE funding is at least premature? Should he not redirect—or restore—that finance to the long-term unemployed?
    Mr. Ancram: I shall be as brief as I can, Madam Speaker. That is exactly what the Government seek to do in promoting growth in the Northern Ireland economy.
    466
    I re-emphasise that unfilled job vacancies are running at record levels—a situation on which I would hope that the hon. Gentleman would congratulate the Government.

    Arms and Explosives
    2. Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in respect of the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives in Northern Ireland. [9627]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): No illegal arms or explosives have yet been decommissioned by any paramilitary organisation. That is deplorable. The international body said that total and verifiable disarmament of all paramilitary organisations must continue to be a principal objective. It recommended the acceptance of that as a principle. We accepted it at once with all the other recommendations in the report. All others should now do the same.
    Dr. Spink: Is it not a fact that decommissioning remains an option? If some arms were decommissioned even now, we could progress to all-party talks, which might still be the best way forward. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Mitchell report showed that the only obstacle to decommissioning is the mind set of Sinn Fein and the IRA?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is, indeed, an option. It is more than an option—it is a duty. I believe that if that option were taken and that duty fulfilled we could proceed to all-party negotiations, which is the objective of everyone, in a very short time indeed. I hope very much, in the light of the report, that that course will now he taken.
    Mr. Maginnis: As Sinn Fein-IRA appear unable to rehabilitate themselves to the normality of democratic politics and summarily reject accommodations offered by the Government, the Ulster Unionists and now the Mitchell Commission and, in defiance of 83 per cent. of society in Northern Ireland—which includes 75 per cent. of Social Democratic and Labour party supporters—refuse to decommission a single gun, is it not depressing to find Tanaiste Dick Spring and the leader of the SDLP whingeing and whining about the Government's latest offer to establish a mandated forum which might advance progress towards peace?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is important that Sinn Fein and other parties associated with the paramilitary organisations should be pressed to say whether they accept the principles recommended by the report—especially the second of those principles, which is total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations.. On the proposal for an election, it is worth reminding the House that in the communiqué at the end of November setting up the political and disarmament tracks the two Governments expressly envisaged that in preparatory and political talks the question of what part an elected body might play would be specifically mentioned. So it is not some new idea summoned out of the ether in the past minute or two. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, it represents a way by which the necessary confidence can be achieved and I hope that it will receive careful consideration.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State agree with the principle that there can be no guns on the

    467
    table, under the table or outside the door if lasting peace is to be established in Northern Ireland? Has he carefully studied the recent poll, which showed that 83 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland demand the removal of all terrorist weapons from the equation? What steps will he take to press the Dublin Government to act on the known arms dumps in the Irish Republic, which were created prior to the IRA ceasefire?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am confident that the Irish Government are as anxious to discover illegal arms dumps as the British Government are—and that is very anxious indeed. I have studied the report and agree that it is extremely important that public opinion is shown to be in line with what the hon. Gentleman has just said, and in line with support for an elective process to play a part in our current problems. That should give reassurance.
    Mr. Mallon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that both the Irish and British Governments jointly appointed the Mitchell Commission to give an objective assessment on how the decommissioning issue would be dealt with? His Government have now rejected the Mitchell report's central recommendation in paragraph 34 and have unilaterally and shamelessly moved away and reneged on the agreement with the Irish Government to pursue the matter through all-party talks in the twin-track approach. How will decommissioning be tackled now that the Secretary of State has sacrificed potential consensus for expediency within this House?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am afraid that I am not with the hon. Gentleman on any of that. The Government have not rejected the Mitchell report but have welcomed it. We immediately adopted all the recommendations of principle that it put forward. We welcome especially the report's identification of confidence as the central requirement. All-party negotiations could begin in fulfilment of the Government's aim by the end of February, provided that a start is made on decommissioning. If that does not happen—and we are told that it will not—it is the duty of Governments to see whether confidence can be engendered in some other way. I want that issue urgently debated in the twin-track process. That is what is suggested.
    Mr. Day: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although everyone in the House hopes for the day when all parties in Northern Ireland will seek the path of peace and sign up to the six points of principle laid out in the recent report, such declarations count for nothing in practice until the people holding arms give them up? Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to call for all parties to give up arms now—not just to make declarations, but actually to hand the arms over?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend says. Putting it in a cliché, actions speak louder than words. That was put in slightly different language by the Mitchell report, when it said that if those principles, which include the total disarmament of all paramilitary arms, were adopted and honoured, there would be a tremendous accretion of confidence and progress. I very much agree with that.
    Ms Mowlam: Continuing our bipartisan approach, may I joint the Secretary of State in welcoming the report of
    468
    Senator Mitchell and his colleagues? Yesterday, discussing the report, Members on both sides of the House emphasised the need for trust and confidence. Today there is a worrying air of distrust and a lack of confidence among some Members of the House and among some communities in Northern Ireland. To help to allay some of those fears, can the Secretary of State confirm to the House today that he will consider all options proposed to take the process forward, including making a start on decommissioning, and that movement towards an elective process, in line with paragraph 56 of the Mitchell report, will go ahead only with the widespread agreement of the parties in Northern Ireland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: We have always made it clear that there can be no imposition if any solution that is proposed is to stick. I make that clear again.
    The hon. Lady is right that in that paragraph the report states:
    "Elections held in accordance with democratic principles express and reflect the popular will."
    There are other signs of that in the poll that has been mentioned. The report continues:
    "If it were broadly acceptable, with an appropriate mandate, and within the"—
    three-party—
    "structure, an elective process could contribute to the building of confidence."
    We endorse that. I hope very much that that, on reflection, will be seen to be a way around the impasse represented by the refusal of paramilitaries even to start giving up their arms.

    Health and Social Service Funding
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from health and social services boards and health and social services trusts on the financial proposals for next year and the impact on services. [9628]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): Boards, trusts and agencies were asked for their views. These have now been received and I am considering them carefully. I shall also be meeting board and trust chairmen in the next two weeks. I hope to make an announcement as soon as possible after that time.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Minister for that response. Does he accept that a 3 per cent. up-front saving would have an impact on health provision in the Province, especially coming after years of taking the fat out of the system? Does the Minister acknowledge that it may lead to increases in waiting lists, especially as elective surgery may be targeted?
    Mr. Moss: The 3 per cent. efficiency saving that we are asking the boards to consider this year is similar to the percentage amount that they have been saving in previous years, and I have no reason at this stage to doubt that they can do so again. However, until I have read their submissions I cannot determine whether any cuts in services will occur.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Is Northern Ireland getting its fair share of health resources from the central Exchequer to

    469
    look after health services? Has my hon. Friend had a chance to compare the amount of money from the central Exchequer given to health services in Northern Ireland with the amount given in the south, and to discover whether there is a flow of people from the south trying to take advantage of any difference?
    Mr. Moss: I have no comment to make on comparisons with the Republic of Ireland. I believe that in the past decade people in Northern Ireland have enjoyed a greater than average per capita spend on health. I am delighted to report to the House that, despite a reasonably tight public expenditure round, the total resources to be spent on health in the coming year will increase in real terms compared with last year.
    Dr. Hendron: The Secretary of State and the Minister will be aware of the McKenna report on the rationalisation of services between the Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospitals trust and the Belfast City hospital trust, and they will know that the report contains a proposal to close the Royal Maternity hospital. Is the Minister aware that there is great anger among my constituents—both Catholic and Protestant people of west and north Belfast—that such a proposal is being made, bearing in mind that the Royal Maternity hospital contains a neo-natal unit which serves not only Belfast, but the whole north of Ireland?
    Mr. Moss: I am well aware of the contentious nature of the proposals in Dr. McKenna's report, but that is the third tranche of proposals. Most of the proposals in the other two reports have been agreed internally by consultants. The whole report is out to consultation and no decisions have been taken. It is important for the hon. Gentleman to refer to the truth of the matter, which is that two maternity units are to amalgamate—we are not closing one.
    Mr. Dowd: Is the Minister aware that the current position in acute care in Northern Ireland is already intolerable and that he has succeeded in uniting all shades of political opinion against the Government's stewardship? Does he agree with the recent statement of the chairman of the British Medical Association's Northern Ireland council that the Government have
    "withdrawn beds to such an extent that we've reached a critical point"?
    Does that not demonstrate beyond doubt that the crisis created by the bed shortages is every bit as serious in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the national health service?
    Mr. Moss: I do not agree with the statement by the BMA spokesperson and I do not believe that there is a crisis in acute bed provision in Northern Ireland. If there are shortages in individual hospitals, I shall ask for an immediate report on them.

    Direct Action Against Drugs
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional measures are being taken in response to the recent murders attributed to the Direct Action Against Drugs organisation. [9629]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): While operational policing is a
    470
    matter for the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, I can state that in mid-December last year a team of detectives, headed by a chief superintendent, was formed to investigate murders which have been claimed by a group calling itself Direct Action Against Drugs; there have been seven murders procured by the provisional IRA under that flag of convenience. The RUC team has all the resources that it requires.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the light of what he has just said—and of the Mitchell Commission's recommendations announced yesterday that punishment killings should cease immediately—it behoves IRA-Sinn Fein not just to condemn the recent killings, but to take direct action to prevent further murders?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Mitchell report noted that the key to progress is confidence. My hon. Friend is right when he questions how people can have confidence when the provisional IRA is beating and murdering people and Sinn Fein refuses to condemn that. An important measure for establishing confidence will be the speed and conviction with which the parties demonstrate and honour—and I stress honour—their commitment to the six Mitchell principles, one of which is the disposal of weapons and semtex.

    Peace Process
    5. Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his preparations for the first round of all-party talks on Northern Ireland. [9630]
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress towards substantive political negotiations involving all parties in Northern Ireland.[9636]
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Government have now had bilateral meetings with all the relevant parties to discuss their ideas on the way forward, although the meeting with the Democratic Unionist party was not part of the twin-track process. Meetings involving both the British and Irish Governments have also taken place separately with the Alliance party, the Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Fein. Further meetings are planned with the continuing aim of reaching agreement on a basis for launching all-party negotiations by the end of February.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Secretary of State agree that no obstacles should be placed in the way of all-party talks to perpetuate the peace in Northern Ireland? As Mr. Dick Spring made it clear this morning that the holding of elections was not broadly acceptable, is it not true to say that the holding of such elections, with an Assembly, at an early stage before all-party talks, would be unacceptable and would threaten the peace? When was Mr. Bruton informed of the Prime Minister's proposal which was made in the House yesterday?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: What we are seeking, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained yesterday, may well be described as elections to all-party talks. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, of course, that no one

    471
    should put obstacles in the way of progress towards peace. It is precisely in order to circumvent the obstacle represented by the fact that the paramilitaries are not willing even to begin to decommission their illegal arms that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced yesterday that we think it very desirable that there should be urgent consideration of the question of an election. That represents the way forward.
    In answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had a conversation, which lasted some 35 minutes, with Mr. Bruton late on Sunday night. It was made clear to Mr. Bruton that we saw the elections as an opportunity to get the parties around the table. We did not see any other way of doing that in the light of the report.
    Mrs. Prentice: The Secretary of State will, of course, be aware that there is a marked lack of trust and confidence among some parts of the community in Northern Ireland about such elections and what they will establish. Can he tell the House what measures he could take which might build trust and confidence among those communities so that they might wish to participate in such elections?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The most important objective is to allay the nationalists' traditional and classic misgivings that the elections are intended as a way back to a Stormont regime.
    May I correct what I just said to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing)? The conversation did not take place on Sunday, but on Monday night.
    There is a traditional feeling that elections are sought as a way back to a Stormont regime. As I understand it, everyone who has brought forward that proposal has made it clear that that is regarded as quite impossible and is not intended at all. It would be quite impossible. Once that fact is hoisted in and accepted, I believe that the notion of elections will become much more acceptable. I hope that that will be the case.
    Mr. Hunter: With regard to decommissioning and the elective process in parallel, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it is envisaged that the Northern Ireland parties would agree to the remit of an elected body, and also that that elected body would not have legislative or administrative powers? Surely such considerations would greatly reassure those who fear the return of Stormont.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is an important point. The situation now is substantially different from the two occasions in the 1970s and 1980s when elections took place without altogether successful results. What is now being envisaged is not a body with legislative or administrative powers, but something quite separate and in the context of inclusive all-party negotiations. That is very different indeed.
    I am terribly sorry—I said that the conversation between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Mr. Bruton was on Monday, but I am reminded by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), that it was on Tuesday night. It was on the evening before the statement—there is no advance on that.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is incumbent on all those who have
    472
    any misgivings about the elections to do everything possible, in public and in private, to urge those who hold the weapons to give them up?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I believe that my hon. Friend is right about that. If independent and impartial corroboration and support for that is needed, it is to be found in the Mitchell report.
    Mr. Hume: Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the Government are still committed to their agreement with the Irish Government that the target date for all-party talks is the end of February? In order to achieve that, will the Secretary of State implement the only major proposal of the Mitchell report, which is that all parties be invited to such talks provided that they accept and commit themselves to the six principles contained in the Mitchell report?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: It remains the firm aim of Governments that all-party negotiations or all-party talks should begin by the end of February. I reaffirm that fact, but I cannot command it; I cannot require and compel people to come who will not come. As I have said to the House on many occasions, if I were to try to do that and to summon talks in the sure and certain knowledge that people would not be there, I would destroy the very process upon which all progress depends.
    I happen to know—it has been made perfectly clear to me—that Unionists would not attend the talks according to the terms advanced by Mitchell. Therefore, we want to secure the confidence that will ensure that people attend the talks, and I believe that that confidence will be found in the alternative route of elections.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Most people in Northern Ireland welcome the measured approach of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats to the Government's proposal for an elected body. However, does the Secretary of State understand that there was considerable disappointment in Northern Ireland last night at the negative response emanating from certain quarters in Dublin? Will he arrange an urgent meeting with the Dublin Government to make it clear to them that the peace convention—as I prefer to call it—is not an internal settlement, but will address many issues? All parties involved will address many issues, including cross-border relations and enhancing relations between Belfast and Dublin.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The reassurance of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks is to be found in the way that he describes. I think that there is a strong case for all interested parties and Governments to talk together "intensively"—to use the word employed. in the communiqué. I believe that that is no less true after the publication of the Mitchell report than before it.
    Mr. Worthington: If there is general agreement about an elective process, as the Prime Minister proposed yesterday, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the purpose of that electoral process is to lead directly to all-party talks in which the interests of all minority parties are safeguarded fully? Will the Secretary of State describe how he believes that that safeguarding will be achieved?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: That is right. It is very important that any settlement that is achieved should attract

    473
    widespread support. It can be arrived at only by way of a process in which all democratically mandated parties—including those representing quite small minority groups—have a part to play. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: that is the only viable way forward and we now wish to see it proceed.

    Company Relocations
    6. Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what account he takes, in encouraging companies to locate in Northern Ireland, of the extent to which such location affects companies in other parts of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [9631]
    Mr. Ancram: The rules applied in Northern Ireland for assessing the displacement effect of selective financial assistance support are exactly the same as those applied in all other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Kennedy: As the Minister is aware—through the information that I have provided to his office and, by way of courtesy, also made available to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), in whose constituency the Benelux Manufacturing (NI) Ltd. production plant is located—a company in my constituency, Zonal Audio Plastics, is concerned about a contravention of the assurances that Benelux gave to the Industrial Development Board when the plant received support to locate in Northern Ireland. Instead of concentrating on exporting to the north American market, Benelux has severely undercut mainland competitors—not least the company in Invergordon, which employs between 40 and 60 people—in the United Kingdom and the European markets. Will the Minister comment further on that existing genuine business dilemma?
    Mr. Ancram: The Industrial Development Board, when appraising the project, analysed the existing markets in the United States and in Europe for CD jewel boxes, the forecast for growth in those markets, and the impact that the project would have on existing United Kingdom manufacturers. In deciding to assist the project, the IDB ensured that it properly addressed the relevant criteria for the provision of selective financial assistance.
    Sir James Molyneaux: Does the Minister agree that companies in all parts of the United Kingdom could benefit greatly from the promotion of the enterprise investment scheme, which has the potential to bring together companies who have money to invest and companies—particularly small companies—which are desperately in need of funding? In that regard and in the light of the problems affecting the Fokker aircraft company, will the Minister do all that he can to ensure that sympathetic consideration is given to Ministry of Defence tenders from Shorts of Belfast?
    Mr. Ancram: I agree with the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, and I am grateful to him for reminding the House and United Kingdom businesses of it. In relation to the second part of his question, we share his concerns about the situation that Shorts faces. I know that my colleagues in the MOD are sympathetic to Shorts'
    474
    concerns, and I will ensure that what the right hon. Gentleman has to say is passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
    Mr. Spring: First, I offer my warmest congratulations to my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that one of the spin-offs of the location of so many companies in Northern Ireland and of inward investment is that manufacturing output is rising at twice the level of the United Kingdom overall, that exports have risen by more than 25 per cent. in the past three years, and that, as a consequence, unemployment is now down to the lowest level for more than fourteen and a half years?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his initial remarks and for the points that he raised. It is important to appreciate and to welcome the fact that, since the ceasefires last year, 6,000 jobs have been promoted by the IDB, of which more than 4,000 were generated by inward investment. In the financial year 1994–95, Northern Ireland attracted three times its per capita share of new inward investment jobs into the United Kingdom.

    International Fund for Ireland
    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of whether sums expended by the international fund for Ireland are targeted at those in greatest need. [9632]
    Sir John Wheeler: Her Majesty's Government are kept fully appraised of the work of the fund through the advisory committee of senior officials, who, in turn, advise the fund's independent board. On the facts as advised to me, I am satisfied that the fund targets those in greatest need through its focus on disadvantaged areas, where some 70 per cent. of its resources are spent.
    Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that whenever an application is made to the Housing Executive for a grant to repair a house, the applicant is means tested, but that no such means test applies when an individual, no matter how wealthy—and some of them are—applies for a grant to erect a dwelling or dwellings on derelict sites? Surely that is a total waste of public funds, since many of those sites could be sold profitably on the open market. Will the Minister arrange for serious consideration to be given to those matters?
    Sir John Wheeler: The international fund is independent. As I understand it, it has helped to establish some 23,000 jobs in Northern Ireland and provides funding to a variety of organisations, including, the hon. Gentleman will be glad to note, some £330,000 to the Limavady small business agency in his constituency. I take note of what he says and I will ensure that the chairman of the fund is informed of his concern.

    Drug Trafficking
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many (a) arrests and (b) convictions have been made on charges of alleged drug trafficking offences in Northern Ireland for each of the last three years. [9633]
    Sir John Wheeler: The Royal Ulster Constabulary drugs squad collates figures showing the total number of

    475
    persons arrested for all types of drugs offences. It is not possible to identify separately how many were arrested for drugs trafficking offences. There were a total of 610 arrests in 1992; 976 in 1993; and 1,196 in 1994. The number of convictions for drugs trafficking offences were 29 in 1992; 110 in 1993; and 116 in 1994.
    Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister accept that the increase in those on-going figures shows the developing nature of the real problem of drug abuse in Northern Ireland? Many voluntary groups tackle drug abuse in Northern Ireland, such as the Northlands project in Londonderry/Derry, and Dunlewey, Contact Youth and Panda in Belfast. Those organisations receive some funding from the Government, but, in view of the need to tackle the problem on an overall basis, will he seriously consider increasing Government funding of those organisations?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that I shortly expect to make a visit to the Northlands project so that I can see for myself the quality and extent of the work being done. I shall be visiting other projects too. In recognition of the growth of the drugs problem in Northern Ireland, funding has been increased to assist in education on the drug habit and its prevention. In addition, the RUC establishment has been greatly increased to prevent such offences.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 January. [9656]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having /further meetings later today.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, who said today:
    "It is blindingly obvious that we must develop a framework"—
    Madam Speaker: Order. There should be no quoting during questions.
    Mr. Sheerman: The director general said that we must develop a framework for involving employees at every level—dare I say it, a stakeholder economy. If it is blindingly obvious to the director general of the CBI, why is it not blindingly obvious to the Prime Minister that the reason why his Government are so deeply unpopular is that they have failed to give the British people a proper stake in their own country?
    The Prime Minister: If I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, he should be cautious about quoting the CBI at me. The CBI opposes the social chapter, the minimum wage and most of the policies advocated by the Opposition. When we and the director general of the CBI
    476
    talk about stakeholders, we do not mean what the hon. Gentleman means. We know who Labour's stakeholders are. We know who owns 50 per cent. of the votes at the Labour party conference. We know who pays 50 per cent. of the money that the Labour party gets. We know what has been said by senior trade unionists. They have made it clear. While they continue to fund the party they will have a say. It is simple—no say, no pay. They are Labour's stakeholders.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuing campaign of violence by the IRA and Sinn Fein has betrayed the peace process? Will he urge them now to accept the Mitchell report's recommendation and cease their heinous actions immediately? Furthermore, does he agree that if peace is to continue long term in Northern Ireland, the IRA and Sinn Fein have two clear options open to them? They can either begin immediately to decommission weapons or they can agree to take part in the democratic process, as outlined by my right hon. Friend yesterday.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, of course, my hon. Friend is right in all she says. The point made by the Mitchell Commission about the decommissioning of weapons was that Sinn Fein-IRA would not decommission, not that they could not decommission. We still look forward to hearing from Sinn Fein-IRA whether they accept the other elements of the Mitchell report—whether they accept the six principles and the fact that they must condemn and stop for good punishment beatings and punishment killings. We still await a comprehensive response from them on those matters. I should like to start all-party talks as speedily as possible, but I cannot be clearer to the House than this—the impediment to all-party talks is and has been the unwillingness of Sinn Fein-IRA to begin the decommissioning of their arms. If they would begin the decommissioning of their arms, there would be no justification for any party not to attend and join in all-party talks leading to negotiations.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that the test results for 11-year-olds in English and maths are appalling? May I put to him the following proposals for improvement? I propose an end to the delay in base-line assessment for five-year-olds, a reduction in class sizes for five-to-seven-year-olds, a register of national head teachers, the use of associate teachers in classrooms and a reinstatement of the reading recovery programme for primary school children which was so wrongly scrapped. Will the Prime Minister at least consider those proposals?
    The Prime Minister: Let me say first that we have looked very carefully at the test results. Those of 11-year-olds are disappointing; those of other age groups are better. The point that the right hon. Gentleman and the House need to bear in mind—I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has apparently changed his policy on this—is that, as he will recall, the Labour party opposed the introduction of the tests, and he personally voted against it. We introduced the tests precisely to throw up the shortcomings that we believed were probably in the education system. The test results are very useful: they tell us where the shortcomings are so that we may deal with them, and we shall consider a range of measures with which to deal with them.

    477
    I do not intend to respond immediately to the ideas that the right hon. Gentleman has produced, but we established the tests so that we could identify shortcomings and then put them right. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman now acknowledges—better late than never—that we were right to introduce those tests.
    Mr. Blair: Was that not a complacent reply? Will the Prime Minister confirm that the problem does not relate merely to 11-year-olds? The GCSE results a few weeks ago also showed a decline. May I put it to the Prime Minister that, although the Secretary of State for Education and Employment may boast about the results for 14-year-olds today, those results still show an appalling level of failure in key curriculum subjects?
    May I remind Conservative Members that these are children who were born under a Conservative Government, sent to school under a Conservative Government and educated under a Conservative Government? The failure is not theirs, but the Conservative Government's.
    The Prime Minister: If it is the Conservative Government who have failed, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could explain why some of his right hon. Friends remove their children from Labour education authorities and have them educated under Conservative education authorities. While we are on the subject of the 16 years, perhaps he would also register the fact that in 1979 fewer than a quarter of pupils obtained five GCSEs; today the figure is 43 per cent. In 1979, 14 per cent. obtained two A-levels; now the figure is twice as high. In 1979, one in eight young people went to university; now, one in three do so.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to class sizes. I will tell him about class sizes. The Office of Standards in Education has itself recognised that the quality of teaching is the important issue. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but parents agree. I shall give him an illustration. For example, for children up to the age of 16, the average class size in secondary schools in Islington is lower than at the London Oratory.[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Blair: There it is. The Government do not want to answer questions about the test results, and now we see the reason why they want to focus attention on one 11-year-old child—[Interruption.] The reason why they want to focus attention on one 11-year-old child is to conceal the damage that they have done to millions of our children.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will really have to learn to keep cool under pressure. If he casts his mind back, he may remember the episode of Jennifer's ear before the last election, and if he wants to talk about records and standards in education, he may remember that his deputy leader said that school performance tables are "political propaganda". Test results are "virtually worthless", said the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). Tests encourage "a climate of failure" said the hon. Member for Dewsbury. They say that grant-maintained schools are wrong, but they are perfectly happy to use them. The fact of the matter is that Labour Members enjoy choice themselves, but they wish to deny it to other people.
    Sir Hector Monro: Is my right hon. Friend aware, which I am sure he is, that today is the anniversary of the birth of Robert Burns who lived the latter part of his short and remarkable life in Dumfries? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. I cannot hear the right hon. Gentleman, nor can the Prime Minister.
    Sir Hector Monro: Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, this year, Scotland and countries further afield will be commemorating the 200th anniversary of the great poet's death? Will he send to Scotland, to the Burns Federation and to his drouthy cronies in the House a message of good will on his important bicentenary?
    The Prime Minister rose—[Interruption.] The deputy leader of the Opposition is heckling again. I must explain to the House that, despite occasional differences between us, the Leader of the Opposition and I have one thing in common: neither of us invites the deputy leader to meetings.
    As to the remarkable anniversary referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), he is wise to mention it. I am a great admirer of Rabbie Burns and I should like to explain why by quoting what he said. His view on the constitution, for example—to be wrecked by the Labour party, if it came to power—was clear:
    "As to Reform Principles, 1 look upon the British Constitution … to be the most glorious Constitution on earth, or that perhaps the wit of man can frame."
    That was Rabbie Burns's view. The Scottish National party might remember that and so might the Leader of the Opposition and his party.
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 January. [9657]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jamieson: During national empty homes week, in a fortnight's time, what advice will the Prime Minister be giving to the Ministry of Defence about the 552 empty married quarters in his own Huntingdon constituency?
    The Prime Minister: At the moment, I should tell the hon. Gentleman two things. First, we shall be looking at the ways in which we can dispose of empty Ministry of Defence properties—we are determined to do that. Secondly, if the Labour-controlled authorities in London filled up their empty accommodation, they could wipe out homelessness in London at a stroke. In Southwark, Islington, Hackney and right across London, Labour-controlled authorities have an appalling record of keeping homes empty and then complaining about homelessness—as the hon. Gentleman has done. That is another illustration of Labour's hypocrisy. They make claims about something—they have the power in their hands to put it right, but don't.
    Mr. Sheerman: On the ropes again, John.
    The Prime Minister: I now have a definition of hope over optimism.
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 January. [9658]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hendry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that GP fundholding has brought enormous benefits to doctors and patients alike, especially in my constituency, in which
    480
    they cover some 90 per cent. of the population? Is not it typical of the say one thing, do another Labour party that, while many of them take advantage of GP fundholding for themselves and their families, at a moment's notice, they would abolish it? Is not that typical of the hypocrisy of the modern Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: I think that there is now overwhelming evidence that fundholders are able to get a better deal for their patients from hospitals. It makes sense to build on what has been achieved and induce more and more GPs to join the system—[Interruption.] I am sorry to hear cries of objection from the Opposition Benches. Those are not my words but the words of the vice-president of the Fabian Society and former adviser to Barbara Castle.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House provide details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 29 JANUARY—Second Reading of the
Housing Bill.
TUESDAY 30 JANUARY—Opposition Day (3rd Allotted Day). Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the record of the privatised water companies, followed by a debate entitled "The Cuts in Overseas Aid". Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
Motion on the Police Grant Report (England and Wales).
WEDNESDAY 31 JANUARY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motions on the English revenue support grant reports.
Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 1 FEBRUARY—Debate on the Royal Navy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 2 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Debate on policing of London on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
[Wednesday 31 January:
The following reports are relevant:
The Local Government Finance Report (England) (1996–97); the National Parks Supplementary Grant Report (England) 1996–97); the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1996–97); Special Grant Report (No. 16).]
I am afraid that I am not able to be as forthcoming as I should like to be this week about the following three days-6, 7 and 8 February—but I hope to provide an Opposition day, and it may be necessary to take Government business on Thursday 8 February.
On Friday 9 February, the business will be Private Members' Bills.
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information, and also for responding to our request for a separate debate on the police grant report on Tuesday. In the past, the Leader of the House has also made favourable noises about the desirability of a debate in this Session on further changes to our parliamentary procedures. When I last raised the matter, the right hon. Gentleman was not unsympathetic. I wonder whether he has any further thoughts on what he might do to find time for a wide-ranging debate, which might lead to further improvements in the workings of the House following the changes that we have already made with the Jopling report.
I asked for that especially so that we might consider one aspect of the changes required, to which I have referred during the previous two business question sessions. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that in each of those two sessions I asked about plans to provide time for a debate on the EC directives that the Scrutiny Committee unanimously recommended should be debated on the Floor of the House. I refer in particular to economic
482
and monetary union, convergence and social protection. Having had two weeks to consider, can he now tell us when the issues might be debated? Can he also tell us the timetable for the publication of the Government's White Paper and any subsequent debate that should take place in the House?
We heard this week—though not through any announcement in the House—that the Government are retreating from their plans to introduce identity cards. The position has moved from the Prime Minister believing that they should be compulsory, to the Home Secretary saying that they should be voluntary, to nothing at all. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is the Government's position? Will he further confirm that Ministers have suggested that other forms of identity cards, such as those proposed for driving licences and Department of Social Security purposes, do not require legislation? If that is the case, and if the Government are proposing to introduce such measures without legislation, would not it be wise—indeed, proper—to provide a mechanism to gain parliamentary approval before any such measures are taken?
In view of today's National Audit Office report that more than 16 per cent. of benefit awards contain errors, will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on the staggering levels of waste that have been revealed? Such a debate would allow us to examine the full extent of the incompetence of the Benefits Agency and to raise the problems that such errors create for our constituents.
Mr. Newton: I shall take the hon. Lady's points in the order in which they were raised. I am grateful for her remarks about the police grant report. I always try to respond to representations, even though I cannot always do so. I am glad to have been able to do so on that matter.
I remain sympathetic to the idea of a debate on parliamentary procedures and I shall continue to keep the matter on what I have recently been calling my list.
I have made further inquiries about the points that the hon. Lady has raised a couple of times relating to European legislation. I am advised that the Committee reports that it is said will contain the recommendation to which the hon. Lady referred are not yet available. As soon as they are, I shall consider her request in the usual way.
On the hon. Lady's point about the White Paper, I assume that she was referring to the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference. I am not yet able to give further guidance on the timing for that.
No decision has been taken on whether an identity card should be introduced and, if so, what sort of card it should be. Specifically, none of the options in the Green Paper has been ruled either in or out. The time to consider what sort of debate might be appropriate is when we reach a decision on what might or might not be done.
I understand why the hon. Lady felt it right to raise a point about the National Audit Office report. However, the Auditor General commended
"the energetic and effective steps to address fraud and error"
that were being taken.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have an early debate next week on choice in education so that we can, in particular, consider education for 11-year-olds and examine why the Leader of the Opposition is so

483
obsessed with the education of a single 11-year-old and so unconcerned about the education of all the other 11-year-olds throughout the country?
Mr. Newton: I certainly cannot begin to explain that—and more to the point, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Leader of the Opposition cannot begin to explain that.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Having regard to the concerns throughout the UK about the privatisation of British Rail and also to the puzzling reluctance of Her Majesty's official Opposition to use one of their Supply days to debate the subject, may we have an early debate—preferably in the week beginning 5 February—to discuss that very important subject?
Mr. Newton: I take that as a plea addressed to Labour Front-Bench Members. No doubt there will be time for a Liberal Supply day, and the hon. Gentleman can perhaps consider that as a subject for the debate. I have no plans, however, for such a debate in Government time.
Mr. John Wilkinson: In view of the proposals from European Commissioner Bangemann for a European-wide defence procurement agency and a system of tariffs for the import of defence equipment from outside the EU, may we have a debate on trade and industry policy on one of the free days that remains in the week after next, so that the potential damage to national security caused if such proposals were carried through can be debated?
Mr. Newton: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the debate that I have announced for next Thursday on the Royal Navy. He may find some way of taking part in that debate and raising the points to which he referred.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask the Leader of the House a question of which I have given his office notice? Could we have a statement next week on the validity or otherwise of a report emanating from Japan and published in Le Monde, that iodine 131, caesium 137 and strontium 90 elements have leaked in Mururoa? If the 'report is true, does not that undermine the assurance that was given by France that it was impossible for leaks to occur in material encased in rock? Does not that raise a question about the dangers arising from fissures in subterranean rocks? Will the Government consider the introduction of an international commission, as has been asked for in leading articles in Asahi Shimbun and other serious papers in Japan?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who, with his usual courtesy, has given me notice of his question. I am advised that the French have assured us that the recent reports do not relate to the current test programme, and they have confirmed that the so-called revelations relate to information that has been public for some time. It remains the British Government's position that we have no reason to doubt the assurances that President Chirac has given that the tests do not put at risk the environment or public health. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the President has invited independent experts to visit the region to verify that for themselves.
Sir Peter Emery: In addition to one of the points made by the shadow Leader of the House, the
484
hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), may I remind my right hon. Friend and the House that the Procedure Committee has started an in-depth inquiry into secondary legislation, statutory instruments and indirect legislation coming from Europe? While a debate might well assist the Committee in carrying that work through, any views that any hon. Member wishes to express on the matter of secondary and indirect legislation would be willingly received by the Procedure Committee.
Mr. Newton: I take that as an advertisement to the House by my right hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, and I am happy to endorse it. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to my right hon. Friend's comments, as I know that my hon. Friend has a strong interest in those matters.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Leader of the House has tried his level best during the past few months to give the House advance information, and he has given us the dates for the Easter recess and various other dates. But somehow in the past six or nine months, he has not been able to provide us with the date of publication of the Scott report or the date for a debate on the report in the House. I am beginning to realise that he has not done that because the heads of four Cabinet Ministers are on the block. It is high time that the public out there were given a chance to see what is happening and how much fiddling has been taking place. Are the Government screwing Scott's arms up his back? Why has the report not been published, to let us get to know the truth?
Mr. Newton: There are two reasons. One is that I have not hitherto been asked—[Interruption.]—so far as I can recall. The other is that it is not for me to set the date, as the publication of the report is a matter for Sir Richard Scott.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Given the surprising information vouchsafed to us yesterday that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) learnt more from being underground than in grammar school, could we have a debate that would allow us to discuss whether underground tests are thoroughly satisfactory?
Mr. Newton: I have no answer to that, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: As the Leader of the House was unable to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), perhaps he can make some inquiries, because Lord Howe seems to know the date—he was certainly attacking it in the press today, anyway. While we wait for Scott, could not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the Ordtech appeal, which I raised with him a little while ago, and the principles involved in that case, in which innocent men stood the risk of going to prison while documents were hidden from them? Should not that be a matter for an early debate before Scott?
Mr. Newton: I certainly do not have any plans for an early debate before Scott. It would seem right that matters of that sort should await the publication of the report, on whatever date that turns out to be.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I know that my right hon. Friend is very concerned that there should

485
be good relationships throughout the House. I wonder whether he might feel that we should have an early debate on the subject, particularly given the bad blood that has recently developed between the Leader and the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and the whole Labour party. Is he aware of an article in The Independent yesterday headed, "Tony, Gordon and no Joy", which sets out the growing chasm, I fear, between the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor? There is an incipient tragedy of Cain and Abel proportions and perhaps my right hon. Friend can pour some oil on troubled waters in that debate.
Mr. Newton: Having seen the interesting article to which my hon. Friend refers, I would observe merely that, judging from the faces behind him during the last two sessions of Prime Minister's questions, there is a chasm between the Leader of the Opposition and almost everyone behind him.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: Bearing in mind the fact that it is just over 12 months since a serious air crash at Baginton airport in Coventry, will the Leader of the House tell us when the Government are prepared to produce proposals to deal with small airports outside London? Will he also direct his attention to the fact that the Government produced a report on the crash—when will we have a debate in the House on that?
Mr. Newton: I recall the hon. Gentleman raising related matters with me some time ago. I am sorry that I did not get back to him earlier. I dropped him a note this afternoon saying that I continue to bear his thoughts in mind, but pointing out—I hope that this will not be offensive to you, Madam Speaker—that that sounds like a good subject for a Wednesday morning debate, if the hon. Gentleman applies for one.
Mr. Nigel Evans: May I endorse the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) for a debate on choice in education, perhaps with the theme, "Don't do as I do, do as I tell you"? That will give me the opportunity to mention Michael Hindley, the Labour Member of the European Parliament who lives in a neighbouring constituency to mine, who sends his child more than 10 miles to a grant-maintained selective school in my constituency. That would allow us to point out to the public that the stench of hypocrisy runs far deeper than the Opposition Benches in Westminster—to the European Parliament.
Mr. Newton: It is certainly becoming clear that, across a range of matters, Opposition policy is to say one thing, but do another.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I met executives of Campbell Soups of Camden, New Jersey in my office this morning and they were as intransigent as ever, despite the fact that 340 Members of Parliament—the majority of the House—have asked them to keep their factory open. Can we debate those matters in Government time and will the Leader of the House further strengthen my campaign, calling on the wider public to boycott Fray Bentos products and Campbell Soups products, so that the company learns the feeling of the British people?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that the policy, within the law, of commercial companies is a matter for those companies, not for the Government. I would not expect to provide Government time for such a debate. I have already suggested the possibility of a Wednesday morning debate to him. Having seen the hon. Gentleman in operation in various forums, I am glad that I was not one of the directors of the company at the meeting with him.
Mr. Richard Tracey: While my right hon. Friend is considering the request for a debate on education, will he consider broadening the debate to include the subject of grammar schools, so that the many Labour Members who went to grammar school can explain to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) why they are against grammar schools so fiercely and so that she can explain to them why she has privately chosen one for her son? It may be because the school is in a well-run Conservative local education authority.
Mr. Newton: I am always glad to consider opportunities for the inexplicable to be explained, but I think that the debate would reveal that it remains inexplicable.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 335 on home workers, which is supported by hon. Members of all parties?
[That this House recognises that many homeworkers are failing to secure protection in law to which they are at present entitled, but on which they frequently miss out because of loopholes in legislation; further recognises that the Treasury is losing hundreds of millions of pounds of national insurance contributions arising from the same loopholes; and calls on Government to allow progress on the Employment (Homeworkers) Bill.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 1 million home workers, the rights of many of whom, which should have been established by legislation, are not being observed because of loopholes in the law that also deny the Treasury many millions of pounds? Will he ensure that the Government take a positive attitude to the Employment (Homeworkers) Bill, which is currently before the House?
Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman said, the Employment (Homeworkers) Bill is before the House. I am sure that my hon. Friends will indicate the Government's approach to the Bill if it is debated. I also understand that home workers have the same employment rights as other workers.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 295, which concerns replacement medals for war veterans?
[That this House urges the Ministry of Defence to accept the petition of Mr. Jack Conn, dated 19th December 1995, to allow him and other pensioners, who were awarded medals in recognition of service in the armed forces of Her Majesty the Queen or her predecessors and who have had these either stolen or lost through misadventure, to have them replaced, recognising the debt we owe them 50 years after the end of the Second World War.]

487
Could my right hon. Friend prevail upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to have a debate on the matter? The 50th anniversaries of VE and VJ day took place last year and many veterans were unable to parade with their medals.
Mr. Newton: There have been many requests for replacement medals in recent years and a great deal of effort is being made to meet them. I am sure that we all want them to be met wherever possible, because we owe those people a great debt of gratitude. I shall bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary the way in which my hon. Friend raised the matter this afternoon.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will remember that last week he trailed the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Time did not allow it to be dealt with today. May I therefore press the Leader of the House for a statement next week from the Secretary of State on greater use of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, which would create greater democracy and allow greater use of parliamentary time?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will he aware that oral questions that are not reached are answered in writing. He may have noticed that, just before the end of Northern Ireland questions, I was looking at the file of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which contained the answer to that question. I have an interest in the matter that was generated, in part but not wholly, by the hon. Gentleman's previous questions to me. I think that I can assure him that he will welcome the positive spirit of the answer that will be given.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate the millennium exhibition, so that the overwhelming advantages of Birmingham's national exhibition centre over Greenwich as a venue can be clearly put on record and the importance of the west midlands at the heart of this country can be stated?
Mr. Newton: I can safely assure my hon. Friend that even though it is not in the normal sense a Government body, the Millennium Commission is well aware of the cases being made from a number of directions.
Mr. Alex Salmond: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland on his Department's breaches of central Government conventions on publicity and advertising? Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that we now know that last Wednesday there were at least two breaches of the conventions in two separate press statements advertising a single speech? Is not it time that the Secretary of State for Scotland came and made a statement to apologise to the House and to the people of Scotland, instead of making unfortunate civil servants apologise to him?
Mr. Newton: I have nothing to add to what I said last week. It is clear that an error was made and that the Secretary of State for Scotland had every intention of observing the guidelines and did not intend to breach them. I see no reason why he should make a statement to repeat what has already been said in other ways.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend seek to arrange at an early date a general debate on crime and vandalism, and the problems that they create for the citizens of this country? Both sides of the House can then explore the exciting initiatives that the Government have taken, not least the provision of funds for closed circuit television, and also I, as the representative for Macclesfield, can support the application being made by the borough and police of Macclesfield for assistance under that scheme to install closed circuit television in Macclesfield town centre.
Mr. Newton: I must confess that my hon. Friend has caught me out as I have before me a brief on the Poynton bypass.
Mr. Winterton: Read it out.
Mr. Newton: Although I recognise that Macclesfield is some way from London, in a general sense some of the points that my hon. Friend seeks to make might be relevant to the debate on policing in London, which I have announced for Monday week.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Leader of the House seems strangely reluctant to arrange debates about the European Union. One European item has already been discussed, but six items, some of which date back to 1994, are waiting to go into European Standing Committee A and 11 are waiting to go into European Standing Committee B. Should not the scrutiny of European matters be speeded up by holding more discussions on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I have shown any such reluctance. I have tried to answer questions put to me as straightforwardly as I can. I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's specific point about outstanding European matters.
Mr. John Marshall: May I ask my right hon. Friend for an urgent debate on early-day motion 3?
[That this House calls on the Government to acknowledge that over 3,000 people with haemophilia have been infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) as a result of NHS treatment with contaminated blood products; recognises that over 50 people with haemophilia are now understood to have died from liver disease contracted as a result; and considers giving similar financial assistance to those infected with HCV, who currently receive no additional help, as for those infected in the same way with HIV who have been compensated by the Government.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Haemophilia Society has produced a publication that shows that haemophiliacs with hepatitis C are suffering great hardship? Is it not illogical that haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C who have then died should have received no compensation, while those infected with HIV received compensation? The cause was the same; the consequences have been the same; the reaction has been different. Is not that unfair?
Mr. Newton: I know my hon. Friend well and I understand his reasons for raising the matter once again.

489
However, I am afraid that I cannot add to what I have said to him at least once before or to what has also been said to him by my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Health Department.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When will we debate the Government's undemocratic and inexplicable opposition to the call to declare St. David's day a bank holiday in Wales? Is the Leader of the House aware that last year Wales and England had fewer bank holidays than any other country in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in Europe? As all the Welsh county councils, which represent every voter in Wales, have signalled their support for that call, how dare the Government, who managed to secure only 4 per cent. of councillors in the last measure of opinion in Wales, continue their opposition to making Dydd Gikyl Dewi a bank holiday?
Mr. Newton: I was not aware that England and Wales were so deprived in that respect. It may be part of the reason why our economy is doing the best in Europe.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: My right hon. Friend will remember that on Monday we voted for an imaginative Conservative measure that provides exciting opportunities for grant-maintained schools to finance their capital projects. May we have a debate next week during which we may express great sympathy for some headmasters of grant-maintained schools, such as St. Olave's school in Orpington, about why in one week parents may gain admission for their children to their school and, in the following week, the same parents may vote against a measure to allow them to develop that school effectively?
Mr. Newton: As I have said several times this afternoon, I very much hope that it will be possible to find an opportunity for the answers to those questions to be given, but I remain very unhopeful that any answers will be forthcoming.
Mr. John McAllion: Does the Leader of the House recall the Prime Minister telling the Tory party conference that, while he lived and breathed, the NHS would never be privatised? Will he therefore arrange for the Prime Minister to attend the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Stirling on Monday 29 January, so that he can attempt to explain away the fact that this week, three private consortia were short-listed for the contract to provide NHS hospital services at Stonehaven, near Aberdeen? As well as making allegations about hypocrisy, the Tory party should be prepared to answer those self-same allegations.
Mr. Newton: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's argument in any way fits in with the suggestion that the national health service is being privatised. The health service remains a publicly funded service, as it has been. The issue of the way in which those services are provided is, as in the case of many other services, a separate one.

Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  (Clauses Nos. 36, 105, 112 and 139 and
  Schedule No. 15)
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 23 January].
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

  Finance Bill
    Clause 139

      MIS-SOLD PERSONAL PENSIONS ETC.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      4 pm
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): The purpose of the clause is to exempt from income tax and capital gains tax compensation paid in respect of certain mis-sold personal pensions, buy-out contracts and retirement annuity contracts. The exemption applies where, between 29 April 1988 and 30 June 1994 inclusive, an individual was wrongly advised to transfer from, opt out of or not to join an occupational pension scheme and instead to take out a personal pension scheme, buy-out contract or retirement annuity contract. It may be helpful if I briefly define the terms to which I have referred.
      "Transfer" means the payment of a sum of money from an employer's pension scheme into a personal pension plan or a buy-out contract. "Opt-out" means someone who is a member of an employer's pension scheme and who leaves that scheme while still employed by the company, and takes out a personal pension instead. "Non-joiner" means someone who, on starting a job, decides not to join their employer's scheme even though he or she is able to do so, and takes out a personal pension scheme instead.
      The problem has been identified. It became clear to regulators and to the Government that some sales of personal pensions had taken place on the basis of advice that was bad, and not given in accordance with the regulatory rules then in force.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Early in her speech, the hon. Lady used the word "mis-sold", and she used that word rather quietly. Will she explain to us how it was that so many people managed to buy a product that was obviously not one that they should have purchased? How was it that they were mis-sold that product?
      Mrs. Knight: The clause is entitled "Mis-sold personal pensions etc." Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to read it, because it goes into some detail—
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: What about the background?
      Mrs. Knight: It goes into some detail of the aspects that we propose to help in such cases.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is not what I asked.
      Mrs. Knight: In reply to the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question, the background to the

      491
      investigation that is taking place at the moment is well documented. He will have read it in many of the reports by the various regulators who are inquiring into the matter, and I shall say more about it later. If the hon. Gentleman would care to wait a few moments and allow me to proceed, I believe that he will find that the questions he asks will be answered.
      The hon. Gentleman will recall—we all recall—that my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), made a statement to the House on 25 October 1994. He announced that anyone with a personal pension who was found to face financial hardship as a result of mis-selling would be entitled to redress. The aim is to put people in a financial position equivalent to that in which they would have been if the mis-selling had not taken place. But to do that, a considerable amount of work needs to be done to identify those who have suffered loss as a result of the mis-selling and to assess how much compensation is due.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Lady keeps using the word "mis-selling". I understand that, in so far as she is giving a taxpayer a subsidy towards redressing the difficulties that have arisen, we are in fact talking about taxpayers' money being used to deal with a problem that was generated by mis-selling. In this debate, we are surely entitled to know why it happened. Why did people find themselves in a position where they bought products that were obviously inappropriate in the circumstances? May we be given a little background information, because we are spending taxpayers' money today, are we not?
      Mrs. Knight: People were given wrong advice—in most instances as a consequence of the mis-selling; people may well find that their financial position is not as beneficial as it would have been if, for example, they had stayed within the occupational pension scheme.
      The proposals are designed to identify those people and, where possible, to reinstate them into the occupational pension scheme. For some individuals, such redress—entry into either the occupational pension scheme or the personal pension scheme that they took out—is not available, because they have retired. Under those circumstances, a cash payment will be made—the Government do not consider it correct to tax in those circumstances.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it fair to say that there was a deficiency in the regulatory approach adopted by the Government for regulating the industry, which is why the problem occurred? Is it fair to say that we are paying today because of a lack of Government regulation in a sector where clearly there should have been regulation? Is that what the hon. Lady is saying?
      Mrs. Knight: No. I am saying that some people did not pay proper attention to the regulation that was in place. Personal pensions have been sold correctly to a considerable number of people. However, it is those pensions that have not been sold correctly to some other people that we are addressing. In certain circumstances, where compensation is paid in the way that I have just explained to the hon. Gentleman, people may be liable for tax, but the Government do not consider it right to tax people in these circumstances. I hope that that is something with which the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members will agree.
      Mr. Alistair Darling: I wonder whether what the hon. Lady has just said is correct. It is common ground throughout the industry and among all the regulators that the regulations in force when the mis-selling took place were deficient. Her assertion that certain salesmen ignored regulations that were adequate is not right, unless the Government are changing their view. There used to be common ground between the hon. Lady's predecessor and myself that the regulations were deficient at the time, which is why they were subsequently changed.
      Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that we have tightened up the regulations, and rightly so. He also knows full well that a considerable number of pensions have been sold, and the circumstances in which they were sold were good, and the consequences for the individuals who bought them have been good.
      We are today talking about a small minority. A considerable number of people were sold pensions that were fine and a considerable number of people have made prudent provision, and will receive its benefit under the regulations that were in place at the time. One must, if necessary, tighten up the existing regulations, and we have done so. But one must also put the problem in perspective, which is what my predecessor did in his statement to the House on 25 October. The clause takes the issue forward from that statement.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not the truth of the matter that the Minister is saying that the Government made a mistake, the regulations were deficient, the Government did not know, and now, today, they are putting that right? People did not make a mistake on their own account—the regulations were there and people made their investments.
      Now the taxpayer is going to bail them out, and that could be called a subsidy. The Government are involved in a subsidy because of a deficiency in their regulations. I want to know how many people are involved, and how much in total the taxpayers out there in the hon. Lady's constituency and mine will have to find to foot the bill for that mistake by the Government.
      Mrs. Knight: The Committee will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with the construction that the hon. Gentleman has put on the issue. However, I am sure that he. will agree—I look forward to hearing his confirmation—that those people who are affected, who have retired and who therefore cannot be helped by the restitution to an occupational pension or a top-up to a personal pension—should be compensated, and should not have to pay tax on that compensation. I am sure that people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency who find themselves in that position will welcome the fact that the Government have decided not to tax their compensation.
      I am not able now to give the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) the total numbers involved, nor am I prepared to speculate. We will all have the numbers when the review is complete.
      It is clear from the review so far that the majority of cases are people who either transferred out of or opted out of pensions, and that redress for those people will be achieved by restoring them to the occupational pension or by topping up their existing personal pensions. That is a different issue,

      493
      but the majority will come into that category. However, a few will have retired, so cash compensation will be the only help available to them.
      If I might proceed, that would be of real help to the Committee.
      Mr. Darling: May I help the hon. Lady out again? The figure that she is grasping for is 400,000.
      Mrs. Knight indicated dissent.
      Mr. Darling: It is. The Personal Investment Authority, which has taken the lead in investigating the matter, believes that 400,000 pensions were wrongly sold. On that basis, surely the Government must have some estimate as to the cost of the measure.
      Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman should be careful about bandying numbers around. Until the review is complete, there is no way in which accurate numbers can be given. That is the reason why I do not propose to do so. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have read press reports in which the numbers were much lower, but I cannot confirm, deny or comment on them. It would be better for the Committee to deal with the problem before us, rather than to speculate on numbers which may not be even reasonably accurate, because, until the review is complete, we will not know.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
      Mr. Clive Betts rose—
      Mrs. Knight: I will give way.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. To which hon. Member is the hon. Lady giving way?
      Mr. Betts: I think that the hon. Lady has given way to me.
      The Chairman: Order. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady would indicate to which of the two hon. Members she has given way.
      Mrs. Knight: I apologise, Mr. Morris. I gave way to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts).
      Mr. Betts: The Minister said that she cannot speculate about the figures. Given that the Government are talking—rightly—about compensation and tax relief on that compensation, presumably they have made contingency plans in their estimates for future expenditure and future reduction of income. Surely the Minister can explain to the House precisely how much those contingency plans will cost, as they must be based on the numbers of people involved.
      Mrs. Knight: The problem relates to industry mis-selling to individuals; therefore, financial redress and the payment of compensation to individuals are matters for the industry. The Government propose not to charge
      494
      tax on compensation when it is paid in cash to individuals. We expect the number of people involved to be relatively small, but until the review has been finished, we cannot speculate on numbers.
      It does not make sense to pull numbers out of a hat or to try to make estimates when we do not have the facts available. That is why the Government are waiting for the review to be completed. We are urging the regulators involved to complete the review as quickly as possible. As the hon. Member for Attercliffe will know, we had hoped that the review would be completed by now, but the principal delays have been caused by legal cases. That is unfortunate, but we must live with it. Those cases have now concluded, and the review is continuing apace.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister confirm that we could be talking about many millions of pounds of taxpayers' money which must be used to bail out those people who are in difficulty as a result of Government negligence in the past?
      Mrs. Knight: It is not negligence, and I ask the hon. Gentleman not to use that term. The Government have not been negligent, but there has been mis-selling by the industry; that is where the responsibility lies.
      The levels of compensation and the total bill will be revealed in due course, once the specifics are known. The vast majority of compensation payments will be borne by the industry. The Government will be involved in only a very small area, in the sense that tax may become an issue in a small number of cases. The clause ensures that the tax problem will not be borne by the individual concerned, but that it will be resolved by ensuring that there is no tax payable at that time. I repeat that it is one small circumstance; it is not the case with the majority of the money that will be involved in paying compensation in various forms.
      I must make some progress, although I suspect that many of the points that I intended to make have been covered in the discussion. The Securities and Investments Board and self-regulatory organisation programmes—which have been worked up in order to set in train the process of determining who has and who has not been mis-sold a pension—are under way. The SIB released a detailed statement on 16 January, in which it revealed the stage that the review has reached. Those who have mis-sold personal pensions are beginning to put the matter right.
      However, we should not kid ourselves: it is a mammoth exercise. Many of the large life companies have written tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of letters to their clients. Once returned, the questionnaires that they have sent must be analysed. We are now beginning to see the first fruits of the process, as payments are starting to be made. Conducting the review is a big task, but it is worth while.
      It is worth it because people have the right to expect the investment advice they take to be in their best interests. When it is not and they lose, they expect that things will be put right. Personal pensions are a very good thing. They offer people flexibility in planning for the future, and it is in the interests of everyone—individuals and the industry—that confidence is restored.

      495
      Many firms have been actively engaged in taking the review forward, but the pattern is not uniform. A few of the firms concerned have not applied themselves to the task with the vigour that might be expected. Legal actions have also been brought, which have slowed the review, and, as a consequence, progress has not been as fast as we had hoped. However, those who have put obstacles in the way have only delayed the review. It is now on course, and I assure the House that it will be taken forward with vigour and will be carried through to a positive conclusion.
      Let no one underestimate the task at hand, but let no one get it out of proportion. All those involved in the industry are particularly keen to identify those who have been the victims of mis-selling, and to resolve the matter satisfactorily.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am a little worried about some of the debts that a Labour Government—elected probably in April or May next year—will inherit. Will the Minister clarify something for me? Is it possible that a Labour Government might inherit a liability which our taxpayers will have to pay—a liability incurred as a result of negligence by the Conservative Government?
      Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman should not bank on there being a Labour Government next year. The biggest liability that he will inherit is the social chapter, which is proposed by his colleagues, and its consequences on unemployment in this country. On the mis-selling of pensions, the problem will be there next year, and indeed the year after, but it is a problem that is being solved well.
      I now return to the clause itself, which is particularly designed to resolve the issue that we have discussed—instances in which compensation may result in tax. The Government are anxious to do all they can to speed up the compensation process. It is not just the clause that will help people. As I announced on 21 November, on advice from the Government Actuary, the Government have reduced the charges for reinstating the pension entitlement of current public service employees.
      Mr. Betts: The Minister said that the Government were doing all they can to speed up the process. Perhaps she can name one or two concrete measures that the Government are taking, because many constituents feel that nothing much is happening. They were sold the wrong pensions and are not being compensated—certainly not at any discernible speed.
      Mrs. Knight: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening. I have just named two measures: first, the change that will make it much easier for members of Government pension schemes to get back into pension schemes, as a consequence of the assessment from the Government Actuary; and, secondly, the clause, because it addresses the potential tax issue. These measures have received an immense welcome from the industry as being useful and good to facilitate the pension mis-selling problem.
      We also endorse the SIB recommendation that redress should, if possible, take the form of reinstatement in the original occupational pension scheme. Under existing legislation, compensation for the type of mis-selling covered by the SIB review could, depending on the form in which it is paid, be liable to income tax or capital gains tax. The clause covers both eventualities.
      496
      The payment of compensation for mis-selling is still in its early stages, and we believe that it is in the interests of all concerned for there to be certainty on the tax treatment of the compensation payments. That is why we have introduced the clause. I commend it to the Committee.
      Mr. Darling: I have been a Member of the House only since 1987, but I have always understood that it is one of the great traditions in Committee that the Minister says why a clause should stand part of the Bill. I found it quite astonishing that the Minister said that she had no idea how the problem arose or how many people might be involved, yet that it might be a mammoth task. She said that no one should underestimate the task involved, but went on to say that no one should overestimate it either. She could not tell us how many people would possibly be affected. She had no idea how much it will cost. She had very little to say in terms of what the Government are doing to try to resolve the problem.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) rightly suspected, the Government are not doing very much, and one reason for that is that it was they who created the climate that encouraged some unscrupulous people ruthlessly to exploit the vulnerability of many people who had recently been made redundant or were in occupational schemes, who were wrongly persuaded to come out of those schemes and to go into private pensions that were wholly inappropriate for them.
      The Minister is coy, either because she genuinely has no idea why the clause has come about and she has simply been good enough to read us a Treasury brief in order to justify the clause; or possibly because she knows full well that the Government have to accept a major responsibility for creating the sort of environment in which it was possible for so many people to be sold policies in a wholly inappropriate manner.
      Perhaps I should move that the clause stand part of the Bill, because I agree with its principle. We want to see people reinstated or compensated, as the case may be. Clearly it would be wrong if innocent people then found themselves subject to income tax because of the compensation or the reinstatement that they had been given by those who had wronged them. Therefore, I welcome the clause and believe that it should stand part of the Bill. But in view of the Minister's remarks, it is necessary to push her a little further.
      The Opposition have raised the matter many times in the House. It remains one of the scandals of the late 1980s that up to 500,000 people were wrongly sold policies between 1988 and the early 1990s. It is easy to say that that was all the work of one or two unscrupulous or greedy salesmen, but it was not just those individuals.
      Senior management knew full well, for example, that many former miners living in constituencies such as Bolsover were not only disillusioned with their employer but were persuaded that the Coal Board pension fund and the National Coal Board were one and the same thing. It was suggested to them that they might like to get out of their pension fund and go into a private pension.
      The fundamental point about occupational pensions is that two people contribute to them. As a general rule, two people contributing to a pension fund is rather better than one, which is the case in a private pension. Private pensions are appropriate for many people—I had a private

      497
      pension myself in my former employment—but they are wholly inappropriate for a large number of people, and they were inappropriate for about 500,000 people who were wrongly persuaded to transfer their funds into a private pension in the late 1980s.
      Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend referred to the fact that many miners were involved at that time in what I would call the scar's of pension schemes. It was around the period when the present Prime Minister was a junior Treasury Minister. On occasions such as this, when the Government created the climate for such spivs, someone should carry the can.
      That is probably one reason why the Economic Secretary is being coy about the background to the clause. She will never give us the figures. The Government gave us a figure of £21 billion for the public sector borrowing requirement, but within 12 months it had gone up to £29 billion. The Government, who created the climate in which such spivs operated, should carry the can for the resulting mess.
      Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend will wait in vain. The last time we debated the matter, the Secretary of State for Social Security was present. He too knew something about it, as he was a junior Minister in the Department of Social Security when the problem first arose. Curiously, he did not want to discuss the subject. He preferred to concentrate on other matters.
      All Opposition Members remember the advertisement showing a man breaking out of a straitjacket and going to get a private pension. What was so insidious about that was that it encouraged people to believe that the very act of going private was enriching, both spiritually and materially. That was not right, and many people lost money as a result.
      As I understand it—the Chief Secretary may be able to obtain assistance from nearby—about 9 million pensions were sold during the period in question, about 500,000 of which may be suspect. The clause refers to the qualifying period as being between 29 April 1988 and 30 June 1994. It would be helpful if the Chief Secretary could let us know why those dates have been selected, how she can be confident that it will catch all those affected, and that there will not be people who might have been mis-sold pensions before the end of April 1988?
      It is less likely that the same problem will have arisen after 1994, because—the Minister did not seem to know this—it is common ground that the regulations in force that governed the sale of pensions in the late 1980s were quite different from the regime now in force. They have been tightened up. I am surprised that the hon. Lady did not know that.
      The Minister's predecessor knew his stuff. He was well briefed, and could answer such questions. We had differences of opinion about how the situation arose and what could be done to improve it, but the rules and regulations have been changed. I think that the likelihood of problems of mis-selling arising after 1994 is rather less than it was before April 1988.
      People should be encouraged to use the financial services industry. More and more people will want to make provision for themselves over and above the
      498
      provision that they can expect from the state. If they are to do that, however, they will need a regulatory system in which they can have complete confidence. We have proposed measures to make the system simpler and more effective, but the Minister should realise that the root cause of the problem—the reason why the clause must stand part of the Bill—is the climate created by the Government.
      4.30 pm
      The self-regulatory system is now wholly discredited, and regarded as one of the main reasons for the unscrupulous behaviour that we are discussing. All the problems were produced by the Government's policy. In this as in so many other contexts, they have always been more bothered about the few who stood to gain from the selling than about the many victims who suffered at their hands. No wonder the Minister is so coy about the nature of the problem.
      The need for decent advice has never been greater. We should acknowledge the importance of the work done by both the Securities and Investments Board, under Sir Andrew Large, and the Personal Investment Authority, the lead regulator. When I asked the Minister about the numbers involved and the progress being made, she said that it was all wild speculation. She must be aware—such matters are hardly secret—that I often speak to both Sir Andrew Large and Colette Bowe of the PIA, and I take the trouble to try to find out about the current position.
      The Minister, however, does not seem to know that. I should have thought that, between them, those at the Treasury could rustle up a meeting or make a telephone call to find out the position. The Minister may have seen the SIB review, which has been circulated to me and, I assume, to those at the Treasury. It has thrown some light on the difficulties.
      Most of the life companies—the producers—have got on with the review, and are making quite fast progress. They expect to know what the problem is by the end of the year, and have probably started to compensate some people. Those who were sold policies by the independent financial adviser sector, however, may not be in the same position.
      There are two distinct difficulties. First, some independent financial advisers simply do not have the resources to carry out the sort of investigation that is now required of them. Clearly, if a small enterprise is involved, someone who is examining files relating to the past six or seven years cannot be earning, and therefore will not be generating fees and commission to pay staff. I understand that problem, but there is another.
      Some of the independent financial advisers' professional indemnity insurers have tried to block the review. There are legal reasons why they might have wanted to test the matter, but their actions were wholly undesirable for the industry's reputation. The Minister mentioned delays in the courts, and they can be blamed to some extent, but much of the problem has been caused by the wilful obstruction of the review.
      Another reason for the slow progress is the fact that the self-regulators cannot compel the professional indemnity insurers to get on with the review. They must rely on contracts, and if there are no contracts in the self-regulation system, they are left helpless.

      499
      That problem could be remedied. If we are not to see similar clauses in future Finance Bills, the Minister must accept that she has primary responsibility for the matter, and that the present system of self-regulation does not work. As most people outside the industry realise, it has been a complete failure. It is high time that the Government faced up to that. If they do not want a repetition of the present problem, they must accept that self-regulation is ineffective, and—what is worse—is denting the confidence of members of the public whom we want to use the industry. The industry employs 2.5 million people, and many towns and cities depend on it for employment. Self-regulation is not helping the industry, and it is not helping the public.
      The Securities and Investments Board review identifies another problem. Paragraph 10 makes the point that there is
      "an element of self-selection amongst investors who respond."
      There is every reason to believe that, either because of delay or because of lack of knowledge among those who may have been finis-sold pensions, they will not submit their claims before they are legally time-barred. What will the Government do about that? What steps will they take?
      It would be most unfortunate if, at the end of this year, when the time bar will start to bite, people have been excluded over and above those who are excluded by the clause because it affects only policies sold after the end of April 1988. Some people, however, may find that they are time-barred, and the clause cannot help them at all.
      The Minister must tell us what she will do about that. She was keen to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe that the Government were doing lots of helpful things, and that he had no cause to worry. That is one thing that the Government will have to deal with. Clearly, to amend the general law relating to prescriptions would be to take a sledgehammer to the problem—that is not appropriate—but I am just wondering whether the Government could do something in this case.
      Perhaps by the time my hon. Friends have finished speaking in the debate, the Minister will have enlisted some help and be able to assist us on that important point.
      Mr. Denis MacShane: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government spent about £10 billion on advertising to encourage people to withdraw from the state earnings-related pension scheme and to go into personal pension schemes? Some tiny proportion of that money might be usefully spent in the form of newspaper advertisements, first, to apologise for the negligence caused—if the Government are capable of saying sorry—and, secondly, to draw the attention of everyone concerned to the need to apply now to ensure that their claims in terms of tax relief and other applications are not made too late, and do not fall out of compliance with the final date.
      Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is on to an interesting point. He is right to say that about £10 billion was spent on advertising. It is interesting that the advertising not only encouraged people to go into private pensions, but, surprisingly, invited those seeing or reading it to believe that it all had something to do with the Conservative party. Curiously, it does not want to have any more advertisements.
      500
      My hon. Friend makes an important point, although I might differ from him in one respect. He suggests that the Government should place advertisements saying that they are sorry. I can see a compelling reason for the Conservative party placing advertisements saying that it was sorry about that. It could take a double-page spread and add a few other things besides, but, as the Government never tire of telling us—and I agree—the Government do not have any money of their own: it is taxpayers' money.
      The difficulty here is not only that the taxpayer paid for the advertisements to encourage people to get into the difficulty, but that they have to pick up the pieces at the other end. The people who buy policies are having to pick up the pieces because of the compensation and all the other costs. There has been cost after cost after cost—all imposed because the Government tried to sell their dogma, and, as I said, acted in the interests of the few, as a result of which many people have suffered.
      The Government have rightly tabled this clause to deal with the people who opted out of occupational pensions, but we have not begun to consider in great detail another category of people: those who were wrongly persuaded to opt out of SERPS. No one knows—I am prepared to concede on this point that I do not know either—how many people might have opted out of SERPS. I fear that many people may wrongly have been persuaded to opt out of it.
      My question is simple: what will the Government do about that? Will there be a similar clause in next year's Finance Bill to deal with that problem? Perhaps, as the Minister will be dealing with that point, she will also tell us what the Government are doing about it and what inquiries they have put in hand. I know that the regulators have taken the view that they have to solve the problems in relation to occupational pensions first, and then turn to the SERPS problem.
      What we have here is a cleaning-up exercise. We are cleaning up after a mess that was caused, to a large extent, by the actions of the Conservative Government in the late 1980s, and in respect of which they will not accept responsibility. Yes, there were others who were culpable. Many of them have left the industry. Others have been fined and punished. We will support the clause because we want to ensure that the people who lost money through no fault of their own are restored to the position they were in before this disaster struck them—so far as that is possible. That is only right.
      The Government should do two things. First, they should accept responsibility for what they have done—something this Government have been very poor at doing. Secondly, they should take action to ensure that such a disaster does not happen again, which means—I state it once again—that they have will have to do something to simplify the regulatory system and to make it more effective. The Government will also have to investigate other spheres—such as SERPS—in which, I fear, there may be another problem that will force us to return to this matter next year.
      Mr. Betts: As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) just said, Labour Members welcome the clause, although we do not welcome its background or the reasons that have made it necessary. It is incredible that we have a major national

      501
      scandal that is not merely a general problem but a problem for all those individuals who have suffered a great deal. They initially suffered a potential loss of their pensions, but, even now that they recognise that there may be some light at the end of a long tunnel and that the problem may eventually be sorted out with a bit of further relief provided by the clause, they have still undergone the agony of uncertainty, and the matter has still not been finalised. That lack of progress concerns Labour Members, and it is a pity that the Minister did not show the same concern when she spoke to the clause.
      It is incredible that the Government blame the private sector and unscrupulous private individuals for creating the problem, while, at the same time, taking no responsibility at all for their legislation, which allowed private individuals to behave in such a manner. That is the reality. Why will the Minister not admit that and say, "The Government got it wrong. Yes, we were responsible for bad legislation and we apologise for the heartache and problems that we have created"? The legislation was wrong and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central has pointed out, the regulatory regime was totally inadequate because it was self-regulatory.
      Self-regulation was of course a product of the deregulation mania of the 1980s and the Government's attempt to create the spectre of the nanny state—from which they were saving people. Whenever problems about the recession are mentioned, Conservative Members happily get to their feet and say, "It was not our fault, not as individuals. It was all the fault of Lord Lawson, in his role as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He created the boom, and he was responsible for the recession." Why do not they do the same thing with this issue? They could speak to this clause and say, "We have reached the position where we have to introduce this clause, but the problems are from way back in the 1980s. Lord Lawson, who was then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was to blame for the scenario and for all the problems that have occurred, but we have since moved on."
      Conservative Members cannot do that, however, because so many Government Members are completely and utterly tied up in this mess. When those measures were introduced, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), advocated the proposals and launched the advertising campaign, about which we have already heard, to persuade people to take up personal pensions. We all know that his assistant and junior social security Minister at that time was the Prime Minister.
      The Prime Minister had the hands-on responsibility for creating this disaster, and it took him a long time to do it. In 1990, when the Prime Minister was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he told the House during the Budget statement:
      "This extension of choice is a considerable tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). Over 3.5 million people have now taken out personal pensions. As well as benefiting the individuals concerned, in the long term this will reduce public spending".—[Official Report, 20 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 1017.]
      That statement is a sick joke. That was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Prime Minister, telling the House in 1990 that personal pensions were a great bonus for all those people who had taken them out. He had not a shadow of a doubt that it may have gone wrong.
      502
      He spoke about a reduction in public spending, when we now know from this clause that there will be a cost, not only from the initial advertising campaign but to rectify the problems that the campaign created. It is time for the Government to admit that they and the private sector are responsible for those problems.
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury will not come clean and spell out the precise scale of the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central has said that the PIA has estimated that 400,000 pensions have been wrongly sold in some manner. At the beginning of the investigation the Securities and Investments Board discovered that there was substantial compliance with the main conduct of business rules in only 9 per cent. of the files examined, based on the initial pensions transfer pilot studies. That does not mean that 91 per cent. were completely mis-sold, but that 91 per cent. were not conducted in a totally proper way. That is an enormous scandal because that was how things worked within the self-regulatory climate that the Government proposed.
      4.45 pm
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury said that the Government still cannot discover, after all this time, how many people are involved, how many pensions were sold or how much it will cost in total in compensation. If the Government do not know, how do journalists manage to obtain figures? The Financial Times, on 17 January, was able to obtain such figures. Pension companies give journalists estimates of the compensation levels that they expect to pay out. Journalists can apparently pick up a telephone and obtain figures from Allied Dunbar of £100 million; Lloyds Abbey Life, £80 million; and Barclays Life, nearly £50 million. They can get figures from a substantial number of the pension companies. Some of the pension funds would not respond to the questions, but presumably they would have responded had the Government bothered to find out for themselves the scale of the problem. Instead, they sit back and say that they do not know and are not interested in discovering what has happened.
      On 20 January, Weekend Money, a supplement of The Times, contained estimates and figures from Pearl Insurance, which admitted that it thought there would be about 40,000 opt-out cases. It said that it had sent out 300,000 letters. Companies have that information and are making their estimates. Why cannot the Government collect that information and come to an overview of the problem? The Minister has denied being able to do that.
      In the end, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central said, it is down to ensuring that the scandal does not happen again. Surely that would be simple to do. When we are examining a regulation, we must think of its purpose. First, regulation is meant to stop problems occurring and to ensure that things are done properly. On that first test, the self-regulation of the selling of personal pensions that the Government had in place has been an absolute failure. It is time for the Government to accept that and put in place statutory regulations.
      The Government do not want to do that and choose to ignore the problem. In this case, however, they must admit that this is not a theoretical argument but a clear case with evidence that self-regulation has been an absolute failure. Secondly, presumably, recognising that

      503
      whatever system of regulation one has in place things will go wrong and some people will not abide by the regulations, the purpose of regulations and a regulatory system is to be able to identify when the things go wrong. In this case, it was not the SIB or the self-regulatory organisations that discovered the problem. The SRAs were oblivious to the problem even though in 91 per cent. of cases people were not being advised properly and in 400,000 cases pensions were mis-sold. That is a scandal. So the second function of regulations failed. The Government have to accept the need for change.
      The third reason for regulations is to ensure that, having identified a problem, there is a speedy resolution. No one would accept that the current regulatory system provides for a speedy resolution. Certain pension companies have said that they could not send out the letters and questionnaires quickly enough because they did not get advice from the SIB quickly enough.
      I do not really want to go over the details of a financial scandal for which the Government were responsible. I am making a serious request that the Government accept that the regulatory regime failed on three counts: first, it did not stop the problem happening; secondly, it did not identify it when it had happened—indeed, it seemed oblivious to the problem; and, thirdly, it did not correct the problem speedily. Is not it time that the Government accepted that they got it wrong and joined us to find a proper statutory system of regulation that will stop such scandals occurring again?
      Mr. MacShane: I have listened to the debate with some interest. I am waiting for the word "sorry" to pass the Minister's lips. After all, she is proposing to put aside an immense amount of new money—money that would otherwise be in the public coffers—to rectify the mistakes of her predecessors. We do not blame the hon. Lady because she was not in the House when the scheme was introduced. She has to come here with a giant dustpan and brush. In Paris and Orlando, the younger and more dynamic members of the Disneyworld team, wearing bright blue uniforms, walk behind the elephants with giant dustpans and brushes, trying to clear up the mess. The Minister is clearing up the droppings from the elephantine figure of Lord Lawson, so perhaps she feels she does not have to say "sorry".
      The scandal has affected many of our constituents. The Government say that no figures are available, but last year Hansard reported a figure of 500,000 and the Personal Investment Authority has cited a figure of 400,000. A large amount of public money is involved and it is irresponsible of the Government not to tell the House the precise sum.
      Pension companies have accepted responsibility for the mistakes. Norwich Union, Legal and General and Barclays have fired people and shaken up their systems. We may all feel that it is a little late for that, but at least they have accepted a direct responsibility and have dismissed their incompetent staff. I invite the Minister to accept some retrospective responsibility. It would not hurt her career if the word "sorry" passed her lips.
      This is one of the great scandals of the last decade. As long ago as 1991—before the Minister came to the House, so it is not her direct responsibility—the SIB published a report showing that one third of all personal pensions taken out were terminated within two years. Either an
      504
      awful lot of pensions were sold to 58 or 63-year-olds or it was one of the biggest financial scandals of the century. The SIB reported losses to individuals running at £250 million a year, mainly from up-front commission charges and the front-loading of monthly premiums. The money disappeared into the pockets of people whom the pension companies later had to dismiss. That is a Maxwell every year, inflicted by this Conservative Government on those who were conned into taking out personal pensions. It is all part of the wider question of how the Government relate to citizens on the question of pensions.
      I welcome the forceful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). He correctly identified the need for regulation. To place an adjective before "regulation"—for example, self, state, independent, autonomous or agency—would be a misnomer. We are talking about people's investments to provide for their old age, so the principle of caveat emptor is not good enough. We need a flexible and friendly system; it must not be onerous or devised exclusively by civil servants. We need to move away from caveat emptor and allow people to have a direct stake in their pension schemes, in the knowledge that that stake will be safe from corruption.
      I feel affection and respect for the Minister. She was the minder for my opponent in the by-election that I won—and she minded him to losing his deposit with considerable charm. However, I would rather take advice from Cilla Black on a blind date than from the hon. Lady on any aspect of pension provision. I chide my children every day to teach them the magic puissance and power of the word "sorry". I use a French word because my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) ranted at me yesterday in Latin.
      I hope that the Minister learns to allow the magic word "sorry" to pass her lips. Many of her hon. Friends have condemned the feckless, profligate, spiv regime of the former editor of The Spectator, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer during a sad period for this country. It has done no harm to their careers. The Minister should feel able to rise and say "sorry" to those who were misled. She must not praise but bury the era of Lord Lawson. The House would welcome that and those who were misled into taking out personal pensions would feel that they had a friend in the Treasury.
      Mrs. Angela Knight: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)—better known as the hon. Member for Geneva—is, as always, extremely entertaining. This is an important matter and I am glad that hon. Members are treating it seriously.
      I am aware that it is part of Labour party policy to impose wholesale change on the financial regulatory system, but it is not something with which I agree or with which most of the industry agrees. It is important that we deal with the issues of today. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) talks to the industry with an open mind, rather than having already made up his mind on his policy, he will also hear that the industry does not want wholesale change of the financial regulatory system. The industry is looking for stability.
      Mr. Darling: The Minister is right that the industry does not want wholesale change—nobody is suggesting that—but it does want significant changes in the various

      505
      areas that I have identified. If she stays in her job for much longer and takes the trouble to speak to people, the Minister will find a growing consensus as to what form that change might take, and Labour is articulating that.
      Mrs. Knight: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I have found that there is considerable concern within the financial services industry at the hon. Gentleman's proposals, which are considered to be a wholesale change.
      A number of important points have been made in the debate, and I propose to reply to them. On the numbers involved, there are about 9 million personal pensions overall. Some 2 million of these relate to transfers and opt-outs, of which possibly 400,000 are in the criteria of "those to be looked at". There will be no knowing how many of those 400,000 have been mis-sold until the review is complete. I say yet again to Opposition Members that we do not know the specific figures—all we know is that people are covered by certain criteria. That does not mean that they have been mis-sold a pension.
      5 pm
      The date that pertains to the clause and to the review as a start point is 29 April 1988, which is when the Financial Services Act was introduced. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a point regarding mine workers. I can tell him that the mine workers' pension scheme is allowing victims of mis-selling to be reinstated, and miners will be put back to the financial position they would have been in had mis-selling not occurred. A number of former members of the scheme have already been reinstated. I hope that the hon. Gentleman finds at least some comfort in that fact.
      The situation regarding the IFAs—the independent financial advisers—is more complicated than we have perhaps seen with life offices. The reason for that, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) outlined, is that there have been court cases relating to questions on professional indemnity insurance. Where the PIA wanted one thing and the professional indemnity insurers wanted another, the IFAs felt that they were unable to proceed with the review. That matter has now been resolved, and I welcome the agreement between the PIA and the professional indemnity insurers to enable progress to be made, as the review of personal pension transfers and opt-outs involving IFAs can now be taken forward.
      The agreement clears the way for IFAs to complete a review of their casebooks and to provide redress where it is due. There is concern about the ability of small IFAs to carry out the review as it is required. Large product providers have paid for the development of computer software to enable IFAs to carry out the detailed calculations required in the review. This will be of considerable benefit to IFAs and has the added benefit of helping to ensure that the calculations are correct and compliant.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) mentioned an advertising campaign. Wide coverage has been given to the Securities and Investments Board's progress reports, and similar wide coverage has been given to the matter since it started. A large amount of
      506
      coverage has been given to the reviews, the progress report and the issue as a whole in the past few days. In addition, the SIB has made widely available detailed fact-sheets on the review, the PIA has set up a dedicated pensions unit and a helpline and a large number of questionnaires have been sent out. Therefore, we do not think that an advertising campaign going any further than the publicity that is currently taking place is required.
      Questions have been asked about SERPS. As promised at the time of the October 1994 statement, the SIB has been working with the Department of Social Security and consultants to establish whether there has been a significant degree of mis-selling of personal pensions to people who otherwise would have remained in SERPS. Again, this is a complex task that requires a detailed analysis of a specially determined sample of a DSS database. It has taken longer than initially expected, but I am glad to say that the SIB should be in a position to make a statement within the next couple of months.
      I must ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central to wait for the SIB's statement to see the full results, but I can say with some confidence that the scale of the problem—if there is one—is a great deal less serious than in the area of transfers and opt-out cases. We will consider with the SIB what needs to be done once the findings of the review are known.
      The point was raised about the cost of the tax exemption proposed by the clause. The "Financial Statement and Budget Report" published on Budget day suggested that this measure will have a "negligible effect" on revenue. The Committee will be aware that the continuing uncertainty about the price or the approximate number of cases of mis-selling mean that we are not able to provide precise figures. At a time when compensation payments are only just beginning to be made, it is not possible to give a more accurate estimate of numbers than that which I have given.
      I conclude by referring to an article in the Evening Standard, which stated that there are two morals to he learned from mis-selling. The first was that if a person was sold a personal pension and had the slightest suspicion that mis-selling had occurred, he should start kicking up a fuss. The second moral was that anyone mis-sold a pension should not let that put them off purchasing a personal pension. These are points with which I, and I am sure most hon. Members, entirely agree. I hope that the Committee will agree with and commend the clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 139 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 112

      RETURNS AND SELF ASSESSMENT
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 76, line 37, at end add
      '(9) In subsection (2) of section 199 of the Finance Act 1994, for "1996–97" there shall be substituted "1997–98".
      (10) In subsection (3) of section 199 of the Finance Act 1994, for "1996" there shall be substituted "1997".'.
      The Chairman: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 10, in page 76, line 37, at end add—

      507
      '(9) After subsection (2) of section 178 of the Finance Act 1994, there shall be inserted the followig subsections—
      "(3) For the year of assessment 1996–97, for the words `31st January' in his section there shall he substituted the words `30th April'; and
      (4) For the year of assessment 1996–97, for the words `31st October' in this section there shall be substituted the words '31st January'.".'.
      No. 11, in page 76, line 37, at end add—
      '(9) After section 194(1) of the Finance Act 1994, there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(2) For the year of assessment 1996–97, for the words `5 per cent.' in this section there shall be substituted the words `2.5 per cent.'.".'.
      Mr. O'Brien: Self-assessment has been described by the leading tax advisers Ernst and Young as
      "the biggest change there has ever been to the tax system of this country since the introduction of Income Tax in 1803".
      The firm adds that, by comparison, the introduction of PAYE in 1945 was
      "simply tinkering around the edges".
      Let us be clear about it—Labour supports the concept of self-assessment. We want it to succeed, but we believe that it is being rushed in at an alarming pace. The Government appear to be more interested in cutting 3,000 Inland Revenue jobs to make short-term savings than in getting it right. The result will be a confused botch-up of an introduction that will cause unnecessary burdens on business and 9 million self-employed people and will undermine confidence in the whole concept of self-assessment. It is all so unnecessary, and it need not happen. If the amendment is accepted, we can phase in self-assessment in a balanced and measured way and help business to create confidence in the whole idea.
      There is much in the Government's attitude that reminds me of the introduction of the Child Support Agency. A good idea in principle is rushed through because it might provide an added cost saving bonus, but goes horribly wrong in implementation. I predict that self-assessment will be a policy debacle for the Tories on the scale of the CSA. Today, we are merely serving warning that the buff envelopes containing the self-assessment forms that thud through the letter boxes of Conservative Members' constituents will have just same the effect as the CSA assessment forms that have arrived to the anger of fathers and voters in the constituencies of Conservative Members in recent years. Self-employed business people will come along to complain to Tory Members. It will happen just before the general election and it will lose the Tories votes. It will create anger and contempt at their policies. All we aim to do through the amendment—in a spirit of charity—is to save them from themselves.
      Mr. Nigel Forman: The nub of the hon. Gentleman's policy on the matter and, indeed, that of his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who spoke on the subject on Second Reading, seems to be phasing in. That implies either that everyone moves towards self-assessment more slowly, or that some groups are moved towards it by law more quickly than others. Which is it and can he explain more?
      Mr. O'Brien: We want to ensure that the procedures are in place to enable the successful introduction of
      508
      self-assessment. We want to ensure that the computer and electronic lodgement systems and the machinery of how the system will work are properly organised. There are some question marks over that. There is also the question of training Inland Revenue staff.
      All those problems must be resolved and we are concerned that the system will be rushed in and that Conservative Members will pay the price. After all, Labour Members of Parliament will have an excuse. We can say that we voted for the amendment to enable the system to be introduced properly. Today, Tory Members are offered their opportunity of an alibi to protect them against the bungling of their Treasury Ministers. They should vote for the amendment. Self-assessment will still happen, but it can be done properly. That is our offer to the House and that is why we are telling Conservative Members to vote for the amendment and delay self-assessment, or at least to support the other amendments so that we can deal with some of the more difficult issues that self-assessment raises.
      Mr. Forman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the date on which people must start to fill in the forms on the new basis has already been delayed by one year? What is the argument for delaying it further?
      Mr. O'Brien: I am about to set that out in more detail and if the hon. Gentleman—an old colleague from the Select Committee on Treasury and Civil Service—pays attention, he will learn that there are many reasons why the delay should be accepted. I invite him to conduct a survey among some of the companies in his constituency, as I did in mine recently. I asked them what they knew about self-assessment and whether they were happy with it.
      Some were very happy, particularly the bigger companies with accountants who had been following the matter closely, but others were less sure. A leading company in Bayton road, Bedworth said that it felt, "badly informed" and did not yet understand what it might do, saying:
      "There is a lack of clarity. Until more information is available we do not feel prepared".
      That company sought a more simple, straightforward explanation of the system.
      A major manufacturer in Bedworth said, through its accounts clerk, that the introduction seemed rushed and sudden, which is not an uncommon response judging by the survey conducted by my office.
      A wages clerk working for a business in Hartshill, who had an information pack, said:
      "There was an awful lot of literature."
      She had had no time to look at it yet in detail but felt that it looked "very complicated". She also felt that there was "insufficient advice".
      Mr. Tim Smith: I wonder what leads the hon. Gentleman to suppose that, if we delayed self-assessment for another year, people in business who are very busy trying to run their businesses would attend to the matter in the next 12 months. Inevitably, there will be people who, however much information the Revenue puts out—it has put out some good, simple information,

      509
      including audio tapes on the subject—will not attend to it until the time comes. So, we would just be putting the problem back a year.
      Mr. O'Brien: We would also be giving those businesses more time to understand what is happening. That extra time is extremely important. As I said, this is a major change to our tax system. I do not think that Conservative Members have comprehended the enormity of what is proposed. We should do it, but we should do it properly. Conservative Members are not yet sure how they will carry it out. They will create a series of difficulties for themselves, which need not be created, and will undermine the project in the process—a project that we all want to succeed in the longer term.
      I also spoke to a small manufacturing and hire company in Coleshill, which said that it knew nothing about self-assessment but hoped that its accountant did. Another Coleshill business said that it knew it was coming, but knew little else about it and complained of "insufficient information". A day had been arranged for companies to be advised on self-assessment, but there was too much to do to take the day off to attend.
      A self-employed man who runs a business called Sign Language said:
      "I do not have any opinion on SA because I have never heard of it."
      The managing director of a large manufacturing firm, who had a finance background, did not think that self-assessment would present any serious problems for him, but was concerned that some of the information that he had received needed to be much better and that a tape on the subject failed to say anything of substance.
      5.15 pm
      Those are the typical responses of small and medium-sized businesses on the subject. Conservative Members should talk to people in their areas and find out the response. Recently, I spoke to a meeting of small business men and women in Coventry, who expressed "trepidation" at the proposed changes.
      It is not surprising that there is some concern among small businesses. They are right to be concerned. Hurried attempts at Government cost-cutting now are likely to cost small businesses and the self-employed dearly. Many will have to employ accountants to understand the forms and the complexities of the legislation.
      Let us look at the Bill and the schedules to it. Just look at schedules 18 to 25, which I have here. They contain detailed and complex clauses and information, which will have to be understood and digested. They go on and on-54 pages of rules in close type.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is making a detailed and cogent point on the problems of both businesses and individuals. Given the fundamental scale of the change and the substantial reductions in staff, how does he think the Treasury and the Inland Revenue will cope? Has he done any surveys of internal morale and mood within the latter organisation and of its ability to handle all the queries?
      Mr. O'Brien: That is a good point. It would appear from the Inland Revenue staff association that there are
      510
      problems of morale. There will be staff reductions-3,000 are to go as a result. It is my view that morale will be undermined because of those reductions at the very time that considerably greater demands will be placed on staff—while self-assessment is phased in. The staff simply will not be there to cope with the demand. So, the hon. Gentleman has a good point and it is not one that the Government have yet understood. They are so desperate to find money for tax cuts to win them the election that they do not understand the difficulties that they are creating for themselves.
      How can one expect a self-employed person to be sure that he is obeying the law? Let us remember all the penalties that the new legislation will create. Following enactment of the Bill, self-assessment provisions will be found in the Taxes Management Act 1970, as amended by the Finance Act 1994, the Finance Act 1995, and now the Finance Bill in 1996. Those include amendments to amendments.
      If I were self-employed and wanted to understand the law, I would need to read the 1970 Act, as amended by the 1994 Act, the 1995 Act and this Bill and I would have to understand which amendment applied to which amendment.
      I shall give an example. If one wants to understand the complexities of self-assessment, one should look at clause 112, which is the first clause on the subject and amends section 8 of the 1970 Act, which was originally amended in the 1994 Act—that amendment was flawed, so section 8 was amended again in the 1995 Act. Does it really inspire confidence that the clause must be amended again in the Bill? This is the Government's second attempt to correct the clause.
      I have glanced through the new section, as amended by the 1994 and 1995 Acts and the Bill. I must inform the Minister that the version that he is presenting to the House in clause 112, which amends section 8A(1) of the 1970 Act—on trustee's return—contains an obvious and stupid grammatical error. Line 4 refers to
      "the amount payable by him",
      when it should read, "payable by them" or
      "payable by any one of them".
      That is a small grammatical error. I make no more of it than that except to say that we are dealing with an amendment of an amendment of an amendment. That suggests a rushed, even slipshod approach. It is messy and it worries me that the Minister is cooking up a dog's dinner for business and the self-employed.
      Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham): On Government grammar, my hon. Friend may recall that in Prime Minister's Question Time earlier this afternoon, the Prime Minister said, in answer to a question about the CBI—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying hard but he is not in order.
      Mr. O'Brien: The Bill is a bit complex, even for a lawyer like me. There needs to be a Consolidation Act to deal with the whole subject of legislation for self-assessment. There needs to be easy access to the legislation for those who will have to deal with it. A year's delay would enable the Treasury to bring forward a Consolidation Act that would bring all the legislation into clear sequence.

      511
      The Government are pushing self-assessment through even though they know that tax legislation across the board is getting much more complex each year. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) knows that because he has advocated simplification. Let us allow time for it. We are talking about a significant cultural change for the taxpayer. The Government acknowledge that. We need to ensure that that change can occur and that sufficient time is given for it to occur.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I have listened carefully to what has been said. I shall declare an interest later. Does it occur to my hon. Friend, as well as to Conservative Members, that the more complicated that we make the legislation and the more difficult it will be to make self-assessments, the more people will be disinclined to self-employment? Jobs will be lost and wealth creation will suffer.
      Mr. O'Brien: I hope that my hon. Friend is wrong but if things happen the way that we fear they will, what he fears may come to pass. That would be regrettable.
      The Federation of Small Businesses is deeply concerned about self-assessment, as well it might be, and is asking for it to be postponed. I have also received a pertinent letter from the British Retail Consortium. It states:
      "Dear Mr. O'Brien… As you will know, Self Assessment is programmed to come into effect in April this year, subject to passing of the relevant provisions in the Finance Bill. In view of your interest in this subject, we wish to apprise you of the following:—

      (i) the feedback from our members, as a substantial body of employers who employ 2.1 million people, is that the. Inland Revenue are not geared up to administering the new regime;

      (ii) considerable problems, such as uncertainties of interpretation, will arise from administering this radical new regime;

      (iii) the Revenue have not e.g. provided adequate relevant material for employers to brief employees;

      (iv) employees will be bound to look at their employers for help with self-assessment and it is unfair for employers to be put in the position of unofficial and unpaid tax advisers;

      (v) retailers, therefore, are urging the Inland Revenue to give urgent and fresh consideration to finding means to alleviate problems from self-assessment, whether by delaying implementation until 1997/98 or by some other means."

      And so say all of us.
      Tory Members should listen to the employers, heed the warnings and step back from the brink of political self-destruction. The self-employed and those who run small businesses have had a rough time of it already. Let me make new Labour's plea not to impose new burdens upon their shoulders. They have made the courageous decision to start an enterprise and create wealth for them selves and for Britain. They may have a bank or investors on their heels, hounding them for results. They have had to face a recession, late payments or, even worse, non-payment. The words "cash flow problems" are ones with which they are no doubt familiar.
      I was self-employed for several years before I came to the House. People who have run their own businesses know what a chore it is to maintain accounts. Do not place upon such people the burden of the rushed and confused introduction of self-assessment. They are ill-informed about such a tax regime. Many of them are unprepared for it and it may impose penalties of which they are ignorant.
      512
      The legislation must be simplified to make self-assessment work. Simplification reduces complexity, cuts compliance costs and makes self-assessment possible, but it takes time. Our amendment would give the Government that time.
      Mr. Tim Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the proposition in the letter that he read out that no obligation should be placed on employers to provide information to their employees to help them with self-assessment? He said, "And so say all of us," at the end of his quotation.
      Mr. O'Brien: We want to make sure that whatever system is decided upon works. We want the time to consider such issues. When I said, "And so say all of us", I was particularly referring to the final part of the letter. Employers are telling Conservative Members that they are going to have difficulties with the system. Give them the time to sort those difficulties out. That is all that we are asking and what Conservative Members are denying them.
      To make self-assessment succeed—and I have said that we want it to—we need to create confidence in the system. We do not want headlines in The Sun about how the newspaper has uncovered someone who has said on a self-assessment form that he was liable for only a small amount of tax but who has not declared all sorts of things, only for it to turn out later that he had not understood the forms. That would bring the whole system into disrepute and undermine confidence. It is right that the Government should introduce the process cautiously.
      We are right to be concerned about the risk factor. Only about one third of returns will be considered for inquiry, of which around two thirds will have some inquiry made about them. Only a small percentage will be given a full investigation. It is essential that the selection process is got right from the beginning. Rushing through the process will make it more likely that some fraud will get through. Once some people get the message that fraud can escape detection, confidence in the system will be undermined.
      It is also necessary to be able to distinguish mistakes by taxpayers from fraud. That requires care, experienced staff and the setting of precedents about what will be regarded as fraud. In the big bang approach to self-assessment advocated by the Government, problems will be exacerbated and there will be greater potential for the self-assessment system to fail.
      The Federation of Small Businesses says that 1.5 million self-employed people do not have an accountant. With this complex legislation, they may need to employ an accountant or tax adviser. The Government claim that that will not happen. As always, there are those who disagree.
      In June, both the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Institute of Chartered Accountants urged taxpayers to get help and advice from an accountant. Many accountancy firms, such as Cooper Lancaster Brewers, are hoping to cash in on the fears of the self-employed by offering special packages to deal with self-assessment. Some US firms, such as Hon. and R. Block, are keen to establish themselves on British high streets. They think that there will be greater demand for accountancy and advice after the introduction of self-assessment.
      The annual fees paid to an accountant can often be offset against tax as part of a business's running costs. It may be that it will not be only the self-employed who line

      513
      the pockets of accountants and advisers; money that the Revenue would otherwise have received will go to them. I am certain that the Government do not intend that self-assessment should provide a boom for accountants. I want to be sure that it does not.
      Labour is not only concerned about the cost of compliance but at the growth of unqualified tax advisers. The Inland Revenue Staff Federation and Tax Aid have pointed out the need for regulation of such advisers. If self-assessment causes some people to go to unqualified tax advisers like Harry down the road to do their returns, they could incur penalties for delays or inaccuracies caused by Harry not being properly qualified. Those legitimate issues should not preclude self-assessment but urge caution in its implementation.
      Penalties are an important concern.
      Mr. Bermingham: Will not my hon. Friend's argument also apply to the elderly widow or pensioner with a few shares in the business that her husband once worked for and who does not know where she has put the dividend slip and cannot justify tax deducted for the dividend? She will have to scrabble round her house. Is she going to be penalised for a mistake over a few pounds? It appears so from the legislation.
      Mr. O'Brien: That is worrying and makes the point that we need to ensure that self-assessment is phased in cautiously and carefully. Phased in it must be, but in the right way.
      If taxpayers fail to file their forms by 1 January, they will incur a fine of £100 and a 5 per cent. surcharge on any tax after that which is due. Small businesses and the self-employed, overworked and perhaps understaffed may miss deadlines because they do not realise what the law is.
      The Federation of Small Businesses has proposed that, even if the Minister will not delay the project by a year, the penalties should at least be adjusted and people should be given a warning note after 1 January 1998 saying that they may be fined the following year. If the Minister does not accept that there should be a one-year delay, he should reduce the impact of the interest for late payment for a period of time. Our other amendment is important because it deals with that issue and proposes that the 5 per cent. interest penalty be halved for one year.
      5.30 pm
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): So that I may follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, will he tell me at which point in the tax payment cycle the penalty to which he refers is payable?
      Mr. O'Brien: The penalty is payable just after the money is due. Interest starts to arise at that point.
      Mr. Jack: Are we discussing payments on account or the final payment of a tax year's total requirement to be paid to the Revenue?
      Mr. O'Brien: The latter.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: Did not the Minister know that?
      Mr. O'Brien: He did not appear to know. So long as he is now clear on the facts, we can proceed.
      514
      Ernst and Young also say, first, that it is not clear what can be filed under the electronic lodgement system and, secondly, that the Inland Revenue will randomly select 5,000 to 10,000 cases a year to vet for accuracy. That will be a time-consuming distraction and an expensive exercise for those who are chosen. It is purely to validate the Inland Revenue's selection procedures. Ernst and Young want Parliament and the Government to consider who should pay for that if nothing material emerges from the inquiry into those who are randomly selected to be hassled. Those issues should be considered and we simply seek the time to do so.
      Mr. Tim Smith: May we conclude that the hon. Gentleman advocates that compensation should be paid to small businesses that are investigated as a result of a random sample?
      Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman heard exactly what I said: that this House should understand the problems of businesses and the self-employed. I want the House not to commit itself now to spending money but to consider whether we should compensate those people. We should discuss it but we have not yet had an opportunity to do so, which is why we need the time proposed in our amendment.
      We are also concerned about the absence of independent information on and evaluation of the new system. Taxation links between Parliament and the Government are part of the contract between the citizen and the state. The proposed new system of self-assessment will fundamentally alter the relationship between taxpayers and the state. However, the Government seem to have created no independent audit or source of information on the progress of implementing self-assessment, so neither taxpayers nor their representatives know how implementation is progressing. They do not know how the costs are worked out, how Inland Revenue staff are being prepared, what the form will be like, whether the new computer systems will be implemented successfully, or whether the project must meet certain performance targets if it is to operate successfully. Reports of difficulties are widespread. The only formal information available comes from the Inland Revenue, which is implementing the project, and its political masters, the Government.
      Will the Minister say exactly what is happening with the electronic data systems? Are the reports that staff are being transferred from filing to self-assessment true? We need to know exactly what is happening because those are legitimate issues.
      Forms are scheduled to arrive in spring 1997. If the whole self-assessment system fails, real problems could arise, putting considerable strain on the relationship between taxpayers and the Inland Revenue, and therefore between citizen and state. If the Minister will not accept one year's delay on the system's initiation, we propose to delay the filing arrangements in new section 8 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 by three months, from 31 January 1998 to 30 April 1998. The significant problems in operating the system merit further consideration. We simply ask for time to consider them.
      You, Mr. Morris, may think that you have heard a thorough indictment of the Government's self-assessment policy, but you ain't heard nothing yet. At the same time

      515
      as introducing self-assessment, the Government are imposing another expensive burden on business. I know that you will find it difficult to believe, Mr. Morris, having heard all that windy rhetoric on deregulation, but what about the £850 million burden on business—the little extra Government windfall exposed on page 112 of the 1996–97 Red Book? In the same year as introducing self-assessment, the Government have decided to change taxation of the self-employed from a previous-year to a current-year basis.
      Such a change alone would have had a massive impact; the two changes together will have an enormous impact. For one year, the self-employed will face a £850 million tax bombshell. It is a massive move with an enormous impact, which will come at a time when the self-employed will feel that they are being taxed twice, albeit they are not.
      Mr. Jack indicated dissent.
      Mr. O'Brien: The assessment comes from the House of Commons Library so I am sure that the Minister will accept it. First, taxable profits will be assessed on a current rather than previous-year basis, so personal allowances will be set against the current rather than the previous year's profits, giving a normal uprating of allowances. If there is any doubt about that, hon. Members should look at page 112 of the Red Book and the Minister's explanation to The Independent, where he effectively confirmed that that would happen.
      Mrs. Helen Jackson: A constituent who runs a small ladies' dressmaking business, which has worked with other small businesses in my constituency, told me that she had thought that self-assessment was a good idea if one was good at arithmetic and knew what one was doing. She had thought that it might save her money by making her less dependent on her accountant, who costs her £200 a year. But the more she looked into the matter, the more she saw that she would depend more on her accountant because of the complexity of the change and the extra rules being introduced.
      Mr. O'Brien: Like my hon. Friend's constituent, many people will be afraid of what is happening, and their fear will be fully justified. We have studied the legislation and seen its complexities and how it will operate. My hon. Friend's intervention confirms our argument. We should give the process an extra year in which people may begin to understand what it is about, and give the Government an opportunity to begin to come to terms with the process, ensure that staff are properly trained, computer systems are running properly and all the software has been properly tested, all of which takes a considerable time. It is dangerous to rush into the process. If we are to deal with the problems that my hon. Friend's constituent fears, we need time to do it properly. It will be time well spent and it will pay dividends in the long term.
      There seemed to be some doubt about the £850 million, so let us discuss it. It is made clear in the Red Book. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) exposed the issue. It was confirmed by the Inland Revenue to the House of Commons Library. The Independent highlighted it in an editorial. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury compounded the problem for
      516
      the Government when he admitted in a letter to that newspaper that extra money would come to the Government because of
      "bringing forward the moment when the tax bill has to be paid"—
      his own words.
      There will be a period of double taxation of profits, which will be relieved only in future years. As Ernst and Young has put it:
      "The Government is effectively obtaining an interest free loan during the currency of the business".
      It will mean that self-employed people will end up paying more in a specific year than they planned. Coupled with increased administration costs, possible penalties and confusion, that may be the final straw for many businesses.
      Self-assessment is an important opportunity for a radical rethink of tax collection. It is too good an opportunity to waste in this way. We support the principle of self-assessment. The Government appear unable to accept the dangers of the haste. The amendment gives time to stop and think and get it right.
      Let me finish by warning the Government of the consequences of not accepting the amendment. Using the words of the great Scottish poet whose bicentennial we recall today—Rabbie Burns's words, which will apply at the next general election if self-assessment fails, and if the self-assessment forms in their buff envelopes thud on to the mats of Conservative Members' constituents:

      "Still o'er the field the combat burns;

      The Tories—Whigs—give way by turns

      But fate-the word has spoken;

      For woman's wit and strength of man,

      Alas! can do but what they can

      The Tory ranks were broken."

      I ask the House to support the initial amendment and those that are grouped with it.
      Mr. Forman: I begin by declaring the interest that is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests—my role as parliamentary adviser to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. I hasten to add that I do not speak to any brief from that organisation today, because that would be inappropriate under the new rules that the House has adopted. I merely speak against the background of extra information that I have gathered during my time in that capacity.
      I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). I am familiar with the hon. Gentleman because, until recently, he and I served on the Treasury Select Committee together, and I could see that he was enjoying himself and making a meal of a small set of points, if I may say so.
      If I may distil the hon. Gentleman's argument, it was that there should be a further delay of one year in the implementation of that significant change for all taxpayers, whether individual or corporate, whether large firms or small firms, and that for a temporary period of one year—if I understood him correctly—the temporary penalties should be reduced from the 5 per cent. that the Bill specifies to 2.5 per cent.
      The hon. Gentleman was making heavy weather of his arguments, probably because he did not give sufficient weight to some straightforward considerations.

      517
      As I understand it, the first consultative document, giving interested parties and the general public a hint that self-assessment was in the offing, was published as long ago as 1991, and the information that is the equivalent of a dummy run, in the sense of providing more hard signs of the way in which the scheme will work for taxpayers, has been available since 1994.
      The hon. Gentleman based his argument on examples, which he described, of people being unaware of the changes and not being fully up to speed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said in his intervention, taxation is an unpleasant necessity in any society and individuals or corporations have a natural tendency, when they are busy, to place examination of those matters on the back burner until they absolutely have to do it. That is a human characteristic, an aspect of psychology; it applies to almost any deadline in human affairs. Taxation is no different; indeed, because taxation is unpleasant, there is obviously a natural tendency for people to put off thinking about it until the last minute. In all charity, to use the hon. Gentleman's word to him, all disagreeable deadlines tend to attract some responses of the type that he reported in his speech, and he should not make too much of that.
      I happen to know, from contacts in my constituency, that most of my constituents are aware of many of the implications of self-assessment and are gearing up, with the help of accountants, or on individual initiative by investing in a tape recording or a videotape. In some ways, they look forward to the challenge of getting over the hurdle of the first year. That first year will obviously cause problems, but there are such things as photocopiers, and when one has got it right in the first year, that provides a model on which to base one's subsequent returns in later years.
      To summarise, I am saying to the hon. Gentleman, first, that he has underrated the time that useful information that bears on the change has been in the public domain and available to taxpayers.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, at the moment, no one can say that he knows exactly how the system will work? The Bill may be substantially amended in progress in Committee, and that could result in enormous changes. The hon. Gentleman need only consider the length, in the schedules in the Bill, of the amendments on amendments that have been made. No one yet knows what the rules are, no one can be prepared now for self-assessment, and I doubt that we shall be able to place people in the position in which they can be fully prepared for very many months—even those people who are working hard at preparing themselves.
      Mr. Forman: Hitherto, only a fairly small percentage of taxpayers have had complicated tax positions. That minority, on whom the change might bear hardest, is composed of people who are frequently in fairly regular contact with their advisers, whether they be chartered accountants or others.
      The hon. Gentleman underestimates the extent to which, in the process of being in contact with those professional advisers, and in the process of the paper
      518
      moving back and forth, not only between the taxpayer and the Inland Revenue but between the taxpayer and his or her adviser, the ordinary taxpayer learns and, as it were, comes to appreciate, not only the advice that he or she receives from advisers, but the position of the Inland Revenue.
      I can assure the hon. Gentleman, even if he does not know it from experience, that, even as a layman, a person who has been in business or has had complicated tax affairs for some time learns about those matters, complicated though they may be. It is even easier when professional advisers are there to help out on difficult or contentious points.
      To summarise, first, the hon. Gentleman underestimates the length of time for which useful information has been available to taxpayers and their advisers. Secondly, there is always a tendency for everyone to put disagreeable prospects in the drawer for a while and not pay attention to those things until nearer to deadlines. That would be true whether we adopted the deadline that the hon. Gentleman suggests of 12 months later, or stuck to our deadline, which I strongly recommend the Minister to do.
      Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact that, under the proposals, if corporate or individual taxpayers have considerable difficulties, they retain the option to ask the Revenue to help them or to provide what it judges to be the accurate figures for the taxpayer. In extremis, it is possible for a person who feels overcome by the burden and the complexity of the exercise to say, or write, to his inspector, "Please do it for me."
      In those circumstances, the taxpayer always has the option, if he happens not to trust the inspector—which is unwise because in my experience, inspectors usually see to it that the people working for them treat those matters with accuracy and care, and mistakes are rarely made—to ask the Revenue to take on that task and to act, even slightly paternalistically, to help him through the transition period.
      If things go wrong, there is an excellent person who may well be known to the hon. Gentleman and from whom I have had the benefit of a tax briefing: Elizabeth Filkin, the tax adjudicator. She can be brought in in extreme cases where the matter cannot be settled sensibly by discussions and correspondence between the Revenue and the taxpayer.
      For all those reasons, I say to the hon. Gentleman, in a spirit of good will, that he exaggerates his case. He fans fears that have been expressed—to me, as well as to him—by the small business community. He would do a better service to his taxpaying constituents if he ensured that they received all the relevant information—if he acted as a conduit for the information, explanatory and otherwise, which is now being provided by the Revenue, and helped through the change. I believe that we must change. The net effect of the change, when implemented, will be beneficial to the country. It is a useful deregulatory measure that will simplify matters.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) has, at least, asked some important questions to which the Minister must respond. I accept that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) can readily find many sources, in his constituency and elsewhere, who are prepared for

      519
      self-assessment and who would regard a further delay for another year as a frustration and possibly even the cause of wasted expense.
      I therefore agree that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has an argument, but, by the same token, other people are less prepared and they will face the problem of not knowing what is going on. They will run the risk of incurring penalties through lack of proper support and advice. Others may feel that they will have to incur for professional advice costs that they did not previously incur. It may ultimately benefit those people if they obtain the right sort of professional advice at the right sort of price. The accounting industry is no doubt in favour of the change as it is likely to create a substantial amount of business for it—after all, that is what it is there for.
      Mr. Forman: Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, if, after the transitional period, people can master the new tax demands placed on them and fully understand what is expected of them, their tax bills could be reduced. My point about the photocopier was meant to show that, once people have created the right model, they can use it as the basis on which to go ahead and fill in their tax returns fairly confidently.
      Mr. Bruce: I wholly accept the hon. Gentleman's point. In the past I have filled in my tax forms—I currently use an accountant, but only because I am too busy. I pay my accountant a fee; it suits him and he claims, now and again, to get me a better deal than I would have done. He is probably right to say that—not because I could not have got the deal for myself, but because I did not have the time to do so—but I am merely one individual.
      My serious concern does not involve individuals, who will—particularly those on a routine income—easily find a formula to suit them, although the transitional period may be painful and difficult, and they may not be properly prepared. Some business men with smaller businesses, who have slightly more complicated matters to determine, may find, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire said, that the measure creates considerable additional stress for them, on top of everything else.
      The Conservative party prides itself on having good connections with, and an understanding of, small businesses. Having run small businesses myself, I know how difficult it is to run the business and to deal with the practicalities of processing orders and invoices, handling inquiries, ensuring that everything comes together and dealing with value added tax. Another administrative burden will mean that there is less time for producing and selling, and securing cash flow. None of those arguments is against self-assessment per se—our debate is about the timing of it. I accept that, whenever the policy is introduced, it will have its disadvantages and there comes a point when one has to bite the bullet and get on with it.
      Another concern, which I raised in my earlier intervention, is that the measure is being introduced at a time when the Treasury and the Inland Revenue have undertaken dramatic reductions in their staff. I am not merely point scoring; the Minister may well be able to explain how the matter will be resolved. The headline in an article in Accountancy Age states:
      "Revenue cutbacks threaten chaos for self-assessment".
      520
      Such articles suggest that, within the accountancy profession, there is genuine concern that the Revenue will not be geared up for the volume of queries, complaints and requests for help and information that will flood in, particularly at a time when staff numbers have been substantially cut—by 3,000.
      I shall give one or two quotes from the article at random. It states:
      "Ernst and Young's self-assessment specialist Philip Davis, said the Revenue would ensure the system would be implemented `come hell or high water', but warned the whole thing was being rushed through unnecessarily and too many problems remained.
      He said: `If you look at the Finance Bill"'—
      which is what we are here to do—
      '''for instance, there are 16 pages of amendments in the 80 pages of self-assessment legislation covering areas which they didn't get right before'."
      I hope that the Minister will. accept that I am simply raising the concerns of people working in the industry, who clearly believe that there is potentially a serious problem.
      To some extent, I have an open mind on the amendment. I can see both sides of the argument. I am not in favour of pushing back proposals to which one is committed unless there is a good reason. If there are problems, such as cuts in staff and a belief that the issue's complexity has not been fully addressed, I would echo the argument of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that the Government must recognise that, in an election year, this may not be the sort of chaos over which they want to preside.
      I hope that there is clear good faith on the part of Labour Members that, if there is a change of Government in the next year, the principle of self-assessment will not be abandoned, its proposal to postpone the measure will be honoured and the measure will ultimately be implemented. I am not sure about—the hon. Member for North Warwickshire did not give it—the Labour party's policy on the delivery of self-assessment. It would be helpful to know whether the Labour party was in favour of it, against it or genuinely concerned about its timing. Having said that, I think that the hon. Gentleman made some important points and advanced his arguments very well.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman asked for our view. If, having heard some of the arguments, the Government agree with us, the law will be changed. We may win the vote on the amendment even if the Minister does not support us. Perhaps some Conservative Back Benchers will defect—we have seen that happen. If the amendment is passed, the law will be changed and implementation of the measure will be delayed by a year, as we wish. That would also happen if and when we come into office. What happens will depend entirely on when we come into office and the circumstances at the time. If the process is in train, we shall have to evaluate the situation. We wish to ensure that the measure is implemented properly. We have to decide how that can best be achieved when we take control.
      Mr. Bruce: I am grateful for that intervention, although I am not entirely sure what it means. I may well be prepared to take the balance of argument in the hon. Gentleman's favour and suggest that we postpone the measure for one year. If I thought that that would lead

      521
      to a further postponement, I would favour the argument of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington that, ultimately, we must bite the bullet. The question is whether we go ahead now, knowing that there will be problems, but confident that we can overcome them and create a workable system, or whether we acknowledge that the problems of staff cuts and the lack of information justify postponing the measure to ensure that we can overcome the problems.
      I quoted from the article from Accountancy Age to show that there are clearly people involved in the business who know much more about the subject than me and who believe that the policy could become an unmitigated shambles. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire mentioned the problems that we have all had to face over the Child Support Agency. Hon. Members on both sides of the House supported the proposal for the CSA and believed that it would work, but we all agree that it has been unsatisfactory. I was talking to a High Court judge last night. When I said that the CSA was an administrative shambles, he said—as only a High Court judge could—"No, no. You can't get away with that. Parliament got it wrong. You brought the consequence upon yourselves." We are talking about a parliamentary decision now, and we should not be partisan about it. One's attitude to the issue should not depend on one's political views.
      The question is how we shall implement effectively the biggest reform in tax collection in British history since the introduction of pay-as-you-earn, with a minimum amount of disruption. It would be impossible to make such a change without disruption, but it should be minimal.
      The Minister should tell us how he would respond to the critics in the profession. He should also tell us how the Revenue will be able to handle the change, given the dramatic reduction in staff and its lowered morale. Of course, people in the Inland Revenue Staff Federation have a vested interest in maintaining the numbers, but that is not a good enough reason to dismiss the fact that it is odd to introduce the biggest change ever against the background of the biggest single reduction in staffing ever in the relevant department. It is difficult to believe that the reduction will not aggravate the problems.
      6 pm
      Mr. Tim Smith: I wonder, Mr. Morris, what the most boring thing is that you have to do every year. You may tell us that it is listening to debates on taxation in the Finance Bill Committee. I suspect that many people, if asked that question, would say that it was completing their tax return. People do not give a high priority to their tax returns. They eventually get round to doing them when they know that if they did not do it, they would be in trouble with the Inland Revenue. It is not the most exciting task, and it is difficult to persuade people to take an interest in the measure, although it will be a major change.
      The timing of the change does not matter. Some people will not face up to it until it happens and the form arrives on their doormat. That is what happened with financial services regulation in the Financial Services Act 1988. Some people simply shut their eyes to it until the very day the Act came into force, when they woke up and discovered for the first time that they were going to be regulated.
      522
      Let me remind you, Mr. Morris, what small businesses have to do now. From the debate so far, anybody would think that small businesses have no problems, but every small business and every schedule D taxpayer has to complete a tax return. They often send their tax returns in late. Frequently, by the time a business sends its form in, it has already received an alarming estimated assessment from the Inland Revenue, which inevitably—in 90 per cent. of cases—is pitched at a level higher than the business's profits, to protect the Revenue's position. The arrival of that estimated assessment is often one of the spurs to completing the tax returns. When the tax returns have been submitted, there may be queries on them or they may be accepted by the Revenue, but more paper comes back to the small business because the estimated assessment has to be amended to a final assessment.
      Lots of paper is generated by present system. One of the great advantages of self-assessment, for those who choose to complete the form in its entirety, will be that they can work out how much tax they have to pay and send a cheque with their return. If they get it right—and there is no reason why people should not get it right, either on their own, because it is designed to be done unaided, or with help from an accountant—they can send the money in and that will be the end of the process. That will be a considerable improvement and simplification.
      The change to self-assessment was announced in principle, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) said, in 1991 before the general election. The decision to proceed with it was announced in the 1993 Budget. We debated it in some detail in the Finance Bill debates in 1994 and 1995. I know that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) has come rather late to the subject, but this is not the first time that Parliament has debated it.
      More importantly, it is not true that the Inland Revenue has no experience of dealing with self-assessment. It has bent over backwards to consult on that issue. For example, in Leicester, 5,000 taxpayers volunteered to take part in an experiment. That is remarkable and we should pay tribute to any taxpayers who volunteer to take part in such an experiment, because they have done all other taxpayers a great service.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree—as he implied by his use of the word "remarkable"—that those taxpayers who volunteered to fill in an extra tax return might not be entirely representative of taxpayers as a whole?
      Mr. Tim Smith: That is very true, and I agree. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that one of the reasons for the changes is to ensure that those who are not among the best taxpayers—who are, as he implied, those who would volunteer—get equal treatment. That will cause difficulty.
      The system of automatic penalties will cause difficulty and we have experienced that before. The Government introduced automatic penalties for VAT in the mid-1980s, which ran a predictable course. The new system was introduced and most taxpayers coped with it reasonably adequately. A minority made a fantastic noise, said that they had heard nothing about it and considered the whole system desperately unfair. A few minor changes were made at the margin and we heard very little more about

      523
      it. I wonder how many hon. Members now receive letters from constituents complaining about the VAT regime, with its harsh penalties, which was introduced in the mid-1980s. Very few, I suspect.
      Of course there will be difficulties, because some taxpayers will not wake up to the changes when they are introduced. I recognise that they will not be the taxpayers who volunteered to take part in the Leicester experiment, but it was a valuable exercise. Ministers and the Revenue are to be commended on the extent to which they consulted. My hon. Friend the Minister wrote to all right hon. and hon. Members as recently as 20 November 1995, explaining the changes that have been made to the new tax return. He also explained that, as a result of consultation, the number of schedules attached to the tax return have been halved and that other improvements have been made to try to make the whole system more user-friendly.
      I do not believe that delaying the introduction of self-assessment by another year would result in more taxpayers listening to the audio tape or reading the guidance. Those taxpayers who want to do that will do it now, because they run their businesses efficiently. There will always be those who say that they are too busy to do it now—they will be too busy to do it in a year's time. We should reject the amendment.
      Mr. Bermingham: Two features worry me about self-assessment. I declare an interest as a practising lawyer and one of those who will have to self-assess. First, not all tax is paid on invoice. Paying on invoice means that if one delivers an invoice, one is deemed to earn the money in the year that the invoice is sent. Some of us are taxed on what is called a cash basis. For those, the problem has become a nightmare.
      The problem affects practising lawyers, some accountants in smaller firms—who have been taxed on a cash basis historically—and many solicitors. The Inland Revenue has tried to wean people off being taxed on a cash basis over the years. It is a rare gift from the Revenue that it has allowed those who are taxed on a cash basis—for example, most members of the Bar—to cling on to that for what life is worth. Why do we cling on to it? Every time I render a bill on a legal aid matter, I do not know when I shall be paid. At the moment, on major cases, if a bill has not been paid after six months, one is entitled to 40 per cent. of it.
      Mr. Tim Smith indicated dissent.
      Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman should come down and ask the lawyers what is happening.
      Mr. Smith: It is crazy.
      Mr. Bermingham: It is not only crazy, but to put it bluntly, it is a disgrace. The other day, I got a cheque for a case that I had finished six months before. I got 40 per cent. of my bill. That bill will now be taxed at some time in the next three to four months. I did a case last year that took a year to get paid. It was a small and simple matter, but there were no taxing masters in that area and everything was held up. How can I and many other lawyers actually project what we shall earn in a year, because that will depend on when we get paid? If we are
      524
      on a cash basis, there is no way in which we can be accurate. We can have a good year or a bad year. A bill can be paid after the end of the tax year because someone is sick and the cheques are not sent out. That happened the other day at the Old Bailey, when 500 cheques were held up because someone was sick. On that basis, there is no way in which we can project our earnings.
      Lawyers are not the only ones who will suffer; others will have the same problem for a different reason. For example, those who do not operate on a cash basis will be taxed on the bills that they send out. Small companies—there are a number in my constituency—complain that they send their bills to large companies and they are lucky if they receive payment within three to six months. One hopes that they will be able to project what their tax liability might be in the current year, but it is an enormous guessing game. For many of the self-employed who are not big earners, the game will not be worth it any more. They will run the risk of penalty year in, year out and their cash flow problems will be a nightmare.
      The Red Book also states that in one year taxpayers will pay two years' tax. That year will prove a nightmare for self-employed people, whether they are lawyers or plumbers. We must examine the situation realistically. In 1997–98, the self-employed must pay tax on the previous year. They will be able to calculate the amount accurately because they have their books, invoices and receipts. People will know exactly how much they have to pay. However, they are then supposed to self-assess for the current year. They might have a pretty shrewd idea about the amount based on historical profit figures or intake or gross receipt figures. However, in many professions, it will be difficult to calculate. People do not know who will walk through their office doors the next day. Lawyers do not know whether they will have big or small cases, or whether cases will collapse. They will have no way of estimating, although they will do their best.
      I shall give the House an example. Mr. X is a plumber who lives somewhere in the mid-shires. He has reckoned that each year he earns about £40,000 gross. After he has deducted his expenses, his earnings amount to £20,000 a year. On a medium tax figure of 25 per cent. after various expenses, he may pay tax of £3,000 or £4,000 per year. In the year in question when he does his guesstimate for the year ahead, he must pay last year's tax as well as this year's tax. In that year, he must pay £8,000 in tax on his income of £20,000 when he would usually pay perhaps £3,000 or £4,000. But Mr. X must still pay his mortgage and feed his children.
      Unless the Government do something about that problem, an awful lot of people—perhaps millions—will suffer hardship in that changeover year. The original proposal said that we should take an average over a number of years and then proceed, but that has now been amended. What will the self-employed do in that problem year? They play an important part in our economy—in fact, they are far more important than most people realise.
      The self-employed do not work alone: they may employ two or three other people. People are classified as "self-employed" because they own their businesses; they are not a limited company. When presented with a cash flow problem, they have two choices: they can lay off employees—which is not a good idea if our economy is to recover—or they can simply say, "I've had enough; I shall go and work for someone else."

      525
      It is very easy for Treasury officials—I mean them no disrespect—to think up a wonderful way of ensuring that everyone is on the same system, without considering the implications. The measure will not affect them as they are pay-as-you-earn, just like Members of Parliament. However, many people in my constituency are not PAYE. Every year they calculate their tax honourably and honestly and pay it on 1 July and 1 January. In the year that the measure is introduced, they will be faced with not only the bill for the year for which they have received the income, but the bill for the year upon which they are being assessed. Those who operate on a cash basis or those who have not been paid by large companies that have delayed payment will face an exaggerated cash flow problem.
      I have already given the example of the young barrister, solicitor or accountant who estimates the income that he will receive in a year. However, he may find that, instead of several small cases, he has one large case. He then faces a central taxing unit problem and he may not be paid for a year or more—often he will receive no payments for at least nine months. He may then find that there is an enormous cash flow problem and, unless his bank manager is kind, there is no way that he will come through it.
      6.15 pm
      The Government should realise, in all fairness, that many of those in the professions and many of the self-employed borrow money from their banks in order to keep going, in the hope that the money will be forthcoming. Meanwhile, they continue to pay interest on their borrowings. There is a similar problem for those who are paid by large companies or Government bodies, such as the Lord Chancellor's Department—I do not wish to be personal in my remarks—or other Departments of State, which often make people wait three to six months for their money. While those Departments are earning interest, people are paying interest.
      I know that part of one's overdraft interest is allowable against taxation, particularly on a business account, but it never quite makes up for the loss. By delaying payment to the self-employed who are working for them, the Government are making money while they are costing the self-employed money. In such circumstances, there should be a time limit for payment—two to three months seems fair, but six to nine months seems grossly unfair. I have made that point publicly on behalf of the professions and that is why I declared my interest at the beginning of my speech.
      I outline two problems to the Minister. Those who operate on a cash basis will face a difficult guessing game. We are professionals and we shall cope with it somehow, but we need more time to get our advisers into position to deal with it. That is why I support the amendment. I say very earnestly, on behalf of millions of people, that the new change, which will effectively mean a year of double taxation—
      Mr. Tim Smith: No.
      Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman denies it. I invite him to reassure me and millions of others like me, because that is how it reads in the Red Book.
      Mr. Smith: As I understand it, during the transitional period we shall take two years' profits, add them together,
      526
      divide by two and we shall be taxed on that amount. Effectively, one year is left out, so there can be no question whatever of double taxation.
      Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is an accountant and I respect his knowledge of accountancy. However, that is not how my advisers and their accountants or the professions' advisers have said that it would work. We are very concerned about the interpretation of the Red Book. If the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box and tell me that I, and millions of others, will not be doubly taxed and that we shall pay about the same rate of tax in that year as in the year before and the year after, I shall sit back and say, "One of my worries has gone." At least I shall have that concession.
      Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman should come here more often.
      Mr. Bermingham: Mr. Morris, he is a very rude man; but academics are always rude because they are always ignorant.
      I conclude with this simple cri de coeur. I have met many tax inspectors and employers, and they have always been extremely helpful and kind. However, many ordinary people will need a lot of help during the transition period. Therefore, I believe that training should take place and that the period must be extended. I seek the Minister's assurance on the second part of my great worry. If I receive it, I shall go home—notwithstanding the odd crack from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman)—a much happier man. But, then again, I was always a simple person at heart.
      Mr. Jack: Opposition Members know that, from time to time, I have been known to be combative on particular subjects for debate, but on this occasion I shall put aside my sword and shield and deal rationally with some of the important points that have been raised. Light and enlightenment is what I shall deal supply this evening.
      I thank all hon. Members who contributed to the debate, because if there is one thing that self-assessment still requires, it is discussion. The more we discuss it, the more knowledge we shall gain about it. I do not want to stand at the Dispatch Box and make outrageous claims that there will not be problems between now and the introduction of self-assessment, as it is a big change, and it is complex, but it is being managed by the most professional people with whom I have had the very great pleasure to deal—the Inland Revenue.
      I shall put on record precisely what we are dealing with in self-assessment. We are dealing with the collection of information, albeit in a new way, to determine people's liability and the ultimate payment of taxes, which will not change as a result of self-assessment. People will know about their tax liability, in the sense that they have a tax on their income, on their investment, on the profit that they receive from rent, or on the profits that they receive from their business. That area will be familiar.
      The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who made a balanced and helpful contribution, asked about the enormity of the introduction of self-assessment. Indeed, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) asked whether it would be the equivalent of the Child

      527
      Support Agency. I was relatively new to self-assessment when I took over my present appointment, and I can remember some of the difficulties. Let me try to put their minds at rest.
      The CSA was doing two things: first, it was introducing a brand new policy; and, secondly, it was putting in place a brand new information technology system to deal with it. With self-assessment, the Inland Revenue is wholly familiar with the taxes, the way in which collection has to be carried out, and, most importantly, the volume of business that it will have to deal with. It was meticulous in the specification of the system that it requires to deal with that volume. I hope that hon. Members will be reassured by that.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: Has not the Financial Secretary dug the hole deeper for himself by saying that the CSA's problems arose because it did two things at once? Are not the Government doing the same by changing to self-assessment and changing the basis for assessment from the previous year to the current year? They may be separate exercises, but they will greatly complicate procedures for the self-employed, and the experience will not be dissimilar from that of the CSA.
      Mr. Jack: I shall deal with that in a moment. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is already confusion in the way in which the current tax system operates. For example, for a business that has trading profits and an income from, say, renting accommodation, the accommodation is dealt with on a current year basis, and the trading profit is dealt with on a previous year basis. Self-assessment is about bringing them on to the same timetable. Surely that is a recipe for clarity, not confusion.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) shone an important light on the reality of what we are dealing with, in their sage, short, but very important interventions. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington helped to tease out the fact that self-assessment will not affect some 20 million taxpayers. For them, the world will not change. Their only instruction, if one likes, at this stage is to ensure that they keep hold of their records, because their circumstances might change in future, and they could become the subject of self-assessment. For those who do not receive a tax return, the basic message is that nothing will alter. We are discussing the situation for the 9 million taxpayers who receive a tax return.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield was right when he pointed out that the matter has been thoroughly debated in the House. It was unworthy of the Opposition to worry people unnecessarily by picking up in the press at the beginning of the year a number of factors on self-assessment, for what I deem to be rather cheap party political advantage, when we are striving to reassure and educate people.
      We have been working very hard on information for the taxpayer. None of this has been the invention of minds in the Inland Revenue or the Treasury. We consulted very thoroughly indeed in all the preparations. We have the self-assessment consultative committee. It is representative of individual taxpayers, all sections of business, whether large or small, and it has contributed fulsomely to ensure that we refine the system to a state where it will work.
      528
      My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield touched on the trial in Leicester. I am not certain whether the hon. Member for North Warwickshire has been to one of our presentations in the House.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien indicated assent.
      Mr. Jack: I am delighted to see that he has. He will know how thorough we are on self-assessment. I wanted to know whether it would work, because I had rehearsed in my mind some worries, which hon. Members put before me this evening.
      I was advised that a real-life trial was under way in Leicester, with 5,000 real taxpayers, who had been recruited by the Inland Revenue, which had written to employers, including local authorities and individual taxpayers, some with advisers and some without. The trial was proceeding successfully. The tax office was dealing with the forms. I said that I did not want to go on a glossy trip or just to see the computer screens. I wanted to meet some of the real taxpayers who were taking part.
      Six people were selected. They included representatives, agents, self-employed people, a consultant—a whole range of individuals, even PAYE. They gave me quite a hard time. They gave a candid assessment of what it was like. It was interesting. Some had difficulty—those who, like me, take the video recorder out of the box, plug it in, press the buttons and wonder why it does not work. But those who read the carefully tailored instructions and went through them completed the form successfully. They made points to me about revising and refining the questions, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said, we have substantially cut the paperwork involved. We learned from the practical trial.
      6.30 pm
      I must tell the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that we are planning to go to Southampton this year with a trial of 13,000 real taxpayers. That makes this exercise fundamentally different from other major changes involving new information technology systems. We are trying the system out. We are not dealing with the untried and the unknown. We are making certain that we proceed on the basis of fact. It is a great pity that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who has teased out everybody's concern to form a speech in the debate, had not reflected on what we are doing.
      The hon. Member for Gordon asked important questions. He posed an interesting point when he asked whether the Opposition had truthfully considered their position on this matter. He was right to ask that, because it strikes me that there are some consequences that they have not considered.
      I wondered why, for example, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire did not take us through all the consequences of his amendment. He invites the House to support three amendments—two on delay and one on penalties—but he did not take us through the knock-on consequences. That is just shoddy. The hon. Member for Gordon might like to know that the Opposition did not propose any alternative mechanism for the Inland Revenue to collect taxes and make assessments in 1996–97.

      529
      The opposition did not tell us precisely which parts of the self-assessment reform package they propose to defer. I wonder if they have given any thought to what is involved in delay. Cost savings will result, so has the hon. Member for North Warwickshire the express permission of the shadow Chancellor to say that he will underscore the extra cost involved in dishing out a further 4.5 million assessments, which result from delaying the system for another year? The hon. Gentleman seeks to delay the benefit that will accrue to the self-employed and those who are required to fill in a tax assessment.
      I could go on, but it is clear that the hon. Gentleman, who gave the impression of having looked meticulously at every detail, has not considered the matter in detail. He is advocating that the House tonight should support a recipe for chaos. If the amendments were agreed to tonight, they would result in a complete muddle. The hon. Member for Gordon is right. He has teased out an omission in the Opposition's case.
      The hon. Member for Gordon also rightly asked about resources. The Inland Revenue is appropriately staffed to meet the requirements. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Inland Revenue is adequately resourced. The resulting staff reduction will be achieved by natural wastage. The very fact that we have invited EDS, one of the world leaders, to help to develop the IT system, shows our determination to ensure that the project is properly managed.
      This week, I had the pleasure of going to the central point in the Revenue which is monitoring the implementation of the project. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that each and every aspect is being meticulously managed—from the point of view of IT, personnel and training. It is one of the most remarkable project management exercises. When it is done—I believe that it will be done successfully—people will admire the Inland Revenue for its professionalism and thoroughness. However, it is realistic. It knows that there will be problems. It does not shy away from that. But the hon. Gentleman was right to ask about that.
      A moment ago, I centred on the facts of the matter. Why are we having self-assessment? I am grateful for the acknowledgement of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that his party accepts self-assessment in principle. It has supported it in principle for two years. But all of a sudden, we hear various disparaging comments.
      What we are seeing is the introduction of the Keith committee's recommendations. That process has been on the go since 1983. The current system of tax assessment is time-consuming, confrontational and, I think all would agree, unsatisfactory.
      At present, the Inland Revenue will issue an estimated assessment to a self-employed taxpayer and, perhaps because of a delay in drawing up accounts or filing returns, there may be problems. If the assessment is not agreed, an appeal will have to be lodged and an application made to postpone tax payments. Every year, about 1.5 million such processes have to be considered by the special commissioners. If the taxpayer concerned has a source of income other than that from his business, he must go through the same process all over again.
      530
      Under self-assessment, self-employed taxpayers—of whom there are about 4 million, so we have an interest in them, to which the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) adverted—will find that their self-employment income is taxed on the same basis as other income, as I said a moment ago. They will pay tax only on profits earned—no more, no less. That deals with the Opposition's attempt to run the scare story that there would be some double tax hit.
      Let me take the hon. Member for St. Helens, South and his hon. Friends through a little exercise that I undertook. I wanted to be certain that I did not stand at the Dispatch Box and mislead people about the averaging process. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield put his finger on the important point that that process of averaging and catching up has now begun. If we were to support the Opposition's request for a delay, we would have an even more muddled situation on our hands.
      I asked for an example of what would happen to a business earning a constant stream of taxable profit, which would mean that the tax demand would not change. The analysis was that neither would the payments. They would be the same in January and in July, throughout the years of introduction.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: The Minister is right to say that, if there is a constant level of the same profits, the payments will be the same, but if there are rising profits, will there not be a higher burden in any given year? The Minister, in his letter to The Independent, put the £850 million extra tax yield in the Red Book down to business profitability and bringing forward the moment when the tax bill has to be paid. How much of that £850 million is due to rising business profitability, and how much is due to bringing forward the date of payment?
      Mr. Jack:The hon. Gentleman has practically answered his own question. A rising trend of profits means that there will be more profits to tax. That is why, against a rising trend of profits, the Red Book shows an increase. If the hon. Gentleman had read the fine print, he would have seen that it was against original baseline figures. Therefore, we are acknowledging that there is a change.
      It is a bit like putting the clocks forward. There is the same amount of taxable profit, but we get at it a bit earlier. Do not forget that those are profits that business has already earned. The money is in the bank. Businesses on any given level of profit will not pay any more or any less tax than is necessary.
      Other factors affect the figure in the Red Book. I have already said that other forms of income are subject to the change in the tax—we believe that it amounts to about £713 million in terms of rising profit trends. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been rather pleased about the fact that we are projecting rising business profitability. Perhaps it embarrasses him because it is a sign of the growing strength that we anticipate in the British economy.
      I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman accept that, if we had a constant level of profit, there would be no double hit.
      Mr. Andrew Smith indicated assent.
      Mr. Jack: I am delighted to see that the hon. Gentleman agrees. If he agrees with that, he must agree that there can be no double tax on business. I am glad that we have settled that across the Dispatch Box.
      Mr. Smith: Is there or is there not an extra £850 million tax yield in the year shown in the Red Book?
      Mr. Jack: If the hon. Gentleman reads the fine print, he will clearly see that, against the index level, more tax is coming in because more taxable profit is available. That is a most important point.
      Mr. Bermingham rose—
      Mr. Jack: Time is against me. The hon. Gentleman has had his say, and I need mine.
      I pray in aid some supporters of not slowing down the process of introduction of self-assessment. Colin Sharman, a senior partner of KPMG, said:
      "Recent calls for delay in its implementation and re-examination of its scope are misplaced."
      He went on:
      "The project has been well managed by the Revenue with a thorough communication process. Fundamental change of this nature is never easy, but it is well overdue."
      That is an important supporting point.
      Mr. Brodie of Taxaid said:
      "This really is a major improvement."
      Those and the many others who have spoken in favour of self-assessment should be heeded.
      Mr. Grant Thornton of the East Anglian Daily Times said that he believed that self-assessment represented a significant simplification of the old system and that once the new rules were in place it would be much easier for everybody to understand.
      The Inland Revenue is well prepared. It is carrying out a massive information exercise. Many thousands of people have already come to our seminars. Much information will be given during the course of the year. I assure the House that no stone will be left unturned to ensure that all concerned understand self-assessment. But if we were to follow the Opposition's line on delay, it would be a recipe for disaster and problems. As for their point about the penalty, it only applies to the penalty on the final payment. I do not think that they would want laxity to creep into the arrangements for the necessary regulation to ensure that people pay their taxes on time.
      For all those reasons, I urge the House to reject the amendments.
      Mr. Andrew Smith: The Minister, and Conservative Members generally, will come to rue the day that they turned down the opportunity to defer self-assessment to enable it to be introduced more efficiently. In this context as in so many others, one word screams out from the Conservative Benches: complacency. Conservative Members are complacent about the scale of the problems posed by the introduction of self-assessment, and they are complacent about the effects on millions of self-employed people and small businesses, and the other costs that business will incur.
      532
      The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said that the proposal had been announced in 1993, and had been in the Finance Acts 1994 and 1995. Given that we have been through the process so often, why does the current Bill contain all these clauses? Why have the Government not managed to get it right in all that time?
      The Minister assured us that, following the Leicester trials, further trials are now to take place in Southampton. How will the errors be corrected if those trials show up matters that will require further change? The Government are not allowing the time that is needed. A stream of accountants, commentators and representatives of small businesses—cited by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien)—are alarmed by the way in which the Government are rushing ahead.
      The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) seemed to place considerable reliance on the assistance provided by photocopiers. Valuable though such devices are, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that he will get away with simply photocopying last year's tax return and sending it in for the following year, he will come a cropper. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce)—who has left the Chamber—recognised the problems, but did not seem sure whether he and his hon. Friends would join us in the Division Lobby. We shall note how they vote, and we shall remind the electorate if they do not support this opportunity to provide time to get the self-assessment regime right.
      My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) drew attention to the problems facing professions involving variable cash flow, and to what he rightly described as the guessing game that would confront them in the event of a gap between the sending of an invoice and the receipt of cash. He spoke of the devastating effect that the bungled introduction of the regime could have on prospects of self-employment, and on people's confidence not only in the tax regime but in enterprise and self-employment as a way of earning a living.
      The Minister has not given us the assurances that self-employed people and small businesses would want to hear. He has not dealt satisfactorily with the issues that we have raised in relation to the £850 million extra tax imposition. We had an interesting discussion about cash flow and the fact that people might be affected differently in different circumstances, but the Minister cannot deny the existence of the extra £850 million tax yield, which is in the Red Book. Someone will be paying that extra money, and it will not be the Minister; it will be the 9 million self-employed people and small businesses.
      Mr. Jack rose—
      Mr. Smith: It seems that the Minister is about to volunteer to pay the £850 million.
      Mr. Jack: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had followed the argument. The answer is that there will be no extra tax hit on businesses. There is no double taxation. As I told the hon. Gentleman, the extra sum against indexation was a result of the rising profit trend. He agreed with me a moment ago; this shows how confused he is.
      Mr. Smith: The Minister does not deny—he cannot, because his own Red Book shows it—that there will be

      533
      an extra tax yield of £850 million. However much they may wriggle and squirm, it is small businesses and the self-employed who will pay that extra money. I promise the Minister and his hon. Friends that we shall remind the electorate, and the small businesses and self-employed people who suffer the consequences of that imposition, who is responsible for the way in which it has been landed on them.
      The Minister also did not deal with all the problems of complexity, and the difficulties that the Revenue is experiencing—not withstanding its professionalism, to which I pay tribute—in completing the final version of the tax form. He did not deal with the recurrent costs to the self-employed. He did not deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire about the danger of a different and more confrontational relationship between taxpayers and tax authorities; and he did not deal with the additional burdens on employers of all kinds, who will face more demands for extra information from both tax authorities and their employees.
      There can be no doubt that self-assessment, as introduced by the present Government, has enormous and damaging potential to turn an important change into a formidable crisis for small businesses and the self-employed. Opposition Members urge the Government, even now, to start listening, and to provide the time that will allow us to get the position right. It is clear from everything that the Minister has said that it is not right yet.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided:Ayes 213,Noes 268.

      Division No. 36]

      [6.45 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clelland, David

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Coffey, Ann

      Allen, Graham

      Cohen, Harry

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Connarty, Michael

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Ashton, Joe

      Corbett, Robin

      Austin-Walker, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Barnes, Harry

      Corston, Jean

      Battle, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cunningham, Roseanna

      Benton, Joe

      Dafis, Cynog

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dalyell, Tam

      Berry, Roger

      Darling, Alistair

      Betts, Clive

      Davidson, Ian

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

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

      Denham, John

      Burden, Richard

      Dixon, Don

      Byers, Stephen

      Dobson, Frank

      Caborn, Richard

      Dowd, Jim

      Callaghan, Jim

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Campbell. Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Eastham, Ken

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Etherington, Bill

      Canavan, Dennis

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Cann, Jamie

      Fatchett, Derek

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Church, Judith

      Fisher, Mark

      Clapham, Michael

      Flynn, Paul

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      534

      Foulkes, George

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Fyfe, Maria

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Galbraith, Sam

      Morley, Elliot

      Galloway, George

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Gapes, Mike

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Garrett, John

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      George, Bruce

      Mudie, George

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mullin, Chris

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Murphy, Paul

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Olner, Bill

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Gordon, Mildred

      Pearson, Ian

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Pendry, Tom

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Grocott, Bruce

      Pike, Peter L

      Gunnell, John

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hain, Peter

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hall, Mike

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Henderson, Doug

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Heppell, John

      Purchase, Ken

      Hinchliffe, David

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hoey, Kate

      Radice, Giles

      Home Robertson, John

      Randall, Stuart

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Raynsford, Nick

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

      Reid, Dr John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Rogers, Allan

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Rocker, Jeff

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hume, John

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hutton, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      Illsley, Eric

      Salmond, Alex

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Jamieson, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Simpson, Alan

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Keen, Alan

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

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

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Snape, Peter

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Soley, Clive

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Litherland, Robert

      Speller, John

      Livingstone, Ken

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McAllion, John

      Stevenson George

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Stott, Roger

      McCartney, Ian

      Strang, Dr Gavin

      McCartney, Robert

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Timms, Stephen

      McFall, John

      Touhig, Don

      McKelvey, William

      Turner, Dennis

      McLeish, Henry

      Vaz, Keith

      McNamara, Kevin

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      MacShane, Denis

      Walley, Joan

      McWilliam, John

      Wareing, Robert N

      Madden, Max

      Watson, Mike

      Mahon, Alice

      Welsh, Andrew

      Mendelson, Peter

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Marek, Dr John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Martlew, Eric

      Wise, Audrey

      Maxton, John

      Worthington, Tony

      Meacher, Michael

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Meale, Alan

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Michael, Alun

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Milburn, Alan

      Mr. Eric Clarke and

      Miller, Andrew

      Mr. Greg Pope.

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      535

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Alton, David

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Amess, David

      Evennett, David

      Ancram, Michael

      Faber, David

      Arbuthnot, James

      Fabricant, Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Ashby, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Baldry, Tony

      French, Douglas

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Gale, Roger

      Bates, Michael

      Gallie, Phil

      Batiste, Spencer

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Beggs, Roy

      Gill, Christopher

      Berth, Rt Hon A J

      Gillen, Cheryl

      Bellingham, Henry

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bendall, Vivian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gorst, Sir John

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Booth, Hartley

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Boswell, Tim

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Bowis, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Brazier, Julian

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Hannam, Sir John

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Harris, David

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hawksley, Warren

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Butcher, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Butler, Peter

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Butterfill, John

      Hendry, Charles

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hogg, Fit Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Horam, John

      Cash, William

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Clappison, James

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hunter, Andrew

      Coe, Sebastian

      Jack, Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Congdon, David

      Jessel, Toby

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Couchman, James

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Cran, James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

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

      Key, Robert

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

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Day, Stephen

      Knapman, Roger

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Devlin, Tim

      Knight Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

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

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knox, Sir David

      Dover, Den

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Duncan, Alan

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Elletson, Harold

      Legg, Barry

      536

      Leigh, Edward

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

      Sims, Roger

      Lidington, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Smyth, The Reverend Martin

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Soames, Nicholas

      MacKay, Andrew

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Madel, Sir David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Maginnis, Ken

      Spring, Richard

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Sproat, Iain

      Malone, Gerald

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Mans, Keith

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Marlow, Tony

      Steen, Anthony

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Stephen, Michael

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Stern, Michael

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Stewart, Allan

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Streeter, Gary

      Merchant, Piers

      Sumberg, David

      Mills, Iain

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Sykes, John

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Thomason, Roy

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Thurnham, Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Townsend, Cyril D (Baxl'yh'th)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Tracey, Richard

      Norris, Steve

      Tredinnick, David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Trend, Michael

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Trotter, Neville

      Ottaway, Richard

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Page, Richard

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Paice, James

      Viggers, Peter

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wakiegrave, Rt Hon William

      Pawsey, James

      Walden, George

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Waller, Gary

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Ward, John

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Rendel, David

      Watts, John

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Wells, Bowen

      Richards, Rod

      Whitney, Ray

      Riddick, Graham

      Whittingdale, John

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Robathan, Andrew

      Wilkinson, John

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Willetts, David

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Wilshire, David

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Wood, Timothy

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Yeo, Tim

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Sackville, Tom

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Mr. Derek Conway and

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Mr. Simon Burns.

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Bill (Clause 36, 105, 112 and 139 and schedule 15), as amended, to be reported.
      To lie upon the Table.

  Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think that you were in the Chamber during business questions, when I raised the issue of when the Scott inquiry report was to be published. The Leader of the House quite specifically replied—it has been carried by the media—that responsibility for the publication of that delayed report was down to Scott himself. I know that that is not true.
  I do not know whether that reply was a slip of the tongue, but people outside are concerned that the House has been misled by the Leader of the House. This is the earliest opportunity that I have had to raise the matter, and I think that it is important to put on record the fact that the Leader of the House was wrong in his assertion that the publication of the report was down to Scott. In fact, it is down to the Government.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot make a judgment on that matter, but of course he has made his point.

  Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Bill
    New clause 1

      GUIDELINES FOR INVESTIGATIONS (MATTERS OF CLINICAL JUDGMENT)
      In section 11 of the 1993 Act (procedure in respect of investigations) after subsection (6) there shall be inserted—
      "(7) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsections (1) to (6) above, the Secretary of State may, after consulting the Commissioner and such representatives of health service professions as the Secretary of State thinks fit, by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for the conduct of investigations which arise in consequence of the exercise of clinical judgment.
      (8) Regulations under subsection (7) above may make provision for—

      (a) the criteria to be used by the Commissioner in the selection of specialist medical advisers to assist him in that investigation;

      (b) the level of proof necessary to satisfy the Commissioner that a complaint is justified;

      (c) the circumstances under which the Commissioner may delay an investigation or refer it to another body; and

      (d) such other matters as the Secretary of State thinks fit.".'.—[Mr. Galbraith.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Sam Galbraith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      As the House knows, and as I have said before, this Bill is an excellent advance for the national health service. The Bill is considered to be an extension of the complaints procedures and systems within the NHS, which are important. I think that it has another important role, which is to improve the standards of care in the NHS, and we should not underestimate its value in achieving that.
      538
      It is important for us to be clear about how the Bill will operate, and that is the basis of my new clause. There will be two consequences as a result of the Bill introducing clinical judgment into the competence of the commissioner. I suspect that many more complaints will be raised than the Government and the health service ombudsman have anticipated. However, there will be some disappointment for many complainants in that no clinical incompetence will be found in the majority of cases. I have had many medical negligence cases presented to me and, in my experience, in about 85 or 90 per cent. of the cases that I was asked to review, there was no case to pursue. That will probably be the case here.
      If the system is to be seen to work properly, fairly and openly, while remembering that we are calling into question someone's clinical judgment, a number of factors should be put on record. From what I have read and heard, and from what the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), has said, I have absolute confidence in the ombudsman and believe that he will get it right. I have been impressed by his paper and by the various communications we have had. However, allowing for that, it would be nice to raise the issues that we hope that he will address.,
      The first of the regulations that I am proposing in my new clause concerns the criteria that should be used by the commissioner in the selection of the doctors who will conduct the investigation. That is the crux of the matter. Doctors, obviously, have to be judged by their peers. The judgment of general practitioners will have to be judged by other general practitioners and the judgment of hospital consultants by other hospital consultants because of the various clinical judgments that are involved. If a complaint is raised against a registrar, obviously, the question of clinical incompetence will vary depending on whether a consultant is involved. If the ombudsman finds that a registrar made a decision that should have been made higher up the line, I hope that the ombudsman will not shirk from his duty. He should examine not just whether the person who made that decision had sufficient knowledge to do so, but whether it should have been made by someone higher up. That is important.
      Another issue is the level of proof that will be necessary. That will be difficult because often there is a dispute about clinical judgment. I hope that that will be sorted out and that those who give the ombudsman advice will admit that there might be a dispute and that a reasonably large number of doctors would have done something one way and that other doctors would have done it another. We should recognise that there may be a dispute, which is the purpose of the second regulation that I have proposed.
      The next issue is the one that worries me the most. The ombudsman suggested that when he raises a complaint, he might like to say he will not pursue it because it should be pursued by the General Medical Council or the courts as a case of medical negligence. The ombudsman should not have that power within his remit. He should have a case referred to him and he should investigate it. Should the complainant seek to pursue the case through the GMC or the courts, as the ombudsman has made clear, he should have the power to delay the case and to reconsider the matter. The ombudsman should not have the power to suggest that it should be pursued in another manner because he cannot make judgments about serious professional misconduct or negligence, which are matters for law.

      539
      Those are a few of the points that I wished to raise. The Bill is a worthwhile addition to the complaints procedure. We should look at it as a method of improving clinical competence. I hope that the ombudsman will listen to the points that we have made and take them into consideration when he is dealing with such cases.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) for the manner in which he has presented the case. We had an extensive discussion on it in Committee, when he mentioned a number of points. As he will be aware, we do not believe that it is right to put the new clause into statute in the form that he has proposed. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of his confidence in the ombudsman, and we believe that the ombudsman should have the final say in such matters. As we know, the ombudsman has set out clearly in his report how he will consider these matters.
      The points raised by the hon. Gentleman and delineated, one by one, in the regulations that he suggests are certainly worth studying and are extremely valuable. I can draw the ombudsman's attention to the hon. Gentleman's points and I am sure that he will study them with great care because they deserve attention. In the light of that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw his new clause.
      Mr. Galbraith: I thank the Minister for his reply. In the light of his comments and my confidence in the ombudsman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 9

      COMPLAINTS: REQUIREMENTS TO BE MET
      Mr. David Hinchliffe: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 5, line 32, leave out 'In' and insert '—(1)'
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 33, after 'complaints'), insert
      'shall be amended as follows.
      (2) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted
      "(4A) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsections (1) to (4) above, the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make such provision for the receipt of complaints as appear to him likely to expedite and facilitate the making of complaints.
      (3)".%
      Mr. Hinchliffe: As I said on Second Reading, the Bill has my full support. However, we need to examine the wider complaints procedure and some of the issues—perhaps policy issues—that lead people to make complaints. My amendments would provide a mechanism to improve the complaints procedure.
      On Second Reading, I gained the impression that the Under-Secretary thought that there was some sense in what I had said. Indeed, he referred to my Yorkshire common sense, and that encouraged me to come to this Report stage and repeat some of my arguments. He may want to rephrase his remark when he responds later.
      540
      I shall explain why I want to amend the Bill at this stage. I was involved with the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 throughout its passage in the House. Unfortunately, the Act has caused considerable confusion among users of and complainants about the health service, as well as among those who work in the service, about the responsibilities of various elements of the NHS. Therefore, we need to simplify the complaints procedure, which is why I tabled the amendments.
      On Second Reading I cited the example of a constituent who had a lump in her breast and was involved with four separate agencies during her treatment and after care. Her complaints related to three of those four agencies. Her complaints were serious and I felt that there should be a simpler method than having to write to each of the agencies. We need to consider how we can improve the system for people like my constituent who encounter serious problems with the care they receive.
      I am sorry to see the Minister for Health leaving the Chamber. For some reason, whenever I get to my feet he leaves and then returns when he sees on the monitor that I have sat down. One of my arguments on Second Reading, which was not fully refuted by the Under-Secretary, was that the commissioner needs to examine the increasing examples of buck passing between the various elements of the NHS during the early stages of the complaints process. I have had experience of the purchaser blaming the provider, the provider blaming the purchaser, the hospital trust blaming the community trust and vice versa. With community care and continuing care, the NHS blames the local authority and vice versa. The whole issue of alleged bed blocking is a classic example.
      We need to recognise that the climate surrounding the structure of the NHS has changed. Even with the improvements proposed in the Bill, I do not believe that the complaints procedure recognises the complexity of the new NHS, especially the internal market.
      Another issue in my constituency and west Yorkshire generally is competition between similar providers, both for contracts for the provision of services and for patients themselves. That causes difficulties for patients who are referred from one hospital to another, yet those two hospitals are competing within the internal market. There are many arguments between providers in west Yorkshire. I represent Wakefield, which has arguments with Leeds because, within the internal market, it is removing services from Pinderfields hospital. Within the district, there are arguments between Pontefract general infirmary and Pinderfields hospital because of the competition for contracts. Therefore, patients who move between the hospitals for treatment are occasionally victims of that competition when they want to make a complaint. The Bill needs to include a mechanism for dealing with that competition which, on occasions, causes difficulties for people with legitimate complaints, many of which may end up in the hands of the health service commissioner.
      7.15 Pm
      I shall be interested to hear the Under-Secretary's response to another point that I raised on Second Reading. The role of the commissioner in examining the causal factors in a specific complaint is too narrow. My amendment would achieve a wider consideration of complaints within the commissioner's changed role.

      541
      Also on Second Reading, I made a point about resourcing arrangements that impact on patients' treatment. How does the commissioner's role fit into that? He needs to be able to consider the wider issues. Another example is fundholding, although I do not want to go into the merits or otherwise tonight. Nor shall I go into the merits or otherwise of the new resource allocation formula. My point is that occasionally those factors have a clear bearing on the serious complaints of patients, which may well end up in the commissioner's hands.
      When I spoke on Second Reading, the Minister for Health left at the start of my speech and returned at the end of it. I asked him to read my speech. To my surprise, the best present I had for Christmas was a response from him showing that, to his credit, he had read my speech. I was not entirely happy with his letter, dated 19 December, in response to my comments about the Bill and the wider issues that I felt should be dealt with in Committee. I had made two points—the first, which I said I had made four times previously, related to fundholding. The Minister for Health wrote:
      "You claimed that complaints handling in the NHS is characterised by buck-passing. I presume that you were unaware that buck-passing was possible until this Government introduced a formal complaints procedure into the health service. It is ironic that you should make this claim during a debate to further strengthen and clarify the new complaints procedures.
      You also claimed that Wakefield has lost resources. That, too, is nonsense."
      I shall deal with those points in a moment or two. I was pleased to note that at the end of his letter the Minister said:
      "Seasonal greetings and best wishes for a better-informed 1996."
      I reciprocated those greetings in a reply to the Minister, which the Under-Secretary may have seen.
      It is difficult for me to argue the case for the amendments without referring in detail to some of the concerns in my area. I want briefly to explain why we need to widen the complaints procedure in the way proposed in the amendments. I am currently receiving complaints from patients relating to the two-tier system. I do not intend to go into detail about this matter, as I have done so on several previous occasions.
      I have argued with the Minister and with the Secretary of State, and I have corresponded with both. I have met every agency concerned with the NHS in Wakefield, and I have got nowhere in looking at the role of the health service commissioner. Who is the referee in these affairs? Who can give me an objective and definitive view of what is happening?
      I want to mention a specific case as an example of where constituents believe that the two-tier system is impacting upon their personal experiences. Pinderfields trust is the main provider in my constituency, and it has a current contract with Wakefield health authority for roughly 20,900 finished consultant episodes across all specialisms. The projected outturn at present is approximately 25,800, a much higher figure than the actual contract. Of the difference between the contract figure and the projected figure, some 3,500 are covered by additional funding, but the balance remains to be sorted out.
      542
      That is why people in Wakefield believe that they are experiencing a two-tier system. That is my view, but it is also the view of a number of GPs and—I suspect—that of a number of people who work within the health service in Wakefield. But I cannot prove that that is the case. Hon. Members with similar opinions end up in the Chamber bandying claims about, perhaps for political reasons and perhaps for genuine reasons of concern about constituents' experiences. Some of the cases that I have dealt with are certainly very negative.
      There should be a mechanism whereby the commissioner, in investigating complaints, can look at some of the wider issues currently affecting my constituents and those of other hon. Members. I was speaking to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who followed me at Health questions in November and made exactly the same claim in relation to fundholding and the two-tier system in his area as I was making for Wakefield. I am trying to address the principle, rather than simply the practical examples from my constituency.
      In my view—I stress that it is my view—the commissioner has a role to play. Two-tier systems arise when there is a disparity in funding and, in this case, we have that between the district health authority and the fundholders. On the one hand, the fundholders are able to purchase, while on the other the district health authority cannot. There is either a disparity in funding or an imbalance between the elective and emergency contracts made with the provider trust. These issues must be looked at not by someone who is involved in the political arena, but by someone who is objective and has a role in investigating complaints.
      The amendment points to the need to examine such problems in the context of specific complaints, and I appreciate that these complaints may be more serious than those that I have heard from my constituents which deal with orthopaedic operations and other operations that have caused discomfort. How do we get an objective evaluation of the resources available to fundholders compared with those available to non-fundholders in an area such as Wakefield? That will clearly have a bearing on the complaints that may well end up in the hands of the commissioner.
      I turn briefly to buck-passing. The Minister of State wrote to me to say that it was nonsense to argue that buck-passing existed in the health service. I received that letter shortly after I received another letter from a local provider trust concerning a severely handicapped 16-year-old young man who was living with his family in the community in Wakefield. I felt that the letter was a classic example of a matter that could be addressed by the commissioner, or by the complaints procedure that would be introduced if the amendment is accepted.
      I wrote on 14 November to the Wakefield and Pontefract community health trust with regard to the young man, who was severely disabled. I worked, as one or two people know, in social work for more than 20 years before I came to the House. The young man was one of the worst cases that I have ever seen living in the community and being cared for by parents. He is completely bedfast. He cannot feed himself, wash himself or dress himself. He cannot speak, and some people refer to him unkindly as a cabbage because, frankly, he can do nothing for himself. He is totally dependent on two extremely dedicated parents who have given up their lives to care for this young man.

      543
      The parents contacted me for the simple reason that they wanted respite care above and beyond the brief care that they had at the time. In short, they could see that if they did not get some more relief and support, they could no longer go on caring. I have seen young men like him before, but always in a hospital environment. I cannot recall seeing anyone as vulnerable and as multiply handicapped as that young man being cared for by parents within the community.
      I wrote to the Wakefield and Pontefract community health trust to ask them to consider the request for additional respite care for the family, because I felt that if anyone was deserving of such care, these parents were. I asked the chief executive to do as I had done, and pay a personal visit to the family. Hon. Members will know that one can read and write about people, but until one sees the situation, one does not know what is going on. With permission, I will quote the chief executive's reply to me. While I will not go into great detail, I want to make an important point about a specific case that relates to the amendment. I shall not name the young man or his family. The chief executive's reply was dated 5 December, and said:
      "Thank you for your letter of 14 November.
      I am sure that you are aware of the range of services which we provide, namely, Rose Garth Respite Care Bungalow and the Community Team: Learning Disabilities (Children and Adults) which provides care to many, many children, adults and families throughout the District. The volume of work we carry out and the value of the care and respite given to families is often not appreciated other than by those in receipt of care. The present staff and facility resources are now fully stretched. I do not believe there is any slack in any part of the service.
      The Health Authority is fully aware of the demand for additional services and is familial with the number of families who are at the end of their tether. In their future plans they are sympathetic to funding additional services. It is now a matter of priority and funding, which can only be resolved by the Health Authority.
      This Trust will respond quickly to the availability of additional funds and extend the service to those families in real need."
      When that letter came to me, I had to ring the chief executive to ask, "What are you saying to me?" In short, he was saying, "It's not my problem. It is the problem of the health authority." I have written to the provider of existing respite services to ask for more. To me, this is a classic case of buck-passing. If it is not buck-passing, frankly I do not know what it is.
      Having sent a copy of the letter to the family shortly before Christmas—they were not entirely happy, as one might imagine—I had to raise the matter with the health authority. My query to the Minister is, "Was I wrong to write to the provider of services to ask for more?" Do I need to raise every complaint or concern with the purchaser? If so, do we extend that to complaints received on community care, where the local authority is involved? Do I have to write to the Government, who provide the special transitional grant for community care funding? It strikes me that the principles at stake here would result in enormous complexity—even more than we have now—if they were followed to their obvious conclusion.
      I am pleased to report that the outcome of this case has, eventually, been positive. The chief executive and the chair-designate of the Wakefield health authority visited the family, and were totally overwhelmed by the care and dedication of the parents. They then agreed to an extra 12 hours of respite care. Understandably, the family were aggrieved by the response of the trust, and my concern is
      544
      whether I handled the matter wrongly. Did I write to the wrong people? In future, should I write to the health authority on every issue? I have done that in the past, but have been referred to the provider.
      I served on the Standing Committee dealing with the Bill, and I have been an Opposition Front-Bench member. I have been involved in the NHS for many years as vice-chair of a community health council and as member of a health authority. I have been actively involved in working in the NGS through social services. I am totally baffled, and I am supposed to know my way around the issue.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, may I remind him that he said that he was not going to go into too much detail. It is important that he makes only points that support his amendment. He is going very wide and I have been very tolerant owing to the nature of the subject under consideration.
      Mr. Hinchliffe: I appreciate that you have been very reasonable, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that you understand that, in illustrating why the amendments are necessary, I needed to go into such detail about individual circumstances.
      7.30 pm
      Finally on buck-passing, my amendment is aimed at improving the response to complaints, so that distress is not caused to families such as that of the constituent whom I mentioned.
      In his reply to me, the Minister of State implied that I had misled the House about funding. When arguing that concern on Second Reading, I was simply pointing out that we need someone who is empowered to consider whether any funding issues have a bearing on a complaint. I was questioning, not whether we have enough money in the national health service—whatever the Government, we all accept that there will never be enough to deal with all the demand—but the Government's allocation formula for individual health authorities. That was my point on Second Reading and I do not think that the Minister of State fully understood it.
      In my area—Wakefield health authority—the major purchaser of services such as those to which I referred has been told that the authority is over-funded to the tune of £7 million according to the Government's new formula. I will not go into detail about why the formula is wrong because you will not allow it, Madam Deputy Speaker. I mentioned that briefly on Second Reading and I was ruled out of order then. I simply must say, however, that the report of the district health authority of 20 December 1994 details the implications of the authority losing £7 million.
      I moved the amendments because I believe that, if resourcing has a bearing on a complaint, it is appropriate for the commissioner to consider it, or for the complaints procedure to allow an objective overview by someone who understands the health service and is not a political figure, and who can conclude what is fair.
      My area has been badly done to by the changes. The impact will come through this year. There will be more cases and I will have to write more letters about individual complaints. The commissioner has a role to play, if he can see objectively that we are getting a bad deal.

      545
      On that subject I shall conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for your tolerance and for allowing me to make those points. I hope that the Minister understands that I am simply asking that we consider ways in which we can clarify and simplify the complaints procedures. At the moment many people are going round in circles, including many hon. Members. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Second Reading debate, he will see that I had support from Conservative Members when I mentioned the huge increase in our work load since the internal market was introduced. We are writing letters that we did not have to write before. It is causing us work and it is causing our constituents many difficulties.
      Mr. Horam: I referred to Yorkshire common sense when I dealt with the points raised by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on Second Reading. I also thought that Yorkshire qualities included a certain taciturnity, but that was not so evident this evening, I am afraid. None the less, the hon. Gentleman made some important arguments.
      First, on complexity—a point that he has made strongly in the past—let me assure the hon. Gentleman that the idea of establishing the new three-stage procedure is to simplify and clarify the present complexity.
      Secondly, if buck-passing exists, one of the functions of the ombudsman is to nail it. He is the final court of appeal and can certainly decide whether responsibility for something has been passed unreasonably between one authority and a general practitioner, or whatever the case may be. So, there is a recourse.
      On the important subject of resources and the two-tier system and so forth, while it is obviously not the case that the ombudsman can look into general questions of resources, as that would be second guessing the national health service and its allocation of resources, he will be able to look into cases of individual hardship in which he considers that there might have been an unreasonable allocation of resources. I assure the hon. Member for Wakefield about that.
      Mr. Hinchliffe: I am grateful for those comments. I was not clear whether, by an individual case, the Minister means that of a patient, a health authority, or both.
      Mr. Horam: No, I am talking about the patient, because we are dealing with individual complaints.
      I am afraid to say that the amendment is defective. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman tried hard to get it right, but it is difficult. It would change matters only for complaints made to the health service commissioner and the hon. Gentleman is concerned with complaints made at stages 1 and 2. Therefore, his amendment would not do what he wants it to do.
      In the light of the hon. Gentleman's letter to me—I have it in front of me—as a consequence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State writing to him, and what he has said in the past half hour or so, I will consider what he has said and consider the letter and reply to him on the matters that he has raised. In view of that, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Hinchliffe: I am grateful for the Minister's response. I recognise that the amendments have certain
      546
      technical deficiencies, but we have done our best to ensure a debate on some areas of concern. I think that the Minister understands our concerns, which are reasonable. On the basis of his assurance that he will write to me on those matters, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 10

      REPORTS
      Mr. Henry McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 5, line 44, at end insert—
      '(2A) After subsection (1) insert—
      "(1A) Before making the report of the results of an investigation the Commissioner—

      (a) shall send a draft factual summary of the matters investigated, excluding his findings and recommendations, to the person and body referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c) in subsection (1) above, and shall give them an opportunity to indicate any factual inaccuracies or omissions;

      (b) may, for purposes specified by him, send to the person and body referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c) in subsection (1) above, a draft of either his findings or his proposed recommendations or both, but shall not send such draft to one party only.".'.

      Again, I do not want to detain the House on this item. It was discussed extensively in Committee and the Minister has provided a helpful letter to my hon. Friends regarding the commissioner's views.
      The amendment was tabled merely to ensure a completely level playing field. At present, the summary of facts is submitted to the complainant, but it was felt that all the details should be passed to the complainant at the conclusion of the case because the factual content of the initial summary provided to the complainant by the commissioner and that of the final report could differ.
      Clearly, the ombudsman has said that he would be happier for the power to be left with him to allow him to use his discretion under section 11 of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 and we have the greatest confidence in Mr. Reid. No criticism is implied by our amendment; it is merely designed to find out whether the Minister wants to consider the matter further to ensure that we take away the feeling of bitterness and anger in any complaints procedure—the feeling that there is not a level playing field—which would surely help the procedure. I ask the Minister to respond on the basis of those brief comments.
      Mr. Horam: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Indeed, it was made with great strength and clarity in Committee. I said then what we could hope to do and I talked to the commissioner, Mr. Reid, about it. As a result, he wrote the letter.
      In the light of the general concern in the House and in the Committee, I am prepared to take the matter a stage further—as a response to the amendment and the hon. Gentleman's comments. I will ask the commissioner to consider further his practice and invite the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to look into, not only the question of the health commissioner, but that of the parliamentary commissioner—perhaps a larger part of the total

      547
      framework—and decide whether it is fully satisfied that the procedures that the commissioner has outlined are totally correct, and whether it should seriously consider moving towards the hon. Gentleman's suggestions and those made in Committee. Allowing a senior, important Committee of the House to consider the matter fully will take it forward in the appropriate way.
      Mr. McLeish: That is a fair and positive response to the concerns of Opposition Members and of organisations such as the National Consumer Council. It satisfies us that the. matter should be reconsidered. It will be discussed by the Select Committee. We welcome the further wisdom of Mr. Reid. With those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      7.40 pm
      Mr. Horam: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The proceedings on the Bill have, I am pleased to say, been marked by complete agreement on its fundamental objectives. The harmony between hon. Members has been a reflection of the general consent that the proposals have commanded in the NHS and among consumer groups.
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and his colleagues, such as the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and others, for their constructive attitude both this evening and throughout proceedings. I also thank my hon. Friends for their support for the Bill. I am grateful to the professions, which have adopted a constructive attitude, and to the ombudsman, who has been willing to make himself available to discuss the points that arose during our proceedings.
      I am confident that, with stages 1 and 2, which we will take separate legislative action to implement, we have a new procedure which will ultimately be of great benefit to NHS patients.
      Mr. McLeish: I agree with the Minister's comments. This is the third building block in the new complaints procedure and we wish it well in its implementation. As with many other things, there will be problems but if there is a consensus among professional groups and if the patients and families involved take the matter seriously and support the system, it will improve dramatically the health service complaints procedure.
      In the commissioner, we have an excellent custodian of fairness. If he can ensure that what we have talked about is properly put into practice I have no doubt that the procedure will be a significant improvement for patients and help the health service. It illustrates to people outside that the House can agree on certain matters despite the fact that we tear each other apart on other aspects of health care.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Parish Councils (Fareham)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this
  House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
  7.42 pm
  Sir Peter Lloyd: As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, the Local Government Commission recommended the creation of two parish councils in the Warsash and Sarisbury wards of Fareham borough in my constituency. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made his response last March to the commission's proposals on Hampshire generally, and recommended to the House, inter alia, that the arrangements in Fareham should remain unchanged, it was naturally taken by those in Fareham who followed those matters, not least myself, as the end of matter—including parishing.
  There was, therefore, considerable surprise, pleasant to some but unwelcome to many others, when in July, in response to a written question, the Secretary of State announced that parish councils were to be set up in the two wards. The shock for those opposed was all the greater because they had had no inkling that the Secretary of State was minded to come to such a decision or that he had power to do so without notice, debate or parliamentary approval such as is required for changes to district and county authorities.
  I immediately met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and told him that I did not believe that there was the sort of local support that would justify the decision and hoped that he would consider with care the objections that I was sure that he would receive. Shortly afterwards, all parties on the borough council combined behind a motion to secure a reversal of the decision with 36 out of 38 councillors present voting for the motion and two abstaining. None was against.
  The council observed that the meetings to discuss the possibilities of parishing had been sparsely attended and that the commission's consultation leaflet, issued after it had published its provisional recommendation, produced a response from seven people in Sarisbury and 12 in Warsash—insufficient numbers, the council noted, even to man the proposed parish councils in the wards in question.
  In addition, the ward councillors stressed to me that their soundings made it clear that there was no general desire for parish councils; rather there was widespread opposition among those who knew of the decision—opposition which they believed would include the overwhelming majority of the local population when the inevitable extra charges were added to their council tax bills.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister will remember, we have had a number of exchanges on the matter. In one, he conceded that his Department had received only six letters from the public on the issue, three opposing parishing in Warsash, two against parishing in Sarisbury and one in favour. He explained that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's decision was based on what he described as
  "the strong level of public support expressed to the commission during the consultation exercise."
  He went on to say, reasonably—I am grateful to him for this—that, if there were clear evidence that the majority of the electorate in the two wards were against the proposed

  549
  parishing arrangements, he and his colleagues would certainly reconsider the decision. Meanwhile, he would delay implementation of the commencement order so that such evidence might be produced.
  I told the six ward councillors of my hon. Friend the Minister's comments and explained that if they were to carry conviction, they would need to provide objective, additional evidence that could not be dismissed as hunch or hearsay. Petitions would not do; generally they are signed only by those in favour so those against are not recorded. Pleas in the press for letters to be sent in are usually ignored and there is no way of knowing whether the people who respond are representative.
  The six councillors agreed to select three residential roads at random in each ward and call on every house, going back to houses where no one was in, so that they would have the view of a genuinely representative sample. I have already passed on the result of those surveys to my hon. Friend the Minister. They show that, of those responding in both wards, 84 per cent. were against parishing in Sarisbury and 77 per cent. against in Warsash; 2 per cent. were in favour in Sarisbury and 5 per cent. in Warsash. "Don't knows" were 18 per cent. in Warsash and 14 per cent. in Sarisbury. More than 200 households were canvassed in all.
  It is significant that quite a number of those households were unaware that there was a proposal to give them a parish council. I believe that the survey is crucial because it is, I understand, the only genuinely random survey that has been conducted in the whole parish consultation exercise and its results are unambiguous, as my hon. Friend can see.
  The Local Government Commission made no such study. After it had published its provisional recommendations for Hampshire, the commission circulated a leaflet with a tear-off reply slip to all houses. The leaflet described the commission's proposals concentrating, properly, on the options for the district and county councils and specifically asked for responses. Elsewhere in the leaflet, there was an easy-to-miss reference to the commission's parish recommendations across Hampshire, to which it did not specifically ask for responses.
  The borough council observed that only seven replies were received from Sarisbury and 12 from Warsash. I am told by local councillors that they know of at least four other letters against the proposal that were sent to the commission. It was no doubt because they were not on the official slip that they were not included in the 19 responses I mentioned earlier.
  The Local Government Commission did its work and made its provisional parish recommendation in its normal manner, not—this is vital to the argument—by trying to make its own assessment of local opinion. It did not regard that as its job. It thought that its job with parishing was to give a fair wind to proposals from local groups that convinced it that they had put together a well thought-out proposition, were seeking to involve local people and had evidence of some local support.
  In that respect, the Warsash and Sarisbury residents' associations, with the advice and backing of the Hampshire Association of Parish Councils, deserve praise for setting the ball rolling, convening public meetings and
  550
  endeavouring to interest local residents in the issue. It was their proper role to do so and they obviously made great efforts to discharge it as well as they could.
  Warsash residents held a public meeting in March 1993. Some 300 people attended, although many had left by the time a vote was taken and the decision to set up a steering committee to investigate the matter further was made with a comparatively small majority. Later that year, 2,000 questionnaires were distributed. Of those, 214 were returned-145 in favour of setting up a parish council and 74 against. A local census was also taken with similar results. It is worth noting that Warsash has more than 6,000 electors.
  Similarly, the Sarisbury residents' association called a public meeting in June 1993, which representatives of the Hampshire Association of Parish Councils addressed. Some 20 to 30 people attended and agreed unanimously to set up a steering committee to examine further the proposition for a parish council. Many local organisations were then invited to send representatives to join the steering committee, and seven or eight did so.
  The steering committee decided to place a questionnaire with a reply slip in the local free magazine, The Informer. It received 37 replies in favour and one against. The committee held a final open meeting in October 1993, at which the 20 to 30 people present decided unanimously to submit its proposal for a parish council to the Local Government Commission. Sarisbury has some 4,500 electors.
  It is clear that both associations and steering committees made genuine attempts to involve the wider public and canvas residents' views and support, but, in the light of those figures, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will want to look again carefully at the advice that he received that
  "there was a strong level of local support for parishing expressed during the consultative exercise".
  Despite the spirited endeavours of the residents' associations, there was clearly very little.
  There was undoubtedly some interest in parishing and, in the early days of the commission's work when all the talk was of boroughs amalgamating into larger, single-tier authorities, more people were prepared to see merit in a new, very local elected body. That mood passed with the Secretary of State's widely welcomed decision to leave the borough and county structure unchanged.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will agree that that review of local government was special in that, unlike its predecessors, it sought to take note of local preferences. County and district councils are needed to deliver services efficiently and effectively, so the Secretary of State cannot surrender his final judgment on them to an opinion poll, however seriously he takes public opinion. With parishing, however, it is different. Parishes are not essential for providing services. If they were, there would be a national policy to set them up throughout the country. The uneven pattern of parish distribution clearly depends on history and local preference, not on utility or policy.
  Parish councils are valuable in local communities that want them. I should be happy to have them in Warsash and Sarisbury if I were convinced that they would be welcomed, and so would the local councillors. Indeed, I have them in the rural Winchester parts of my constituency, where some city councillors also sit on

  551
  parish councils and find it rewarding and useful to do so. This debate, however, is not about the merits or otherwise or parish councils; it is focused narrowly on the question of local support for the Local Government Commission's recommendation for Sarisbury and Warsash.
  On that essential point, local opinion is such that there is no basis on which the Secretary of State can reasonably confirm the order to set up the councils. I am sure that he does not want to impose them on an unwilling electorate. If he did, I fear that he would simply ensure that the majority thought extremely unkindly of him whenever it paid the extra on its council tax bills. However, I am certain that his objective in the matter is the same as mine: to ensure that his decision corresponds with the general tenor of local opinion.
  My hon. Friend the Minister and the Secretary of State postponed implementation of the original recommendation so that they could look carefully at the evidence. If they still feel that they do not have enough, I should be glad if they would speedily commission some more independent research or studies on another genuinely representative sample, perhaps through the good offices of the Local Government Commission. I would be content with the suggestion, put to me in a personal capacity by the chairman of the Warsash residents' association, to hold an officially organised referendum. I suppose that it could be along the lines of a town vote, which used to be a feature of local government between the wars.
  However, I am certain that no one—locally or in Government—would be in favour of another long, drawn-out consultation. Some of those most in favour of parishing would prefer a clear-cut decision soon, even if it is no, which, as I believe that I have shown, is the only decision that my hon. Friend the Minister can properly come to on the considerable evidence that I have put before him.
  7.55 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) on his success in the ballot. I am genuinely delighted that he has used this opportunity to clarify many of the figures and spell them out succinctly, so that it will be possible to take them away and consider them again.
  Until we can consider the points that my right hon. Friend has made, it is worth touching on the scene as we now see it. As he said, during the early stages of its review in Hampshire, the Local Government Commission
  552
  received proposals for the creation of seven new parishes, including the two that he mentioned this evening. Those proposals were put forward by local steering committees set up in Sarisbury and Warsash to look at the question of emparishing. Both groups held public meetings and conducted surveys, which provided some evidence that local residents supported the creation of parishes for both areas. My right hon. Friend covered that matter carefully. A report in the Local Government Chronicle of August 1993 said that business in Warsash favoured a parish council.
  The commission consulted on all the parishing proposals when it included them in its draft report for Hampshire. As it received only one representation against the emparishment of Sarisbury and none against the emparishment of Warsash, it included both in its final report. The representations that we then received about the final proposals did not suggest that we would be justified in overturning the commission's recommendation for Fareham. Both those consultations took place against a background of draft and final recommendations for no change in the county and district structure in Fareham. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accepted the parish recommendations in his announcement of 11 July.
  Following further correspondence from my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, we agreed to look again at our decision, should evidence be provided to show that the majority of the electorate was clearly against the parishing proposals. As my right hon. Friend said, Fareham councillors have now carried out surveys in selected parts of both Sarisbury and Warsash, the results of which suggest that the majority of the residents who were approached were against the proposed parishes. A cynic suggested to me that, because a letter went out earlier highlighting the levy of just one nearby parish, that could have influenced the response. At the same time, I also received letters that continued to support the recommendation and asked that we proceed with creating the new parishes.
  I should like to take away the points that my right hon. Friend has made this evening, look at them carefully and put them before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, so that we may consider them before reaching a final decision. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity that my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham has provided for us to look at this matter clearly and afresh, with the figures succinctly before us.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eight o'clock.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee to be held in(a) Ayr, (b) Kilmarnock, (c) Cumnock, (d) Dumfries, (e) Stranraer, (f) Prestwick, (g) Troon and (h) Girvan. [8566]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am delighted with the enthusiasm now being shown by Opposition Members for my proposals to take the Scottish Grand Committee to locations throughout Scotland. Possible venues in Scotland must first of all be assessed by the House authorities before they can be added to the list of suitable locations. Decisions are then taken through the usual channels on where the Scottish Grand Committee should meet.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the annual telephone costs to(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) his Department's non-departmental public bodies staff for each of the years (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97; and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas of (a) to (c). [11358]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the expenditure of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all external consultants including management consultants for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will estimate the savings accruing to his Department from the use of consultants in each of these years. [11355]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Expenditure by the Scottish Office and its associated agencies on external consultants including management consultants was:

  1989–90: £2,095,000

  1991–92: £10,836,000

  1993–94: £5,383,000

  1994–95: £4,079,000

  1995–96: £5,758,000

  304
  No details are currently available centrally on the expenditure during 1979–80, the expenditure to date on external consultants for 1995–96, the estimate of expenditure for 1996–97, or the expenditure by non-departmental public bodies. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Not all consultancy projects are capable of being measured in terms of identifiable savings. The Scottish Office is currently preparing a report summarising the benefits obtained from major projects since April 1992. I shall write to the hon. Member on this subject as soon as possible and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Conservative Central Office
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters and faxes have been dispatched from his Department to Conservative central office in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [11477]

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is not available.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the expenditure of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will estimate the savings accruing to his Department from the use of consultants in each of these years. [11383]

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested in not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of absenteeism rates in days per annum for staff in his Department for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 198990, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96. [11385]

  Mr. Howard
  Figures are not collected centrally on absenteeism.

  The average number of working days lost through sick absence per staff year in the Home Office, including its agencies, for which data are available was as follows:

  1991: 9.9

  1992: 9.0

  1993: 10.6

  1994: 10.1

  Police Funding
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to review the pensions element of the police funding allocation formula. [11902]

  Mr. Maclean
  No. The present mechanism for allocating money for police pensions is the best available to us. We shall continue to refine it.

  Mrs. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Minister of State's letter of 30 November 1995, if he will give details of those aspects of the police funding allocation formula which are in need of further work. [11901]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the report entitled "Critical Analysis of the Police Funding Formula", produced last summer by the independent consultants Price Waterhouse. We have carried out the further work recommended by the consultants, but in some instances it has proved inconclusive and investigations will continue into 1996. Copies of the report are in the Library.

  Prisoners (Mechanical Restraints)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how often the Home Office official at Doncaster prison responsible for the punishment of inmates has authorised the use of(a) bodybelts, (b) ankle straps, (c) handcuffs and (d) special segregation unit cells since the prison was opened; [8424]

  (2) what is the (a) shortest, (b) longest and (c) average time during which inmates at Doncaster prison have been detained in a bodybelt or mechanical restraint since it opened; [8442]

  (3) on how many occasions since it opened inmates in Doncaster prison have been kept in bodybelts for more than 12 hours; [8421]

  (4) on how many occasions since it opened inmates at Doncaster prison have been (a) detained in a strip cell and (b) restrained by bodybelts for (i) medical or (ii) non-medical purposes. [8439]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 25 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the use of restraints, special segregation unit cells and strip cells at Doncaster prison since its opening in June 1994.
  The use of ankle-straps has twice been authorized on one inmate, for medical reasons, to prevent him causing himself serious and permanent injury. The first occasion was for 24 hours 37 minutes and the second was for six days and 55 minutes.
  The use of the special cell was authorized on 57 occasions during the period 20 June 1994 to 31 December 1994. It was also used without authorization on 44 occasions. This resulted in the operating company Premier Prison Services being issued with a default notice for use of the cell without the Controller's authorization. From 1 January to 31 December 1995 the special cell was used on 41 occasions with the authorization of the Controller of each occasion.
  306
  Bodybelts have been used on two occasions since the prison opened, once for medical and once for non-medical reasons. The longest time spent in a body belt is two hours. The shortest time spent in a body belt was 1 hour 55 minutes. This gives an average time of I hour 57 minutes.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list for each prison in England and Wales the number of occasions that restraints were used on(a) men and (b) women prisoners during December 1995; [11603]

  (2) how many (a) men and (b) women were placed in restraints when taken outside prisons, in England and Wales, for whatever reason, during the week beginning 1 January 1996. [11604]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 25 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about restraints used on prisoners in England and Wales.
  This information is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the protection of remand prisoners under 18 years of age from bullying at Doncaster prison. [9900]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 25 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the protection of remand prisoners under 18 years of age from bullying at Doncaster prison.
  Doncaster has already taken a number of steps to minimise bullying among young offender remand prisoners. Those considered to be bullying are isolated from other prisoners until they cease such activities. Doncaster has also installed cameras to help staff in monitoring the movement and behaviour of juvenile offenders and employed a full-time anti-bullying co-ordinator and removed personal cell keys from young offenders, in order to prevent them being forced to hand them over to other prisoners.
  Anti-bullying measures are subject to continuous review and appraisal. A "Safe Inside Doncaster" Committee has recently been formed, which has been tasked with helping to increase further the safety and comfort of prisoners inside the prison environment. Doncaster takes very seriously its commitment to try and prevent bullying among this age group.

  Holloway Prison
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the ethnic breakdown of women prisoners in Holloway prison in December 1995 or at the latest available date. [10084]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  307
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Diane Abbott, dated 25 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the ethnic breakdown of women prisoners in Holloway prison.
  The ethnic breakdown of women prisoners in Holloway prison on 17 January 1996 is given in the attached table.

  Adult

  Young offender

  Total

  Asian—Bangladeshi

  0

  0

  0

  Asian—Indian

  3

  1

  4

  Asian—other

  2

  0

  2

  Asian—Pakistani

  2

  0

  2

  Black—African

  42

  5

  47

  Black—Caribbean

  91

  8

  99

  Black—other

  25

  8

  33

  Chinese

  0

  0

  0

  Other

  24

  1

  25

  White

  299

  40

  339

  Martin Fenton
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the consideration by the Parole Board of the application by Martin Fenton, currently serving a life sentence for murder. [10252]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Mr. Fenton's case was last considered by the Parole Board on 1 December 1995. The board did not recommend his release on life licence.

  On 14 January 1996, Mr. Fenton suffered a cardiac arrest. He was immediately admitted to hospital where he is still serious ill. I shall be writing to the hon. Member about that.

  Prisons Budgets and Staff
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each prison, including those which are privately managed(a) the projected budget in monetary terms, (b) the percentage change and (c) the change in staffing levels for each financial year between 1996–97 and 1999–2000, inclusive. [10296]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 25 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for the budget allocation and staffing levels for each prison establishment for each financial year 1996–97 and 1992–2000.
  The process of setting budgets for public sector establishments for 1996–97 is not yet complete. I will send you details of budgets once they are finished.
  Governors are in the process of working out staffing projections for their establishments in 1996–97. I will send you their estimates once governors have had the opportunity to discuss them with their staff locally. I will also send you the provision made for payments to private sector prisons for 1996–97. These are not exactly the same as cash-limited budgets, as the terms of the contract may trigger additional payments in some circumstances.
  308
  We do not at present have budget figures at establishment level more than one year ahead. But later this year we shall be issuing indicative spending figures for the years 1997–98 to 1998–99.

  Stoke Heath Young Offenders Institution
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the highest number of visitors strip searched in a single day during November 1995 at Stoke Heath young offenders institution without the police being present; and how many visitors to Stoke Heath young offenders institution have been strip searched in each of the last six months. [10327]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 25 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the strip searching of visitors to Stoke Heath Young Offenders Institution during November 1995 and in each of the last six months.
  There were no strip searches of visitors to Stoke Heath YOI in November 1995. In the last six months there has been one strip search of a visitor to Stoke Heath YOI.

  Immigration and Asylum Interviews
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost of tape recording immigration and asylum interviews at ports of entry and at the Home Office. [10477]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We have not made any estimates of the cost of tape recording immigration and asylum interviews at ports of entry or at the Home Office. We have no plans to introduce the tape recording of such interviews.

  Prison Service (Director General)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the previous Directors General of the Prison Service, the dates of their retirement, resignation or dismissal and the dates on which their successors took over. [10877]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Mr. Richard Tilt was appointed temporary Director General of the Prison Service on 16 October 1995. The available information in respect of previous Directors Generals—a term used since 1967—is as follows:

  Mr. Derek Lewis (6 January 1993–16 October 1995. Dismissed)

  Mr. Joe Pilling (14 August 1991–2 January 1993. Transferred)

  Mr. Christopher Train (14 March 1983–31 August 1991. Retired)

  Mr. Dennis Trevelyan (1 January 1978–13 March 1983. Transferred)

  Mr. Eric Wright (1973–1977. Retired)

  Mr. William Cox (1970–1973. Transferred)

  Mr. William Pile (1964–1970. Transferred)

  Incapacitants
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 587, what conclusions he has reached on the effects on human health of (a) CS and

  309
  (b) incapacitant products containing oleoresin capsicum. [11515]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has concluded that CS presents no significant risk to human health, but that not enough is currently known about oleoresin capsicum for us to be reassured as to its effects on human health.

TREASURY

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the numbers in work for each of the last 30 years, dividing this total where possible between full and part-time workers. [11890]

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

  Work force in employment1 in Great Britain, seasonally adjusted: at June

  (Thousands)

  All2

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1965

  24,860

  1—

  1—

  1966

  25,017

  1—

  1—

  1967

  24,670

  1—

  1—

  1968

  24,519

  1—

  1—

  1969

  24,536

  1—

  1—

  1970

  24,428

  1—

  1—

  1971

  24,097

  1—

  1—

  1972

  24,079

  1—

  1—

  1973

  24,646

  1—

  1—

  1974

  24,707

  1—

  1—

  1975

  24,608

  1—

  1—

  1976

  24,382

  1—

  1—

  1977

  24,401

  1—

  1—

  1978

  24,523

  1—

  1—

  1979

  24,881

  1—

  1—

  1980

  24,838

  1—

  1—

  1981

  23,887

  1—

  1—

  1982

  23,461

  1—

  1—

  1983

  23,184

  18,299

  4,885

  1984

  23,836

  18,556

  5,280

  1985

  24,106

  18,705

  5,401

  1986

  24,132

  18,569

  5,563

  1987

  24,651

  18,809

  5,842

  1988

  25,523

  19,482

  6,042

  1989

  26,322

  19,933

  6,389

  1990

  26,555

  19,912

  6,644

  1991

  25,657

  19,095

  6,562

  1992

  25,091

  18,515

  6,576

  1993

  24,703

  18,097

  6,605

  1994

  24,823

  18,041

  6,781

  1995

  25,052

  18,098

  6,953

  1Includes employees in employment, self-employed, HM forces and work-related Government training programme participants.

  2May not equal sum of full and part-time due to rounding.

  "—1" denotes information not available.

  Source:

  CSO.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of Exchequer if he will list the number of unemployed workers who(a) return to the labour market and (b) cease claiming benefit after (i) under one month's unemployment, (ii) over one month's unemployment but less than two month's unemployment, (iii) each succeeding period of
  310
  one month up to 12 months' unemployment and (iv) over 12 months' unemployment. [11891]

  Mrs. Knight
  The following table shows the duration of claim for claimants who left the claimant count in the United Kingdom between 10 November 1995 and 14 December 1995. No information is available on the destination of claimants who cease to claim unemployment-related benefit.

  Duration of claim for claimants leaving the claimant count between 10 November 1995 and 14 December 1995, United Kingdom

  Duration of claim (weeks)

  Number of claimants

  Up to 4

  70,517

  Over 4 and up to 8

  42,608

  Over 8 and up to 12

  28,398

  Over 12 and up to 16

  19,772

  Over 16 and up to 20

  16,728

  Over 20 and up to 24

  13,583

  Over 24 and up to 28

  9,343

  Over 28 and up to 32

  10,163

  Over 32 and up to 36

  9,402

  Over 36 and up to 40

  6,235

  Over 40 and up to 44

  5,086

  Over 44 and up to 48

  4,595

  Over 48 and up to 52

  3,604

  Over 52

  56,158

  Total

  296,192

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have at any time used copies of draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report to prepare the Government's response to Sir Richard's report. [11887]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No decision about the response to Sir Richard Scott's report will be taken until the report has been received.

  In considering issues relating to the Scott inquiry, all Departments naturally take account of material properly available to them.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if copies of draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report arc in the possession of Ministers or officials in his Department other than those to whom draft sections of the report were sent by Sir Richard Scott. [11886]

  Mr. Clarke
  In forwarding draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report to Ministers and officials, the inquiry expressly stated that individuals could, at their discretion, make a copy for a legal or other adviser and another for the Department concerned.

  Employment Statistics (Accuracy)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new proposals he has to improve the accuracy of employment statistics. [9414]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]Central Statistical Office statisticians keep methods under constant review. A number of new initiatives have been put in place in recent years. Further initiatives will be implemented as appropriate.
  311
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of people in each of the last three years in the north-west in(a) part-time employment and (b) temporary employment. [11601]

  Mrs. Knight
  The information requested is available from the labour force survey and is shown in the following table.

  Employees in North West region: Summer of each year (thousands)1

  Year

  Part-time

  Temporary

  1993

  555

  146

  1994

  576

  164

  1995

  580

  163

  1Unadjusted.

  Source:

  CSO, Labour Force Survey.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) 16-year-olds and (b) 17-year-olds were available for work in (i) Lancashire and (ii) the north-west at the latest date for which figures are available. [11602]

  Mrs. Knight
  The following table shows the latest available information from the summer (June to August) 1995 labour force survey.

  16 and 17-year-olds in employment or ILO unemployed (summer 1995, not seasonally adjusted)

  North-west

  Lancashire

  Thousands

  16

  17

  16–17

  In employment

  25

  42

  16

  Of which in FTE1

  17

  22

  10

  ILO unemployed2

  16

  11

  n/a

  1In full-time education.

  2Not in employment, but seeking work in past four weeks and available to start in the next two weeks.

  n/a Not available, estimate below 10,000.

  Earnings (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the average(a) weekly earnings, (b) total hours, (c) average hourly earnings and (d) median hourly earnings, including and excluding overtime, for (i) all part-time females and (ii) all part-time males on adult rates in (1) West Yorkshire, (2) South Yorkshire, (3) North Yorkshire, (4) Humberside and (5) Yorkshire and Humberside as a whole, broken down to show (A) manual and (b) non-manual workers; [10688]

  (2) if he will list the proportion of full-time employees on adult rates with weekly earnings of less than (a) £150, (b) £200 and (c) £250 per week (i) excluding and (ii) including overtime, in (1) West Yorkshire, (2) South Yorkshire, (3) North Yorkshire, (4) Humberside and (5) Yorkshire and Humberside as a whole for all full-time (A) males and (B) females on adult rates, broken down to show (x) manual and (y) non-manual workers; [10689]

  (3) if he will list the proportion of employees on adult rates earning less than (a) £3.20, (b) £3.50, (c) £4.00, (d) £4.60 and (e) £6.00 per hour in (i) West Yorkshire, (ii) South Yorkshire, (iii) North Yorkshire, (iv) Humberside and (v) Yorkshire and Humberside as a whole, (1) excluding and (2) including overtime for (A) all full-time males, (B) all part-time males, (c) all
  312
  full-time females and (D) all part-time females on adult rates, broken down to show (x) manual and (y) non-manual workers. [10690]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information is contained in tables which I am placing in the Library.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what proportion of(a) manual part-time workers and (b) non-manual part-time workers, broken down into men and women, work less than (i) eight hours a week and (ii) 16 hours a week. [10862]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Estimates from the labour force survey are shown in the table following.

  Part-time manual and non-manual workers by the total number of hours they usually work Great Britain, summer 1995 (not seasonally adjusted)

  Working less than 8 hours a week

  Working less than 16 hours a week

  Thousands

  Per cent.

  Thousands

  Per cent.

  Men

  Manual part-time

  87

  16

  238

  45

  Non-Manual part-time

  93

  17

  264

  48

  Women

  Manual part-time

  303

  15

  944

  47

  Non-Manual part-time

  330

  11

  1,075

  35

  Employment (Maastricht Treaty)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the effect on employment in the United Kingdom of the Maastricht treaty when full implemented. [9798]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government have made no estimates of the effect on employment in the United Kingdom of the convergence criteria under the Maastricht treaty when fully implemented. The UK opt-out from the social chapter means that the Maastricht treaty will have no adverse effect on employment via that mechanism. However, the Government will agree to join a single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact on manufacturing jobs of the United Kingdom adopting a common EU currency in its currently proposed form. [9805]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Protocol No. 11 annexed to the EC Treaty means that the United Kingdom shall not he obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. The Government will only agree to take part in a single
  313
  currency if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time. Clearly employment forms a vital part in the assessment of our national interest.

  The Government have made no estimates of the impact on manufacturing jobs of the United Kingdom adopting a single currency. It is impossible to say at this stage what the impact will be. Studies by others have produced a wide variation of estimates.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  ISDN Lines
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that the price of integrated services data network lines falls in line with the real terms price reductions for all telecommunications services. [10426]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The detailed answer on the supply of ISDN lines which I gave my hon. Friend last November, 22 November 1995,Official Report, column 210, set out the variety of ways in which use of ISDN is being stimulated. The Director General of Telecommunications has now issued his consultation document on the BT price cap. This document discusses whether ISDN services should be brought within the price control regime, and Oftel has asked for responses by 2 February.

  There will also be downward pressure on prices from the increasing competition in the supply of ISDN services with cable companies entering the market. In the future, radio fixed access systems at 10Ghz should also offer an alternative to the current services available from BT and Mercury. I was particularly pleased to learn of the deal between Energis and Research Machines which will allow many schools to access the Internet via ISDN at attractive rates.

  Waste
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what(a) committees and (b) working parties his Department has set up to advise on (i) recycling, (ii) waste management and (iii) packaging; and in each case who are the current members. [11182]

  Mr. Page
  The Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment was set up in 1991 to provide a dialogue between Government and industry on environmental issues, including those of waste management and recycling, ACBE is currently reorganising under the chairmanship of David Davies—Johnson Matthey plc—and the membership of the new committee has yet to be established. A list of the membership of the previous committee, whose work finished in November 1995, follows:

  MEMBERSHIP OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
  Chairman
  Derek Wanless: National Westminster Bank Plc
  Members

  John Baker: National Power Plc

  Peter Bonfield CBE: ICL Plc

  Cedric Brown: British Gas Plc

  314

  Ann Burdus: Dawsons International

  Rodney Chase: British Petroleum Plc

  Mike Clasper: Proctor and Gamble Europe

  David Davies: Johnson Matthey Plc

  Peter Davies: DHL International Ltd.

  Dr. Oliver Doubleday: Bax Farm

  Richard Gamble: Royal Insurance Plc

  Ian Gibson CBE: Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd.

  Roger Hewitt: formerly Shanks and McEwan

  Derek Higgs: S.G. Warburg and Co. Ltd.

  Ron Huggins: Kimberly-Clarke Ltd.

  Sir Gordon Jones: Yorkshire Water Plc

  Martin Laing CBE: John Laing Plc

  Robert Lawton: Lawton Farms

  David Malpas: Tesco Plc

  Jean Parker CBE: Vacu-Lug Traction Tyres Ltd.

  Dr. Robin C. Paul: Albright and Wilson Ltd.

  George Phillipson: Redland Aggregates Ltd.

  Sir Antony Pilkington: Pilkington Plc

  Alan Smith: formerly B and Q Plc

  John Speirs: Norsk Hydro UK Ltd.

  Geoff Turnbull MBE: GT Group Ltd.

  A Government/industry scrap tyre working group was formed in June 1994 to advise and report on scrap tyre recovery and recycling and associated matters. Its current membership is:

  Mr. W. Pollock: Director, British Rubber Manufacturers Association

  Mr. R. Edy Director: National Tyre Distributors Association

  Ms S. Ikin Director: Retread Manufacturers Association

  Mr. P. Taylor: Director, Imported Tyre Manufacturers Association

  Mr. S. Norgrove: DTI

  Mr. J. Marsh: DTI (Secretary)

  The producer responsibility group was set up by industry in response to the joint producer responsibility challenge from DTI and DoE Ministers in July 1993 to recover more value from package waste. It reported in November 1994 and wound itself up. A list of its former members is as follows:
  LIST OF MEMBER COMPANIES

  Allied Lyons Plc

  Bass

  ASDA Group

  Booker Plc

  Bowater Plc

  Burton Group

  Guinness Plc

  Grand Metropolitan Plc

  Marks and Spencer Plc

  Northern Foods Ltd.

  RHM

  Shell Chemicals Ltd.

  Tesco Stores Ltd.

  Unilever

  Argyll Group Plc

  BP Chemicals Ltd.

  The Boots Company Plc

  315

  Coco-Cola GT Britain and Ireland

  Forte Plc

  ICI Plc

  Kingfisher Plc

  Nestle UK Ltd.

  Procter and Gamble Ltd.

  J. Sainsbury Plc

  D. S. Smith (Holdings) Plc

  Unigate Plc

  United Biscuits

  Weetabix Ltd.

  STEERING COMMITTEE

  Mike Clasper (Chairman)

  Graeme Crombie

  Peter Barr

  Ross Buckland

  Mike Buzzacott

  Tim Clement Jones

  Roger Huff

  David Lyon

  Bill Madden

  Bill Mason

  John Sharpe

  Guy Walker

  David Webster

  Peter Williams

  Martin van Zwanenberg

  Procter and Gamble

  Shell Chemicals

  Hazlewood Foods

  Unigate

  BP Chemicals

  Kingfisher

  Boots

  Bowater

  ICI Materials

  Consultant

  Birds Eye Walls

  Van den Bergh Foods

  Annual percentage change(total visible trade)

  Non-oil balance

  Year

  Export volumes

  Export unit values

  Import volumes

  Import unit values

  Terms of trade

  Percentage of gross domestic product

  Change in percentage of gross domestic product

  1985

  5.6

  5.4

  3.2

  4.9

  0.5

  -3.2

  0.6

  1986

  4.2

  -9.9

  7.4

  -4.6

  -5.6

  -3.5

  -0.3

  1987

  6.0

  3.5

  7.7

  2.9

  0.5

  -3.7

  -0.2

  1988

  2.2

  1.0

  13.5

  -1.0

  2.0

  -5.2

  -1.5

  1989

  5.8

  4.5

  8.1

  4.3

  0.3

  -5.0

  0.2

  1990

  6.2

  3.5

  0.1

  2.4

  1.1

  -3.7

  1.3

  1991

  1.2

  1.4

  -5.3

  1.2

  0.2

  -2.0

  1.7

  1992

  2.5

  2.1

  6.5

  0.9

  1.2

  -2.5

  -0.5

  1993

  3.6

  12.2

  3.9

  10.0

  2.0

  -2.5

  -0.1

  1994

  10.4

  2.2

  4.1

  3.4

  -1.2

  -2.2

  0.3

  Mrs. Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list as a percentage of gross domestic product for each year since 1985(a) the visible trade balance, (b) the invisible trade balance,
  316

  Argyll Group

  D S Smith (Holdings)

  Marks and Spencer

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what(a) advisory committees and (b) working parties have been established by his Department to advise him on the implications of changes in legislation regarding packaging, recycling and waste management. [11184]

  Mr. Page
  As far as the implication for legislation are concerned with regard to these matters, the Government consult widely and take into account the views of all interested parties. No committees or working groups have been set up specifically to address the implication of changes in legislation.

  The Government are currently considering the recommendation by companies in the packaging chain at their meeting on 15 December 1995 that an advisory committee be established to advise on the drafting and implementation of the regulations and on arrangements for carrying out a review of the legal obligation, including consideration of actual burden on individual companies.

  Industrial Death and Retirement Fund
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) in which publication the annual reports and statement of accounts of the industrial death and retirement fund are published; [11590]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the actuary's report on the industrial death and retirement fund. [11591]

  Mr. Page
  These are matters for British Coal. I am asking the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Balance of Trade
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each year since 1985 the percentage changes in(a) export volumes and export unit values, (b) import volumes and unit values, (c) the terms of trade and (d) the non-oil visible trade balance. [11898]

  Mr. Page
  The information is shown in the table.

  (c) the current account balance and (d) the non-energy visible balance. [11899]

  Mr. Page
  The information is shown in the table.
  317

  Percentage of gross domestic product

  Year

  Visible trade balance

  Invisible trade balance

  Current account balance

  Non-oil visible balance

  1985

  -0.9

  1.6

  0.6

  -3.2

  1986

  -2.5

  2.3

  -0.2

  -3.5

  1987

  -2.7

  1.6

  -1.1

  -3.7

  1988

  -4.6

  1.1

  -3.5

  -5.2

  1989

  -4.8

  0.4

  -4.3

  -5.0

  1990

  -3.4

  -0.1

  -3.5

  -3.7

  1991

  -1.8

  0.3

  -1.5

  -2.0

  1992

  -2.2

  0.6

  -1.6

  -2.5

  1993

  -2.1

  0.4

  -1.8

  -2.5

  1994

  -1.6

  1.3

  -0.3

  -2.2

  Directors' Remuneration (Disclosure)
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will publish a consultative document on proposals for amending the Companies Acts to take account of the recommendations on disclosure of directors' remuneration contained in the Greenbury report. [12291]

  Mr. Lang
  I have today published a consultative document seeking views on proposed changes to the requirements of the Companies Act 1985 relating to disclosure of directors' emoluments. The proposals are designed to remove overlap with the Greenbury recommendations for full disclosure of the emoluments of individuals directors by listed companies, now implemented by the stock exchange listing rules, and generally to ensure consistency of approach between the Companies Act provisions and the Greenbury recommendations. Copies of the consultative document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Royal Family (Free Postage)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade under which statute free postage to members of the royal family is authorised. [11027]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]: This facility is not granted by statute. The provision of free postage to members of the royal family is a facility which has been provided by the Post Office since the earliest days of its inception.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which members of the royal family receive free postage for their official mail. [11026]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]: The following members of the royal family and their households receive free postage for their official mail:

  the Queen, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince and Princess of Wales, the Duke and Duchess of York, the Prince Edward, the Princess Royal, the Princess Margaret, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, and Princess Alexandra.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the total expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (1) advertising and (2) press and public relations. [11380]

  Mr. Hanley
  Total expenditure on publicity—that is, promotional material and recruitment advertising—in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—diplomatic wing and Overseas Development Administration—since 1979 at 1995–96 prices was:

  £

  1979–80

  809,559

  1980–81

  569,578

  1981–82

  734,682

  1982–83

  675,220

  1983–84

  809,117

  1984–85

  645,986

  1985–86

  688,390

  1986–87

  873,338

  1987–88

  802,582

  1988–89

  1,348,555

  1989–90

  1,883,124

  1990–91

  2,180,180

  1991–92

  2,003,485

  1992–93

  2,193,224

  1993–94

  2,229,921

  1994–95

  2,384,083

  1995–96

  2,707,000 (Estimate)

  An estimate for 1996–97 is not yet available.

  It is not possible to break these figures down between (1) advertising and (2) However, the expenditure comprise: press and public relations. outturn figures for 1994–95 comprise:

  At 1995–96 prices

  £

  £

  Newspaper advertising for recruitment purposes:

  (DW) 80,575

  82,791

  (ODA) 727,000

  746,993

  Videos and brochures giving consular advice:

  162,700

  167,174

  ODA publicity and promotional material:

  1,350,000

  1,387,125

  2,320,275

  2,384,083

  The foregoing do not include figures for the executive agencies. Publicity expenditure—at outturn prices—for

  319
  the National Resource Institute and the Wilton Park Executive agency are as follows:

  thousand

  NRI

  WP

  1990–91

  137

  —

  1991–92

  132

  20

  1992–93

  77

  27

  1993–94

  47

  22

  1994–95

  56

  20

  1995–96

  56

  15

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if copies of draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report are in the possession of Ministers or officials in his Department other than those to whom draft sections of the report were sent by Sir Richard Scott. [11880]

  Mr. Hanley
  In forwarding draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report to Ministers and officials, the inquiry expressly stated that individuals could, at their discretion, make a copy for a legal or other adviser and another for the department concerned. Whether they did so is entirely a matter for the individuals concerned.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 January 1996,Official Report, columns 691–92, how much of the sum spent by his Department on external advice in relation to the Scott inquiry has been spent on legal advice. [11882]

  Mr. Hanley
  All of it.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have used copies o draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report to prepare the Government's response to Sir Richard Scott's report. [11881]

  Mr. Hanley
  No decision about the response to Sir Richard Scott's report will be taken until the report has been received.

  In considering issues relating to the Scott inquiry, all Departments naturally take account of material properly available to them.

  China
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the recent television programme, "The Dying Rooms", was discussed during his recent visit to China; and if he will make a statement. [10329]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]>: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 10 January, Official Report, columns 206–7.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings have been held by his Department with Saudi Arabian opposition groups(a) in Saudi Arabia and (b) elsewhere. [11025]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 23 January 19961: I am unaware of any requests from such groups for any meetings during 1995 to date and can confirm that none took place. We are similarly unaware of any previous meetings, but could not research this without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Government Borrowing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the implications of the Maastricht treaty for (i) the creation of credit, (ii) Government borrowing through ways and means advances and (iii) Government borrowing through the banks. [9797]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under article 105(2) of the EC treaty, the primary objective of the European system of central banks shall be to maintain price stability, and the basic tasks to he carried out through the ESCB include the definition and implementation of monetary policy of the Community, which would have implications for the creation of credit. As a result of article 109k(3) and protocol 11 there would no direct implications in countries not participating in the third stage of economic and monetary union.

  Under article 104(1) of the EC treaty, central Governments are prohibited from having an overdraft facility or any other credit facility with the European central bank or with the national central banks. However, article 11 of protocol 11 annexed to the EC treaty makes clear that, notwithstanding article 104, the United Kingdom may maintain the ways and means facility with the Bank of England, if and so long as the United Kingdom does not move to the third stage of EMU. If the United Kingdom were to participate in the third stage of EMU, the Government would be unable to maintain the Ways and Means facility.

  Under article 104a(1) of the EC treaty, public authorities are prohibited from establishing "privileged access" to financial institutions. This provision is already in effects and the United Kingdom is in compliance. There are no other treaty provisions directly concerned with the ability of central Governments to borrow through banks.

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

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 January. [10166]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 January. [10167]

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

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Prime Minister if officials in(a) his private office and (b) the Cabinet Office have used copies of draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report to prepare the Government's response to Sir Richard's report. [11889]

  The Prime Minister
  No decision about the response to Sir Richard Scott's report will be taken until the report has been received.

  In considering issues relating to the Scott inquiry all Departments naturally take account of material properly available to them.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Prime Minister if copies of draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report are in(a) his possession and (b) the possession of officials in the Cabinet Office other than those to whom draft sections of the report were sent by Sir Richard Scott. [11888]

  The Prime Minister
  In forwarding draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report to Ministers and officials the inquiry expressly stated that individuals could at their discretion make a copy for legal or other advisers and another for the Department concerned. Whether they did so is entirely a matter for the individuals concerned.

  Hafey Dalkamouni
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with Chancellor Kohl the proposed release of Hafey Dalkamouni. [11733]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will set out the arrangements for compliance cost assessments. [12328]

  Mr. Freeman
  Compliance cost assessments are a vital tool for helping to minimise the costs to business arising from new legislation. Under the Government's deregulation initiative, I am today publishing a revised guidance booklet on compliance cost assessment and am arranging for copies to be placed in the House Libraries. The new booklet includes:322
  the requirement for Ministers to personally sign-off all CCAs and to certify that the regulatory proposal strikes an appropriate balance between cost and benefit.
  the requirement for a CCA to be prepared and published with all legislative proposals presented to Parliament.
  extension of the requirement to complete a CCA to regulatory proposals which impact on charities and the voluntary sector.
  the arrangements for carrying out the small business litmus test.
  the parliamentary scrutiny arrangements for CCAs dealing with EC legislative proposals.

  I have also presented to Parliament today a Command Paper listing 75 CCAs published between 1 January 1995 and 30 June 1995. Copies of the CCAs listed are available in the House Libraries. This is the third such Command Paper and further Command Papers listing CCAs published in the preceding six-month period will he published at six-monthly intervals.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Staff Salaries
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will list all employees of the House who have salaries in excess of the salary of a Member of Parliament, indicating in each case the salary and a brief description of their job. [9405]

  Mr. Beith
  One hundred and fourteen Officers of the House in the following grades receive basic salaries above the £33,189 paid to hon. Members. In the list which, follows job holders grade titles are provided but it is not practicable to provide a job description for each post.

  Grade title

  Number of job holders

  Grade

  Office of the Speaker

  Parliamentary Commissioner for

  —

  Standards (part-time)

  Speaker's Secretary

  1

  5

  Department of the Clerk of the House

  Clerk of the House

  1

  1

  Clerk of Committees

  1

  2

  Clerk Assistant

  1

  2

  Speaker's Counsel

  2

  3

  Principal Clerk Class I

  6

  3

  Principal Clerk Class II

  4

  4

  Deputy Principal Clerk

  25

  5

  Deliverer of the Vote

  1

  5

  Assistant to Speaker's Counsel

  1

  5

  Supervisor of Broadcasting

  1

  6

  Senior Clerk

  5

  7

  Deputy Deliverer of the Vote

  2

  7

  Department of the Serjeant at Arms

  Serjeant at Arms

  1

  3

  Director of Works

  1

  4

  Deputy Serjeant at Arms

  1

  5

  Deputy Director of Works

  1

  5

  Information Systems Officer

  1

  5

  Assistant Serjeant at Arms

  1

  6

  Members of Works Office

  5

  7

  Department of the Library

  Librarian

  1

  3

  Deputy Librarian

  1

  4

  Head of Information Systems

  1

  5

  323

  Grade title

  Number of job holders

  Grade

  Assistant Librarian

  2

  5

  Deputy Assistant Librarian

  8

  6

  Head of Information Technology

  1

  7

  Senior Library Clerk

  5

  7

  Department of the Official Report

  Editor

  1

  4

  Deputy Editor

  1

  5

  Assistant Editor

  7

  6

  Principal Assistant Editor

  4

  6

  Committee Sub-Editor

  6

  7

  Department of Finance and Administration

  Adviser

  1

  2

  Director of Finance and Administration

  1

  3

  Accountant

  1

  4

  Head of Establishment Office

  1

  4

  Head of Finance Office

  1

  5

  Deputy Accountant

  1

  6

  Staff Inspector

  1

  6

  Deputy Head—Establishments

  1

  6

  Internal Auditor

  1

  7

  Assistant Accountant

  1

  7

  Head of Policy/Project Unit

  1

  7

  Refreshment Department

  Director of Catering Services

  1

  5

  Executive Chef

  1

  7

  Salary range

  Grade

  Range£

  1

  98,957

  2

  67,500–81,400

  3

  55,000–66,000

  4

  47,921–58,077

  5

  39,227–58,077

  6

  30,377–50,276

  7

  26,619–41,162

DEFENCE

  Scott Inquiry
  binCook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have used copies of draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report to prepare the Government's response to Sir Richard Scott's report. [11879]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No decision about the response to Sir Richard Scott's report will be taken until the report has been received.

  In considering issues relating to the Scott inquiry, all Departments naturally take account of material properly available to them.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if copies of draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report are in the possession of Ministers or officials in his Department other than those to whom draft sections of the report were sent by Sir Richard Scott. [11878]
  324
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In forwarding draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report to Ministers and officials, the inquiry expressly stated that individuals could at their discretion make a copy for a legal or other adviser and another for the Department concerned. Whether they did so is entirely a matter for the individuals concerned.

  Munitions Dumping
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations his Department has received from(a) the European Commission and (b) other countries in relation to the sea dumping of conventional and chemical munitions around Britain's coast. [11811]

  Mr. Soames
  There have been contacts between the Ministry of Defence and the Irish Government about sea dumping of munitions, but there have been no representations from other Governments or the European Commission.

  Positive about Disabled People Symbol
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for his Department and each of the agencies for which he is responsible if it uses the Employment Service's positive about disabled people symbol for(a) external recruitment and (b) internal recruitment and promotion. [11914]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department initiated the use of the Employment Service's positive about disabled people symbol and is an accredited user. Departmental organisations, including agencies funded directly from defence votes, are entitled to use the symbol for both external and internal recruitment and promotion. The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, which operates on a trading fund basis, and the Meteorological Office, which is planning to operate on this basis later this year, are not covered by the departmental accreditation, but both agencies are currently working towards obtaining authorisation from the Employment Service to use the symbol in their own right.

  NATO (Interoperability)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts concerning the interoperability of ambulances within the alliance. [10102]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: My Department continues to explore ways of achieving greater interoperability with our NATO partners, although there have been no recent discussions specifically related to ambulances. In preparing the staff requirement for the replacement medium mobility ambulance, full account was taken of the need to ensure interoperability with NATO allies, particularly with regard to airportability, stretcher and stretcher mountings. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement announced the order for the medium mobility ambulance on 18 January 1996.

  Departmental Contracts (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all contracts placed by his Department with(a) GEC Marconi Radar in Chelmsford, (b) GEC Marconi

  325
  Communications in Chelmsford, (c) the English Electric Valve Company in Chelmsford and (d) other companies based in Chelmsford since June 1987, and what each contract was worth. [10844]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The number and total value of contracts with (a) the GEC-Marconi Ltd. group of companies in the Chelmsford area, (b) EEV Ltd.—the English Electric Valve Company—and (c) other companies in the Chelmsford area which were extant during the period from 1990 to date are shown in the table.

  Financial year

  GEC-Number of contracts

  Marconi Ltd. Total value £million

  EEV Number of contracts

  Ltd Total value £million

  Other Number of contracts

  Co's Total Value £million

  1990–91

  1,172

  842.8

  170

  118.4

  567

  25.1

  1991–92

  1,387

  876.4

  201

  132.8

  719

  30.6

  1992–93

  516

  834.3

  158

  115.3

  550

  34.7

  1993–94

  603

  638.7

  143

  104.3

  621

  51.7

  1994–95

  588

  592.5

  132

  105.3

  649

  48.5

  1995 up to December

  593

  537.9

  80

  74.9

  542

  62.7

  Dodman Exercise Area
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the success rate of the Dodman exercise area for training; and if he will make a statement about its current use by members of his Department. [11810]

  Mr. Soames
  The exercise areas off Dodman point in Cornwall are used for a variety of naval training purposes, including naval gunfire support training, which is part of essential operational sea Training, and simulates the provision of gunfire support from ships at sea to forces operating ashore. I am satisfied, as is the Navy, that acceptable levels of training are being achieved at Dodman, including steadily improving success rates for NGS firings, and that the area itself fully meets our training requirements.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of absenteeism rates in days per annum for staffing his Department for each of
  the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92,
  (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96. [11333]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994, the average numbers of working days absence for non-industrial staff were 7.8, 7.9, 8.7 and 7.6 respectively. Figures are not yet available for 1995. Those for years before 1991 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Data for industrial staff are not held centrally and could he provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Civilian Posts
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian Ministry of Defence jobs there are within a 25-mile radius of(a) Bath and (b) Cheadle. [11258]
  326
  The following points should be noted:

  (1) the records from which this data have been obtained do not differentiate between the various divisions and management companies within the GEC-Marconi Ltd. group.

  (2) where a contract was current in two or more financial years, it is included in the figures for each year concerned.

  (3) the figures do not include any contracts placed by Defence agencies since they took over their own contract administration.

  I regret that the figures before 1990 are not immediately available and the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The number of MOD civil servants employed within a 25-mile radius of(a) Bath and (b) Cheadle was 8,674 and 600 respectively on 1 April 1995.

  LSD Experiments, Porton Down
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will specify which Porton Down technical papers contain the descriptions and results of the LSD experiments which were conducted(a) in the laboratory and (b) in the field by the Chemical Defence Establishment; and which are currently unclassified. [11809]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. David Clark, dated 25 January 1996:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking which Porton Down Technical Papers contain the descriptions and results of the LSD experiments which were conducted (a) in the laboratory and (b) in the field by the Chemical Defence Establishment; and which are currently unclassified has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which now includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE)
  A search of the CBDE Information Service's list of technical papers produced by CBDE and its predecessor organisations at Porton Down has identified four published papers concerning the work conducted with LSD in the 1960s. Three of these reports are concerned with the field studies. These are Porton Technical Paper 936 "A field experiment using LSD25 on trained troops", Porton Technical Paper 979 "Recount—A second field experiment to assess the effects of T3456 on trained troops" and Technical Note 53 "Small Change—A brief preliminary report". As you know we have recently arranged for these papers to be made available in the Public Record Office at Kew at the end of January in response to your

  327
  earlier request to see information relating to trials with LSD involving service volunteers. We have recently located a fourth report, Technical Note 5 "The determination of T3456 in human plasma following oral administration" which concerns the laboratory based development of an analytical method to detect low levels of LSD in human plasma. This report is not yet in the Public Records Office but arrangements can be made for its early release should this be required. The library search also identified eight papers which include references to laboratory work involving LSD and other substances being tested on animals. The work was primarily concerned with analytical methods and the papers remain classified.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Married Housing Sales
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the sums to be paid to the Treasury from the sale of his Department's married housing. [11807]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  As I told the hon. Member in my reply of 18 December 1995,Official Report, columns 988–89, our assessment of the value of the married quarters estate under the terms of the proposed sale is commercially confidential.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Attorney-General if(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have used copies of draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report to prepare the Government's response to Sir Richard Scott's report. [11884]

  The Attorney-General
  No decision about the response to Sir Richard Scott's report will be taken until the report has been received.
  In considering issues relating to the Scott's inquiry, all Departments naturally take account of material properly available to them.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 18 January,Official Report, columns 705–6, how much of the sum spent by his Department on external advice in relation to the Scott inquiry has been spent on legal advice. [11885]

  The Attorney-General
  All of it.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Attorney-General if copies of draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report are in the possession of Ministers or officials in his Department other than those to whom draft sections of the report were sent by Sir Richard Scott. [11883]

  The Attorney-General
  In forwarding draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report to Ministers and officials, the inquiry expressly stated that individuals could at their discretion make a copy for a legal or other adviser. Whether they did so is entirely a matter for the individuals concerned; the Government do not disclose details of communications, if any, between the inquiry and individual witnesses.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on cases in each of the last 10 years in which the total legal aid bill exceeded more than £1 million. [11867]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information is available. however, for the period 1 April 1989 and 31 March 1994. During that period, there were 20 cases involving final bills where the total costs to the legal aid fund exceeded £1 million. Of those, 19 were in respect of criminal proceedings.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of absenteeism rates in days per annum for staff in his Department for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96. [11377]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information for 1979–80 is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost to the public purse. The figures for the year 1989–90 and thereafter are shown in the table. The Public Trust Office is shown separately for the year 1994–95 since it assumed agency status in July 1994. Details for the current financial year 1995–96 will not he available until after the end of this financial year.

  Sick absence in the Lord Chancellor's Department 1989–95

  Year

  Absence rate in days

  1989–90

  194,581

  1991–92

  140,041

  1992–93

  151,840

  1993–94

  178,172

  1994–95

  1171,192

  Public Trust Office

  1994–95

  9,929

  1Excluding the Public Trust Office.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the expenditure of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all external consultants including management consultants for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will estimate the savings accruing to his Department from the use of consultants in each of these years. [11375]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Before 1995–96, information has not been held centrally for the full period in question. and information before 1992–93 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Expenditure by the Department
  329
  and non-departmental public bodies on external consultants was as follows:-

  1993–94: £3.455 million

  1994–95: £1.640 million

  1995–96: £0.853 million (to date)

  Forecast expenditure for the whole of the year 1995–96 is £1.234 million, and for 1996–97 is £7.018 million.

  The chief executives of the Court Service and Public Trust Office will reply separately for the periods for which they have been agencies. The chief executives of the Land Registry and Public Record Office will reply direct.

  In many cases, consultants are employed to contribute particular skills to an element of a much larger process. As a result, their work will be only one of several factors leading to the eventual outcome. There is therefore no ready way of apportioning their particular contribution to savings achieved.

  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 25 January 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 19 January 1996, regarding the expenditure on all consultants for each of the years 1979–80, 1989–90, 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) an estimate for the whole year; the estimated expenditure for 1996–97 and an estimate of the savings accruing from the use of consultants in each of these years.
  The Public Trust Office became an Agency on 1 July 1994 and figures prior to that date are included in the departmental Headquarters response. The cost of consultants for the financial years 1994–95 onwards are as follows:

  1994–95: £70,242.55

  1995–96: £43,753.01 (total to date)

  £77,252.01 (estimate for year)

  1996–97: £70,000 (estimate)

  Consultants are employed to provide a particular skill and their work is only one element of a much larger process and as such it is difficult to assess the savings to the Office as a result. However, the consultants used for the Business Process Re-engineering in 1994/95 estimated that there would be a saving of £800,000 to the Office over time.

  Letter from Duncan Simpson to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 25 January 1996:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive, who is away from the Office on official business, I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question about expenditure on consultants and the savings accruing.

  1. The Public Record Office's annual expenditure on consultants was:

  (a) 1979–80: nil

  (b) 1989–90: £46,745

  (c) 1991–92: £349,111

  (d) 1993–94: £674,305

  (e) 1994–95: £315,669

  (f) 1995–96: £213,500 to date

  1995–96: £585,075 budget
  The estimated expenditure for 1996–97 is £775,500.
  2. The above includes £120,942 spent between 1992–93 and 1994–95 on consultancy to support the market testing programme. which resulted in an annualised net saving to 1994–95 of £291,000 per annum, with additional but not yet quantified savings expected in 1995–96 and subsequent years.
  330
  3. Other consultancies have been to carry out necessary specialised work beyond this department's normal scope, rather than to realise direct cost savings. They have related primarily to the construction of a new building, also to the installation of computer systems and training.

  Letter front John Manthorpe to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 25 January 1996:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's department, to reply to your recent question on expenditure on external consultants for each of the years a) 1979–80 b) 1989–90, c) 1991–92, d) 1993–94, e) 1994–95 and f) 1995–96 i) to date and ii) as estimated for the whole year and the estimated savings accruing to the Land Registry from the use of consultants in each of these years. I can provide the following information:

  a) 1979–80 No record of any expenditure on consultancy

  b) 1989–90 £42,900

  c) 1991–92 £98,539

  d) 1993–94 £157,022

  e) 1994–95 £196,011

  f) 1995–96 i) £236,000 (at 31.12.95)

  ii) £468,000

  HM Land Registry has not used consultancy services extensively (the actual cost in 1994–95, for instance, represented only 0.1% of its total expenditure) and its main engagements are for specialist tuition, Information System business services, and consultancy arising from the Market Test programme. It is not possible to quantify annual cost savings but consultants services have made a contribution to the overall cost savings achieved by the Registry which, for example, in 1994–95, amounted to a 2.9% reduction in unit costs in real terms over the previous year.
  I do hope that this answers the points raised with the Parliamentary Secretary but please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 25 January 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to the above Question about expenditure on external consultants.
  Since April 1995, the date on which the Court Service was established, £1.11m has been spent on external consultants. Forecast expenditure for the whole year 1995–96 is £3.49m. The estimate fin-1996–97 has yet to be finalised.
  In many cases consultants have been used where it has not been possible to provide the same service 'in-house' or where their contribution has been a small part of a much larger project. It is therefore not possible to assess what specific savings have been achieved as a result of their contribution.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the total expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (1) advertising and (2) press and public relations. [11376]

  Mr. Evans
  The expenditure on publicity by the Lord Chancellor's Department, including the Court Service. was as follows: 1989–90—£33,616; 1991–92–05,734; 1993–94—£46,667; 1994–95—£78,961; 1995–96 to date—£.83,339. The estimate for the year 1995–96 is £113,000. The estimate for 1996–97 has not yet been finalised but will be approximately £125,000. The figure for publicity expenditure for the year 1979–80 is not available.
  331
  These figures represent expenditure on press and public relations, excluding staff costs. There was no expenditure on publicity advertising in any of the years specified, and none is planned for 1996–97.

  The Lord Chancellor is responsible for three agencies other than the Court Service: Her Majesty's Land Registry, the Public Record Office, and the Public Trust Office. The question concerns specific operational matters on which the chief executives of these three agencies are best placed to provide answers. I have accordingly asked the chief executives to reply direct.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for two non-Departmental public bodies, the Legal Aid Board and the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct. Publicity expenditure by the Legal Aid Board, which was established in 1989, was as follows: 1989–90–£103,000; 1991–92–£132,000; 1993–94–£141,000; 1994–95–£207,000; 1995–96 to date–£153,178 and estimated for the total year–£218,000. The latest estimate for 1996–97 is £244,000. Publicity expenditure by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct is contained within its budget for postage and telephone and is not separately itemised.

  Letter from Duncan Simpson to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 25 January 1996:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive, who is away from the Office on official business, I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question about the annual expenditure on publicity by the agencies for which he is responsible.
  1. Total expenditure has been:

  Advertising £

  Press and Public Relations £

  1989–90

  nil

  47,000

  1990–91

  28

  50,000

  1991–92

  20,666

  53,000

  1992–93

  77,392

  57,000

  1993–94

  86,505

  58,000

  1994–95 to date

  82,900

  45,000

  1995–96 budget

  107,500

  59,500

  1996–97 budget

  70,000

  61,000

  2. Figures for 1979–80 could only be supplied at disproportionate cost.3. The advertising figures are for staff recruitment and, since 1991–92, for approximately £1,500 per annum spent on advertising our own products for sale.

  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 25 January 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 19 January 1996, regarding the assessment made of the total expenditure for publicity for the financial years 1979–80, 1989–90, 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95 and the estimated cost for the same in 1996–97.
  It is Government policy that the Public Trust Office does not advertise for the services it provides.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 25 January 1996:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question on expenditure on publicity for each of the years a) 1979–80 b) 1989–
  332
  90, c) 1991–2, d) 1993–94, e) 1994–95 and f) 1995–96 i) to date and ii) as estimated for the whole year and estimated expenditure for 1996–97. I can provide the following information:

  Advertising £

  Press and Public Relations £

  (a) 1979–80

  23,696

  —

  (b) 1989–90

  36,434

  2,684

  (c) 1991–92

  6,342

  22,322

  (d) 1993–94

  16,233

  10,554

  (e) 1994–95

  10,070

  71,765

  (f) 1995–96

  (i) 19,248

  182,164

  (ii) 13,000

  131,800

  1At 31 December 1995.

  The increase in 1995–96 is mainly due to the production of a Land Registry Corporate Video.
  Estimated expenditure figures for 1996–97 are not yet available. The annual non-staff budget setting process is currently taking place and the Land Registry Budget Committee has yet to decide the final budget allocation.
  I do hope that this answers the points raised with the Parliamentary Secretary but please contact me if I can he of any further assistance.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the annual telephone costs to(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) his Department's non-departmental public bodies staff for each of the years (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97; and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas of (a) to (c). [11378]

  Mr. Evans
  Details of expenditure on telephones for LCD headquarters and associated offices, the Legal Aid Board and the Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct are set out in the table, where figures are available.

  The chief executives of the Court Service, the Public Trust Office, the Land Registry and the Public Records Office will be replying separately.
  LCD headquarters and associated offices

  1994–95: £644,031.98

  1995–96: £460,161 13

  1996–97: £398,000.00

  The figures include a number of headquarters' outstations located around the country.

  Internal directories are available to all staff.
  Legal Aid Board

  1989–90: £285,425

  1991–92: £322,222

  1992–93: £311,904

  1994–95: £317,215

  1995–96: £303,180 estimate to year end

  1996–97: £303,000 latest estimate.

  Internal directories are available within each of the board's area offices and central departments of the hoard at its head office.
  Advisor,' Committee on Legal Education and Conduct

  1991–92: £9,389

  1992–93: £8,998

  1993–94: £8,966

  1994–95: £11,850

  333

  1995–96: £11,091

  1996–97: £11,000

  The figures include expenditure on postage and telephones; the ACLEC does not have separate budgets for each item. Internal directories are available for all staff.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 25 January 1996:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question on expenditure on telephone costs for each of the years i) 1979–80 ii) 1989–90, iii) 1991–92, iv) 1993–94, v) 1994–95, vi) 1995–96 and vii) 1996–97 and if internal telephone directories are available. I can provide the following information:

  i) 1979–80: £341,149

  ii) 1989–90: £1,198,010

  iii) 1991–92: £1.067,855

  iv) 1993–94: £1,007,268

  v) 1994–95: £751,365

  vi) 1995-96: £759,945

  vii) 1996–97: Estimated figures are not yet available. The annual non-staff budget setting process is currently taking place and the Land Registry Budget Committee has yet to decide the final budget allocation.

  Significant savings were achieved between 1993–94 and 1994–95 due mainly to the change of management in the Government Telecommunications Network (GTN).
  Internal telephone directories are available throughout the Land Registry.
  I do hope that this answers the points raised with the Parliamentary Secretary but please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 25 January 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply in respect of the Court Service to your Question about estimated annual telephone costs.
  The projected figures for estimated annual telephone costs from 3 April 1995, the date on which the Court Service was established, are:

  1995–1996: £3,027,872

  1996–1997: £3,044,761

  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 25 January 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 19 January 1996, regarding the estimated annual telephone costs for each financial year since 1979 and for the forthcoming financial year. You also asked whether internal telephone directories were available to all staff.
  The Public Trust Office became an Agency in July 1994 and the estimated figures prior to that time for the year 1979–80, 1989–90, 1991–92, 1992–93, and 1993–94 form part of the LCD total figures and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. For the following years to 1997 the figures are as follows:

  1994–95: £105,000

  1995–96: £98,000

  1996–97: £98,000

  Each member of staff within the Public Trust Office has access to an internal telephone directory.
  334
  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 25 January 1996:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question about annual telephone costs, and the availability to staff of internal telephone directories, in the executive agencies for which he is responsible.
  The annual telephone costs since 1993–94 are:

  1993–94: £124,739

  1994–95: £101,170

  1995–96: £125,050 (budget)

  1996–97: £130,350 (budget)

  Figures for earlier years could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.
  Internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas.

  Wayne Thompson
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much is owed in respect of legal aid to Wayne Thompson, solicitor, 9 Wimpole street, London; and when payment will be made. [10474]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  It is not possible to assess the total amount owed to Mr. Thompson in respect of legal aid where work is on-going. Payments from the legal aid fund are made only in response to claims submitted. As at 18 January 1996, the London area office of the Legal Aid Board was not aware of any claims submitted by Mr. Thompson which remain unpaid. For criminal higher legal aid, one outstanding claim for an interim payment has been identified for which payment is expected to he made within the next few days.

  Repossessions
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) proceedings have been commenced to repossess homes and (b) homes have been repossessed in Northern Ireland since 1989. [10562]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The number of writs and originating summonses issued in respect of mortgages by the Chancery division of the Northern Ireland High Court for each year since 1989 is as follows:

  Number

  1989

  2,459

  1990

  2,599

  1991

  3,061

  1992

  1,646

  1993

  1,728

  1994

  1,371

  1995

  1,220

  Total

  14,085

  There are no reliable figures available on the number of decrees for possession granted on foot of these.

  The Enforcement of Judgments Office, which is responsible for delivering vacant possession in Northern Ireland, has received the following number of notices of

  335
  intention to enforce decrees for possession for each year over the period.

  1989: 718

  1990: 748

  1991: 832

  1992: 683

  1993: 492

  1994: 468

  1995: 396

  The figures relating to the number of these which resulted in actual repossessions taking place are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how often trout fattening ponds are visited by his Department's officials; [10666]

  (2) what have been the wild fish losses at fish farm intakes over the past 21 years; [10667]

  (3) if Department staff report the number of dead wild fish observed at the intake of fish farms when monitoring the farms. [10668]

  Mr. Baldry
  All farms holding trout in England and Wales are inspected by fish disease inspectors once every six months, and fish sampled every 24 months on a routine basis; visits and sampling would also occur whenever there is suspicion of disease. Should inspectors observe dead wild fish or be notified of such occurrences, they would take appropriate disease control action. Inspectors would also notify the National Rivers Authority, which is responsible for the regulation and management of salmon and freshwater fisheries in England and Wales, including pollution control measures. However, no record is kept of wild fish losses at fish farm intakes.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to review procedures for the veterinary inspection of live animals for transport; and if he will make a statement; [11118]

  (2) what representations he has received in relation to the efficiency of veterinary inspection of live animals for transport. [11117]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Department is considering recent allegations that our detailed inspection procedures for live exports have not been followed. We will take firm action if a full assessment of all the available facts shows that there has been any failure to observe the rules or certification instructions.

  Chernobyl Explosion (Compensation)
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost of providing compensation to farmers who were affected by the Chernobyl incident, in both England and Wales. [11155]
  336
  Mrs. Browning
  As at 30 November 1995, the total cost of compensation to farmers who were affected by the Chernobyl incident in England has been £1,335,757 and in Wales the total cost has been £7,903,872.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (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; [10949]

  (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. [10950]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The Department has not incurred significantly increased consultancy and running costs in the tendering process of the private finance initiative, compared with those which would have been incurred in a more traditional approach.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the mobile phones which have been supplied to his Department in each of the last six years have been cloned; and on what dates. [11005]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]: There is no information available prior to May 1994 on the cloning of mobile telephones supplied to the Ministry. Since then it is known that a total of 13 of the Ministry's mobile telephones have been cloned.

  There is no information available on the specific dates when cloning took place, only the date when it was discovered. This information, broken down by years, is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  Date discovered

  1994

  1

  19 December 1994

  1995

  12

  19 January 1995

  30 March 1995

  6 April 1995

  8 May 1995

  19 May 1995

  30 May 1995

  19 July 1995

  4 November 1995

  21 November 1995

  17 December 1995

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Young Entrepreneurs (Training)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to encourage the provision of high quality training for young entrepreneurs. [10893]
  337
  Mr. Paice
  The enterprise in higher education programme encouraged the development of enterprising graduates, whose skills fit them for a wide range of opportunities in both the private and pubic sectors.

  Enterprise in higher education commenced in 1987. More than 60 universities have participated in the initiative, which ends this year. Good practice is being disseminated to other higher education institutions.

  University Facilities
  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 authority economic development units. [10895]

  Mr. Forth
  The required information is not collected centrally by the Department.

  Information Technology
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of officials within her Department have attended a training course on information technology skills. [11227]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Around 90 per cent. of DFEE staff have received training in information technology skills

  Much of the training is devolved and takes place locally, and a more precise estimate could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Home-to-school Transport
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has to change the law concerning responsibilities for home-to-school transport. [11237]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no proposals to change the law governing the provision of home-to-school transport.

  Education Multi-media Industry
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the involvement of the United Kingdom in the EU task force on multi-media in education. [11132]

  Mr. Forth
  Members of this task force were appointed by the European Commission. A number of United Kingdom organisations were consulted by the task force in producing drafts of its report. Formal discussions between the Commission and member states on the proposals arising from the work of the task force are expected later this year.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if providers of early learning education associated with(a) supermarkets, (b) franchised retail suppliers of early learning materials and (c) companies providing early-years schools in several locations will, under the proposed legislation, be
  338
  permitted to operate within the voucher scheme on similar conditions as local education authorities or other providers. [11896]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  To join the voucher scheme, all private and voluntary providers must either be registered under the Children Act 1989 or finally registered as an independent school, and must undertake to meet the quality criteria and inspection arrangements as set out in "Nursery Education Scheme: The Next Steps."

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many provider institutions have expressed interest in participating in phase one of the nursery voucher scheme in(a) Wandsworth, (b) Westminster, (c) Kensington and Chelsea and (d) Norfolk. [11482]

  Mr. Squire
  In the three London boroughs, all eligible maintained schools have applied to join the scheme through their local education authority and around 50 private and voluntary providers have applied so far. In Norfolk 154 are maintained schools and 178 private and voluntary providers have so far applied to join the scheme.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 15 January,Official Report, column 472–73, (1) what estimates she has made of the cost of employing (a) 200 registered nursery education inspectors in phase one and (b) 4,000 registered nursery education inspectors in phase two of the voucher scheme; [11480]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the cost of carrying out (a) 600 inspections of voucher-redeeming institutions in phase one and (b) 12,000 inspections of voucher-redeeming institutions in phase two of the voucher scheme. [11481]

  Mr. Squire
  The costs of inspection and administration together are estimated to be £5 millions for phase 1 and £20 million for phase 2. My Department is in discussions with Ofsted about the likely cost of employing sufficient inspectors and carrying out inspections in both phases of the voucher scheme.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what procedures will he established to ensure the prevention of fraud in the nursery voucher system. [11478]

  Mr. Squire
  We have worked closely with the voucher agency to set up a system which will deter and detect fraud. Vouchers will incorporate a number of security features to prevent counterfeiting and will he issued only to parents whose children are on the child benefit centre database or who provide full documentation.

  Voluntary Aided Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she now expects to publish her Department's analysis of the responses to the consultation paper on self-government for voluntary aided schools. [11483]

  Mrs. Gillan
  A summary of responses has been placed in the Library. Copies are available from the Department on request.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the expenditure of her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all external consultants including management consultants for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate she has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if she will estimate the savings accruing to her Department from the use of consultants in each of these years. [11343]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of absenteeism rates in days per annum for staff in her Department for each of the years(a) 1979–80,
  (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96. [11345]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information in the form requested is not available.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 15 January,Official Report, columns 471–72, what estimates have been made of the shortfall of places for four-year-olds in (a) Wandsworth, (b) Westminster, (c) Kensington and Chelsea and (d) Norfolk, taking into account provision in the private, voluntary and maintained sectors, expressed in each case as (i) a number and (ii) a percentage of all four-year-olds in each local education authority. [11479]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on the numbers of four-year-olds in nursery education other than maintained and independent schools in individual local education authorities is not held centrally.

  Local Government Finance, Cheshire
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total value of the standard spending assessment for the Cheshire county council; how much was passed on to local schools by the county council; what was retained by the county council to cover schools' administration and other services; what average figure per school in Cheshire this total represents; and what was the average cost of employing(a) a primary and (b) a secondary school teacher in Cheshire in 1995–96. [11836]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows the education standard spending assessment for Cheshire in 1995–96, together with the size of the general schools budget—total local education authority spending on its schools—the aggregated schools budget—the sum delegated to schools—and the balance of the general schools budget not delegated to schools, with each figure also expressed as an average per school. The last three 340
  figures are taken from the budget statement published by the Cheshire LEA in accordance with section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  £ million

  £ per school

  Education SSA

  332.027

  639,744

  General schools budget

  340.071

  655,243

  Aggregated schools budget

  261.938

  504,697

  Balance of general schools budget retained by LEA

  78.133

  150,545

  The LEA also has to meet the cost of recoupment of annual maintenance grant paid to grant-maintained schools, and I have asked the chairman of the funding agency to write to the hon. Member about the level of recurrent grant paid to Cheshire GM schools in 1995–96.

  Information about the cost of employing teachers individual LEAs in 1995–96 is not held centrally.

  National Curriculum
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the future of the national curriculum assessment and testing arrangements. [12230]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In January 1995, I asked the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority to conduct a full review of national curriculum assessment and testing arrangements for seven, 11 and 14-year-olds.

  SCAA's report on its wide-ranging and thorough review is published today. It draws on teachers' comments, evaluation reports, evidence from Her Majesty's inspectors and studies by teacher associations, local education authorities and other organisations.

  I accept in full the recommendations made by SCAA concerning the future of the assessment programme. We announced earlier this month the availability of a new grant in 1996–97 to fund additional assessment training for the primary school teachers who need it most—those at key stage 2.

  SCAA's review showed that most teachers want a period of stability. That is what we now intend. We shall introduce changes only if they will bring real improvements and if they will: maintain rigorous and reliable assessment for all seven, 11 and l4-year-olds; he consistent with the complementary roles of tests and teacher assessment; and take into account the work load on teachers.

  Some of SCAA's recommendations have already been or are being implemented, to ensure the benefits are available as soon as possible. For example, in the wake of our consultation last summer, SCAA has already set out for schools the 1996 assessment arrangements, hut, for the most part, SCAA's review focuses on 1997 and beyond. I intend to carry out extensive consultation on my provisional decisions on these proposals and have today published a consultation document accordingly.

  I have also announced today the national results of the 1995 assessments for seven, 11, and 14-year-olds and my decision to give greater access to schools' assessment results in order to raise standards, following our consultation in the autumn.
  341
  Copies of my exchange of correspondence with Sir Ron Dearing about SCASS's review; the Government's consultation document; a letter from Her Majesty's chief
  342
  inspector; and the national curriculum assessment results of seven, 11 and 14-year-olds have been placed in the Library.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what allocations of national lottery

  Body

  Announced

  Recipient

  Location

  Amount

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Saint Peter and Paul over 50's Club

  Salford, Manchester

  500

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Rochdale Pensioners Association

  Rochdale

  500

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Physically Handicapped and Able Bodied Club

  Middleton, Gtr. Manchester

  836

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  346 (East Manchester) Scout Group

  Chadderton, Manchester

  1,000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Trustees of Seven Springs Camp Site—Disley

  Didsbury, Manchester

  1,910

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Harpurhey Minibus Group Church Lad's and Church Girls' Brigade, Manchester

  Harpurhey, Manchester

  2,630

  NLCB

  20 November 1995

  Manchester

  Manchester

  2,750

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Arthritis Care—Manchester North

  Middleton, Manchester

  3,000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Ratcliffe Arms Senior Citizens Club

  Rochdale

  3,000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  St. Marks Youth Club, Glodwick

  Oldham

  3,375

  Sports

  10 January 1996

  Tyldesley Tennis Club

  Tyldesley, Gtr. Manchester

  3,564

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Higher Broughton Advice Centre

  Salford, Manchester

  3,600

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  161st Manchester Troop of Boy Scouts

  Cheetham Hill, Manchester

  5,000

  Sports

  6 September 1995

  Withenshawe Shortmat Bowling Club

  Manchester

  5,241

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Volunteer Reading Help

  Bolton

  5,410

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Manchester Women's Aid

  Manchester

  5,500

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Denton Blind Centre

  Denton, Manchester

  6,000

  NLCB

  23 October 1995

  Rochdale Childer

  Rochdale

  6,500

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Moss Side Playgroup

  Moss Side, Manchester

  6,646

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Little Tots Toy Library Steering Committee

  Salford, Manchester

  5,650

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Triump Over Phobia (TOP) UK

  Manchester

  6,753

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Formal Term

  Moss Side, Manchester

  7,000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Moss Side Community Build

  Moss Side, Manchester

  7,500

  NLCB

  20 November 1995

  The Bolton Association of Playgroups

  Bolton

  7,500

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Manchester Bosnian Community Association

  Prestwich, Manchester

  8,000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Link Community Care Group

  Moss Side, Manchester

  8,200

  Sports

  9 August 1995

  Hawkshaw Tennis Club

  Bury

  8,250

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Bury Women's Aid

  Bury

  9,000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  7th A Rochdale Scouts

  Rochdale

  9,063

  Sports

  10 January 1996

  Denton Town Football Club

  Tameside, Gtr. Manchester

  9,513

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Community Action

  Manchester

  10,000

  Arts

  21 September 1995

  Black Arts Alliance

  Manchester

  10,758

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Selclare (Greater Manchester) Trust—Accemp

  Bury, Gtr. Manchester

  11,500

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Selclare (Greater Manchester) Trust—Accemp Manchester and District Transport for Sick Children

  Bury, Gtr. Manchester

  11,500

  NLCB

  23 October 1995

  Children

  Manchester and District

  12,000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  North Manchester Crime Prevention Panel

  Oldham

  12,000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Victim Support

  Rochdale

  12,300

  NLCB

  20 November 1995

  North Manchester District Scout Council

  North Manchester

  12,400

  Arts

  16 October 1995

  Theatre Workshop

  Manchester

  12,850

  Arts

  21 September 1995

  Theatre in Prisons and Probation

  Manchester

  13,338

  NLCB

  23 October 1995

  Manchester Young People's Theatre Company

  Manchester

  15,000

  NLCB

  20 November 1995

  The Selcare Greater Manchester Trust

  Greater Manchester

  15,000

  Sports

  10 January 1996

  Shaw Cricket Club

  Oldham

  15,246

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Slade Lane Neighbourhood Centre

  Longsight, Manchester

  15,500

  NLCB

  20 November 1995

  Oldham District Scout Council

  Oldham

  16,500

  Sports

  3 October 1995

  Sacred Heart Football Club

  Rochdale

  17,446

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  First Rochdale Scout Group

  Rochdale

  18,000

  Sports

  10 January 1996

  Saddleworth Outdoor Pursuits Association Inskip League of Friendship for Disabled

  Greenfield, Gtr. Manchester

  22,000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Persons

  Rochdale

  22,903

  Arts

  21 September 1995

  Bury Music Services Ltd.

  Bury

  25,000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Gate House Publishing Charity

  Hulme, Manchester

  25,525

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  College Bank Tenants and Residents

  Rochdale

  28,000

  NLCB

  20 November 1995

  100th Manchester (centurians) Scout Group

  Manchester

  29,040

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  INCITU

  Moss Side, Manchester

  30,000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Mosscare Housing Limited

  Manchester

  30,000

  NLCB

  20 November 1995

  The Manchester Deaf Centre

  Manchester

  30,000

  Arts

  16 October 1995

  Dobcross Youth Band

  Oldham

  34.000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Weaste Community Care Centre

  Salford, Manchester

  35,000

  344
  funds have been made to date to organisations and projects in the Greater Manchester area. [11056]

  Mr. Sproat
  To date, 116 awards totalling £27.8 million have been made to organisations in Greater Manchester. The allocations of awards are shown in the following table:
  345

  Body

  Announced

  Recipient

  Location

  Amount

  Sports

  8 November 1995

  Saddleworth and District Angling Society

  Oldham

  35,754

  Sports

  10 January 1996

  Bradshaw Tennis Club

  Bolton

  36,887

  NHMF

  20 December 1995

  St. Ann's Church

  Manchester

  38,000

  Arts

  16 October 1995

  Multi Asian Arts

  Rochdale

  39,190

  Sports

  7 June 1995

  Etherow Centre

  Gtr. Manchester

  39,700

  Arts

  21 September 1995

  Blue Coat School Brass Band

  Oldham

  40,000

  Arts

  30 March 1995

  Inner Sense Percussion Orchestra

  Manchester

  40,600

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Contact Shiri Guru Gobind Singh Gurdwara Mission Centre

  Whalley Range, Manchester

  45,000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Centre

  Whalley Range, Manchester

  45,000

  Arts

  20 July 1995

  Standish Brass Band

  Bolton

  48,000

  Sports

  6 September 1995

  Little Hulton Cricket and Bowling Club

  Manchester

  48,500

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  The Agency for Economic Development

  Manchester

  50,000

  Sports

  8 November 1995

  Rochdale MBC

  Rochdale

  55,422

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Trafford CVS

  Sale, Manchester

  57,270

  Arts

  23 November 1995

  Inner City Music Ltd.

  Manchester

  59,142

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Trafford Women's Aid

  Stretford, Manchester

  65,447

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Cheetham Hill Advice Centre

  Cheetham Hill, Manchester

  70,146

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Heywood/Middleton Citizen Advocacy

  Heywood, Gtr. Manchester

  75,000

  Arts

  24 May 1995

  M6 Theatre Company

  Rochdale

  76,384

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Manchester and Salford Methodist Mission

  Manchester

  79,648

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Newhay Playground

  Rochdale

  83,500

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  St. John Ambulance National Headquarters

  Manchester

  83,950

  Sports

  7 June 1995

  Garswood Football Club

  Gtr. Manchester

  86,045

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Independent Neighbourhood Care Association

  Salford, Manchester

  89,100

  Arts

  16 October 1995

  St. Ann's Church

  Manchester

  95,000

  MC

  11 September 1995

  Boarshaw Clough

  Rochdale/Oldham

  100,000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Hideaway

  Moss Side, Manchester

  102,000

  NLCB

  23 October 1995

  Bury Metro Racial Equality Council

  Bury

  102,900

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Independent Contract Unit

  Manchester

  111,445

  Sports

  8 November 1995

  Rochdale Football Club Limited (By Shares) Swinton, Pendlebury and Clifton Care of the

  Rochdale

  120,412

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Elderly

  Manchester

  137,000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Creative Support Manchester Adventure Playgrounds

  Manchester

  137,880

  NLCB

  20 November 1995

  Association

  Manchester

  142,000

  Sports

  9 August 1995

  Markland Hill Tennis Club Ltd.

  Bolton

  146,268

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  The Big Issue North West

  Manchester

  155,000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  City Centre Project Limited

  Manchester

  160,292

  NLCB

  23 October 1995

  Manchester and Salford Family Unit

  Manchester and Salford

  162,428

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Manchester Rape Crisis

  Manchester

  164,068

  Sports

  10 January 1996

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough

  Bolton

  168,000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Indian Association

  Oldham

  185,000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  The Bibini Centre for Young People

  Manchester

  198,900

  NLCB

  20 November 1995

  Manchester University Settlement

  Manchester

  204,000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Nacre Halloween Youth Project

  Bolton

  210,071

  Sports

  6 December 1995

  Bury Metropolitan Borough Council Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

  Gtr. Manchester

  216,966

  Sports

  3 October 1995

  (Breeze Hill School)

  Oldham, Gtr. Manchester

  246,500

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Demesne Community Association Manchester City Council (North Manchester

  Middleman, Gtr. Manchester

  250,000

  Sports

  5 July 1995

  High School for Boys) Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

  Gtr. Manchester

  260,000

  Sports

  3 October 1995

  (Royton and Crompton School)

  Oldham, Gtr. Manchester

  266,000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Salford Link Project Newbold Multicultural Residence and Youth

  Salford. Manchester

  303,850

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Association

  Rochdale

  350,000

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  CAB, Manchester

  Manchester

  370,541

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Wai Yin Chinese Women Society

  Manchester

  395,031

  NHMF

  26 April 1995

  Museum of Science and Industry

  Manchester

  400,000

  MC

  11 September 1995

  The Visions Centre

  Manchester

  435,000

  Arts

  24 May 1995

  Green Room

  Manchester

  750,000

  MC

  11 September 1995

  East Manchester River Valley

  Manchester

  2,370,000

  Arts

  23 November 1995

  Contact Theatre Company

  Manchester

  4,456,392

  MC

  30 October 1995

  Rochdale Canal Trust

  Manchester to Halifax

  11,923,500

  116 Awards

  £27,881,326

  346

  Pay-per-view (Five Nations Rugby)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will add five nations rugby to the list of sporting events excluded from pay-per-view channels. [11467]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have no plans to do so.

  S4C
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on what occasions since her appointment(a) she or her Ministers and (b) her officials have held meetings with (i) the chief executive of S4C, (ii) the chairman of the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority and (iii) members of the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority. [11069]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]: Ministers and officials have held meetings with the chairman and chief executive of S4C, as with other bodies for which my Department is responsible, from time to time. Most recently, the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Inglewood, met the chairman and chief executive of S4C to discuss the Broadcasting Bill on Monday 15 January.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will place in the Library all correspondence sent by her Department to the chairman or members of the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority or to the chief executive of S4C communicating the Department's intention to change the funding basis of S4C. [11071]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]: I have placed in the Library of both Houses a copy of my right

  £ million

  Estimated outturn

  Spending plans

  19941

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Not applicable

  64.0

  67.9

  73.3

  75.3

  77.3

  1The figures for the 1994 calendar year did not appear in the table to which the hon. Member refers. In 1994, S4C received £57.971 million from the Department of National Heritage.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will express as a percentage the year on year increase in the figures for the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority for 1994–95 To 1998–99

  Estimated

  Outturn 1994–95

  Outturn 1995–96

  1996–97

  Spending Plans 1997–98

  1998–99

  £ million

  64.0

  67.0

  73.3

  75.3

  77.3

  Percentage increase between above figures

  6.0

  7.9

  2.7

  2.7

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are her estimates of S4C income for the years(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999 and (d) 2000 taking into account the changes she announced on 15 December 1995; and if she will additionally express these figures as a year on year percentage change. [11078]
  348
  hon. Friend's letter to the chairman of S4C of 15 December.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) whether the figures for the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority spending plans in the years 1997–98 and 1998–99 contained in table 2 of her press release of 28 November 1995, were calculated on the basis of the planned new formula for calculating S4C income announced on 15 December 1995; [11073]

  (2) what is her estimate of the funding of the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority from her Department in the calendar years (a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000 if no change were to take place in the basis of funding S4C; and if she will additionally express these figures as a year on year percentage change. [11077]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]: The figure for 1996–97, contained in the press release to which the hon. Gentleman refers, derives from best available estimates of the application of the Broadcasting Act 1990 formula, although uncertainties for later years led the Department to uprate the estimated 1996–97 figure by £2 million for each of the following years for planning purposes in the expectation that additional funding would be found if needed in later years of the survey to meet S4C's statutory entitlement.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will express the income of S4C on a calendar year basis from 1994–1999, inclusive using the financial spending plan figures for the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority contained in table 2 of her press release of 28 November 1995. [11076]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]: The information the hon. Member requests, based on the particular table he specifies, is as follows:

  which were issued in table 2 of her press release of 29 November 1995. [11074]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]: The information the hon. Member requests is as follows:

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]: My Department estimates that S4C funding in 1997 will be in the region of £73.3 million, but that figure cannot be assessed with certainty at this stage. Firm estimates of income for S4C in later years deriving from the proposals in the Bill cannot be made until the level of payment to S4C for 1997 is finalised.
  349
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are her estimates of the percentage change in qualifying terrestial advertising revenue year-on-year for(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96, (c) 1996–97, (d) 1997–98 and (e) 1998–99; and if she will additionally express these as calendar year percentage changes for the years (i) 1994, (ii) 1995 (iii) 1996, (iv) 1997 and (v) 1998. [11075]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]: My Department does not compile estimations of terrestrial television advertising revenues. That is a matter for the Independent Television Commission.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) when her Department communicated the intention to change S4C's funding basis to the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority and the chief executive of S4C; [11070]

  (2) when she or her Ministers or officials told the Welsh Office of their plans to change the funding basis of S4C. [11072]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]: The Broadcasting Bill was published on 15 December 1995. It reflected discussions with all interested Government Departments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke and wrote to the chairman of S4C on the morning of 15 December about the contents of the Bill.

  Millennium Projects
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations she held with people from Wales, or what consultation she required the millennium commissioners to hold with people in Wales before reaching a decision on the respective merits as perceived by the people of Wales, in respect of the various schemes being proposed for major millennium projects in Wales; and if she will make a statement. [9393]

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

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate she has made of absenteeism rates in days per annum for staff in her Department for each of the years(a) 1991–92, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95 and (d) 1995–96. [11341]

  Mr. Sproat
  The absenteeism rate in days for the Department of National Heritage since it was created in April 1992 are shown in the table:

  Year

  Number of days

  1993–94

  1,839

  1994–95

  2,489

  1995–96

  12,752

  1 Estimated figure for whole year based on actual figure as at end of December 1995.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what public funds have been allocated by(a) the Franchising Director and (b) other sources to offset the liabilities which Railtrack faces, in respect of penalty payments under the track access agreements with train operating companies with special reference to schedules 4 and 8 of these agreements. [9945]

  Mr. Watts
  As foreshadowed in his policy statement in January 1995, the Rail Regulator has recently issued advice to BR and Railtrack on the level of additional charges which Railtrack should raise in consequence of its additional liabilities under schedules 4 and 8 to passenger track access agreements. This time limited measure is intended to allow Railtrack to adjust to the demanding targets in its performance regime, which will place on Railtrack strong financial incentives to improve its performance.

  For 1995–96, no additional public expenditure will be associated with these arrangements. No decisions on funding matters for 1996–97 have yet been taken.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what basis the debt of the British Railways Board was shared between BRB and Railtrack, upon the formation of Railtrack. [9941]

  Mr. Watts
  The apportionment of long-term debt between BR and Railtrack on 1 April 1994 was as follows:

  BRB: £1,269 million

  Railtrack: £1,973 million

  This was judged to be the most appropriate apportionment of debt, given the nature and size of the two bodies, when Railtrack was formed.

  Rail Grant (Strathclyde)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what level of metropolitan rail grant was paid to the regional passenger transport executives and Strathclyde regional council for the financial year 1995–96. [11233]

  Mr. Watts
  The estimated level of metropolitan railway grant to be paid in 1995–96 to the English passenger transport authorities is £72 million. The estimated level of MRG to be paid to Strathclyde regional Council is £60.2 million.

  Trains (Speed Restrictions)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains speed restrictions imposed for a period of greater than six weeks are currently in place on the(a) London, Tilbury and Southend line, (b) Great Western line, (c) South West main line and South West suburban lines, (d) InterCity east coast main line, (e) Midland main line, (f) South London line and Sussex coast line and (g) Gatwick Express line, indicating the information also for spur lines; how long the restrictions have been in place; when the restrictions are due to be lifted; and what is the estimated cost of the works required to lift those restrictions. [11234]
  351
  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack informs me that the number of all speed restrictions currently in place are(a) London, Tilbury and Southend Line: none; (b) Great Western Line: 16; (c) South West main line and suburban lines: four; (d) InterCity east coast main line: six; (e) Midland main line: two; (f) south London line and Sussex coast line: six; (g) Gatwick Express line: none.

  Details of how long the restrictions have been in place, details of spur line restrictions, and estimated repair costs are not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, Railtrack confirms that repair time scales are in accordance with both operational requirements and Railtrack's rigorous safety standards.

  Railway Property
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of property currently owned by(a) the British Railways Board and (b) Railtrack plc is classified as contaminated. [11235]

  Mr. Watts
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  It is to be expected that some railway activities have had the potential to cause contamination of land. The British Railways Board takes protective action where there are known problems with land formerly in operational railway use and carries out investigations prior to the sale of property where significant contamination is a possibility because of the previous uses. Railtrack seeks to identify and manage those operational sites and facilities which may represent a significant actual or potential risk of harm to the environment.

  East Lancashire Railway Line
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what sources of public funding are available for improvements to the east Lancashire railway line; what decision the Government office north-west has made in respect of this project for regional challenge funding; and if he will make a statement. [11606]

  Mr. Watts
  Although the proposal for improvements to the East Lancashire railway line formed an unsuccessful bid for funding under regional challenge in 1995, the Government office for the north-west is continuing to work with the promoters to examine other funding options, including the possibility of carrying forward some elements of the project through mainstream European regional development fund grant. Lancashire county council can also seek funding in 1997–98 through the transport policies and programmes process, by making a renewed bid for funds as part of the Blackburn/Hyndburn local transport package.

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the work to date of the Highways Agency's environmental unit; and what plans there are to increase its resources. [11242]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.
  352
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 25 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the work to date of the Highways Agency's environmental unit and what plans there are to increase its resources.
  The Agency Environmental Policy Division (AEPD) was set up on 31 January 1995 and is approaching the end of its first year of operation. The work of the Division to date has been directed towards the development of an Environmental Strategy for the Highways Agency. The Division has also established itself as the HA focal point for contact with statutory and non-statutory environmental organisations.
  The Division has coordinated the preparation of the environmental section of the Agency's first Annual Report and produced a booklet on the archaeological work carried out on the trunk road network in 1994/95. Both of these were published in October 1995. I enclose a copy of the archaeology booklet. You should have received a copy of the Annual Report.
  In line with good management practice the resources needed to discharge the duties of the division are kept under review. There are no plans to increase the complement of the Division for the present.
  I hope that this is useful.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 13 December to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers),Official Report, column 677, on what date he learned that the costs of the Newbury bypass were to increase to £101 million. [11220]

  Mr. Watts
  The estimated cost of the Newbury bypass is £101 million; it has not increased by that sum. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was aware of the revised cost during the review of the roads programme last year. The estimate reflects current price trends.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the expenditure of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will estimate the savings accruing to his Department from the use of consultants in each of these years. [11347]

  Mr. Norris
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure £ million

  1993–94

  24.2

  1994–95

  29.0

  1995–96 (to date)

  31.0

  1995–961 (whole year)

  51.5

  1996–971

  26.6

  1Estimated.

  Figures from 1979–80, 1989–90 and 1991–92 are not available except at disproportionate cost.

  The totals exclude expenditure on road scheme consultancies as they relate largely to production and planning work.
  353
  It is not possible to estimate the savings accruing from this expenditure, the vast majority of which was for specific deliverables such as privatisation; and very little of which had the aim of achieving savings.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the total expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (1) advertising and (2) press and public relations. [11348]

  Mr. Norris
  The expenditure by the Department is as follows:

  £000

  Agency

  1979–80

  1989–90

  1991–92

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1995–961

  1996–97

  MSA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  104

  55

  80

  80

  Coastguard agency

  —

  —

  —

  —

  241

  206

  281

  n/a

  Highways agency:

  Advertising

  —

  —

  —

  —

  320

  110

  n/a

  Publicity

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  1,000

  n/a

  TRL:

  Advertising

  —

  —

  —

  0.59

  —

  19

  25

  2n/a

  Publicity

  —

  —

  —

  23.59

  5

  DVLA:

  Advertising

  6

  736

  1,192

  1,604

  1,506

  1,177

  2,200

  2,200

  Publicity

  27

  43

  45

  26

  38

  38

  DSA

  —

  —

  30

  40

  40

  40

  n/a

  1Estimated outturn.

  2 TRL is to be privatised.

  Road Salting
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effects of road salting on (i) roadside flora, (ii) roadside fauna, (iii) vehicles and (iv) bridges. [11644]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 25 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question asking what assessment he has commissioned and evaluated on the effects of road salting on roadside flora, fauna, vehicles and bridges. comprehensive study of the effects of road salting on roadside flora was carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory in 1982. The subsequent report was "An Assessment of The Conditions For Shrubs Alongside Motorways" by Colwill, Thompson and Rutter, Laboratory Report 1061.
  A study was also commissioned in April 1989 into the performance of concrete in bridges. Known as the "Maunsell Report", its findings have been included within the 15 year bridge rehabilitation programme.
  There has not been any separate assessments on evaluating the effects of road salting on roadside fauna or on vehicles.
  354

  1979–80: 6,686,000

  1989–90: 5,386,000

  1991–92: 7,380,000

  1993–94: 8,275,000

  1994–95: 8,039,000

  1995–96: 7,472,000

  1996–97: n/a

  A forecast for 1996–97 is not yet available. All figures include vat.

  The figures cover all publicity expenditure, including television, radio, press advertising and other promotional material. It is not possible to break these figures down between advertising and press and public relations.

  Information on non-departmental public bodies and agencies is not held centrally, or otherwise readily available. Available data is given in the table.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of absenteeism rates in days per annum for staff in his Department for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96. [11349]

  Mr. Norris
  Information on sickness absence in the Department of Transport, which is available only for calendar years, is as follows:

  Year

  Average working days of sickness per staff year

  1989

  8.1

  1990

  9.4

  1991

  9.9

  1992

  10.2

  1993

  10.7

  1994

  9.4

  1995

  19.0

  1Estimated.

  In 1979–90 sick absence rates were not separately recorded for the Department.

  Chiswick Flyover
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the cost of refurbishment of the Chiswick flyover on the London A4, the cause of its deterioration and the time taken to repair it. [11645]
  355
  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 25 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking him if he will estimate the cost of the refurbishment of the Chiswick flyover, the cause of its deterioration and the time taken to repair it.
  My reply relates to work to the M4 elevated section which extends from Junction 1 (east of Chiswick roundabout) to Boston Manor playing fields.
  It is too early to be precise about the cost of the refurbishment of the elevated section of the M4. In order to maintain access on this busy route between London, Heathrow and the west and to minimise disruption to road users, the work will have to be phased and could take up to ten years. Preliminary estimates suggest that the cost will be in the region of £30m.
  The M4 elevated structure is some 30 years old. Repairs are required because over the years water containing de-icing salts has leaked from the road surface into the crossheads at the top of the piers. When this occurs steel reinforcement in the piers begins to rust loosening and pushing off the protective surface concrete.
  There is an ongoing maintenance programme to install new bridge deck joints to prevent further deterioration of the structure and to review loose surface concrete. This work is being undertaken at night.
  Investigations to prepare a programme a further repairs are still ongoing. There are no plans for weekday or daytime closures of this section of the M4 motorway.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he expects to be made in the eyesight test for public service vehicle and lorry drivers; and what number of these drivers he expects will fail the new test. [11897]

  Mr. Norris
  From 1 July, all those who wish to drive large goods or passenger-carrying vehicles—whether for the first time or to continue doing so—will, when they apply for or to renew their licence, have to meet the minimum uncorrected vision standard in both eyes, rather than in one eye only as at present. We estimate that some 3,000 current licence holders will not meet this requirement.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. what revisions of emission targets will be made to accord with the findings of the intergovernmental conference on climate control on human influence on the global climate. [10304]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK target for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions remains that set down for all developed countries in the climate change convention—to return emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000—although we now expect to surpass this. For the period after 2000, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has called for developed countries to agree to aim to reduce their emissions by a figure in the range of 5 to 10 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. He intends to take every opportunity to press his international colleagues to support that target and will he highlighting the important findings of the intergovernmental panel on climate change whenever he does so.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Research
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department has carried out and with what findings into what happens to claimants aged(a) 16 and 17 years and (b) 18 years and over who have become disentitled to state benefit; and if he will make a statement. [8069]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds who meet the qualifying conditions have access to social security benefits including income support and housing benefit. In 1990, the Department of Social Security commissioned research by MORI into the circumstances of young people aged 16 and 17 who claimed income support via the severe hardship provision. This was published in 1991 and is in the Library. People who are aged 18 or over qualify for benefits if they meet the entitlement conditions. We have not conducted research into people who fail to meet those conditions.

  Mortgage Interest Payments
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate savings since 1 October 1995 as a result of his measures announced on 30 November 1994 to limit or withdraw income support for mortgage interest payments indicating the figures for(a) 1994–95,
  (b) 1995–96 and (c) the projected figures for 1996–97; what further plans he has to (i) limit and (ii) restrict mortgage interest payments under income support; and if he will make a statement. [9391]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The estimated savings from the measures announced by the Secretary of State on 30 November 1994 and introduced on 10 April 1995 and 2 October 1995 to restrict the amount of mortgage interest met by income support are £30 million in 1995–96, £170 million in 1996–97 and £240 million in 1997–98.

  We have no further plans of the kind described but all aspects of social security are kept under review.

  One-parent Families
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of(a) families with children, (b) one-parent families, (c) one-parent families headed by a divorced or separated person, (d) one-parent families headed by a widow or widower and (e) one-parent families headed by a single unmarried mother receive income support. [9605]

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

  Income support recipients: GB 1993

  Number of IS recipients (thousands)

  As a percentage of the relevant population

  Families with dependent children

  1,600

  23

  One-parent families with dependent children of which:

  1,048

  71

  Divorced or separated

  547

  65

  widowed

  20

  24

  Single unmarried mother

  463

  85

  357

  Number of IS recipients (thousands)

  As a percentage of the relevant population

  Single unmarried fathers

  14

  1—

  Prisoners' partners

  3

  n/a

  Notes:

  1denotes sample size too small to estimate percentage.

  1. n/a denotes not available.

  2. Due to rounding, recipient total does not tally.

  Source:

  Income Support 1 per cent. Annual Statistical Enquiry May 1993. Estimates derived from the General Household Survey.

  Parents with Care
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of parents with care for whom good cause has not been accepted by the Child Support Agency have had a reduced benefit directive imposed,

  Departmental telecommunications running costs

  £000

  Agencies

  DSS HQ

  Benefit Agency

  Contributions Agency

  Child Support Agency

  Information Technology Service Agency

  Resettlement Agency

  War Pensions Agency

  Non-departmental public bodies

  DSS totals

  1989–90:

  Current

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  113

  —

  —

  29,738

  Capital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9,070

  1991–92:

  Current

  370

  16,865

  227

  —

  24,099

  107

  —

  —

  41,668

  Capital

  0

  0

  0

  —

  7,281

  0

  —

  —

  7,281

  1993–94:

  Current

  384

  20,794

  2,658

  1,325

  36,413

  65

  57

  —

  61,696

  Capital

  0

  1,531

  0

  0

  29,212

  0

  0

  —

  30,743

  1994–95:

  Current

  352

  21,009

  4,516

  2,523

  37,154

  36

  104

  —

  65,694

  Capital

  167

  2,393

  86

  346

  12,890

  0

  184

  —

  16,066

  1995–96 (to date):

  Current

  421

  15,840

  2,415

  1,733

  24,536

  13

  78

  233

  45,036

  Capital

  95

  1,154

  70

  63

  14,288

  0

  75

  3

  15,745

  1995–96:

  Current

  561

  21,120

  3,221

  2,311

  32,715

  18

  111

  310

  60,057

  Capital

  84

  1,539

  94

  85

  15,225

  0

  101

  4

  17,128

  1. Figures for 1979–80 are not available. 2. Detailed spending plans for 1996–97 are yet to be finalised.

  3. Only Departmental figures and RA figures are available for 1989–90.

  4. 1991–92 figures for BA and ITSA include elements of what were to become CSA and WPA.

  5. 1995–96 figures have been extrapolated from the year to date figure.

  6. Current expenditure figures include running and rental costs for both voice and data transmission, capital expenditure figures include costs of equipment including office machines to handle output—e.g. to print order books.

  7. All figures are vote based and include VAT.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the expenditure of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all external consultants including management consultants for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for
  358
  broken down by centre, since April 1995; and how he explains variations between centres. [10181]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the annual telephone costs to(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) his Department's non-departmental public bodies staff for each of the years (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97; and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas of (a) to (c). [11394]

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table.

  Internal telephone directories are available to staff in the Department, its agencies and its non-departmental public bodies.

  1996–97; and if he will estimate the savings accruing to his Department from the use of consultants in each of these years. [11391]

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table. The information requested for 1979–80 and savings accrued from the use of consultants is not available. The estimated expenditure for 1996–97 is not yet available.
  359

  Expenditure on external consultants

  Year

  Amount £ million

  1989–90

  43.3

  1991–92

  69.7

  1993–94

  134.0

  1994–95

  26.1

  1995–96 (to date 31 December 1995)

  216.9

  1995–96 (estimated full year)

  21.66

  1Figures for 1992–93 onwards refer solely to expenditure on consultancy services following work undertaken for the efficiency scrutiny into the Government's use of external consultants. Figures for earlier years include the cost of contracted services.

  This figure is provisional and subject to amendment.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of absenteeism rates in days per annum for staff in his Department for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96. [11393]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. The average number of working days per staff year lost due to sickness is as follows:

  1991: 11.2 days

  1992: 9.3 days

  1993: 12.2 days

  1994: 12.1 days

  The figures for 1995 will not be available until the summer.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families are currently in receipt of family credit in(a) the City of Durham constituency and (b) the northern region; and what has been the cost of this benefit in each year since 1989–90. [10641]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 24 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about how many families are currently in receipt of Family Credit (FC) in (a) the City of Durham constituency and (b) the Northern Region; and what has been the cost of this benefit in each year since 1989–90.
  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because statistics are not kept which are specific to Parliamentary Constituencies, the borders of which are not the same as those of benefit offices. Statistics are available for the North Durham District which includes the Durham, Chester le street, Peterlee and Seaham offices. The number of families claiming FC in North Durham District is 4080, as at 10 November 1995. These figures are provisional and subject to change.
  The Benefits Agency is no longer organised on a regional basis and is now divided into Areas and Territories. FC figures for Scotland and Northern Territory could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  Annexe A gives details of the national cost of FC since 1989/90.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  360

  Annexe A

  Year

  Family credit outturn £ million

  1989–90

  425

  1990–91

  494

  1991–92

  626

  1992–93

  929

  1993–94

  1,208

  1994–95

  1,441

  Note:

  Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Source:

  Family Credit Statistics Quarterly Enquiry April 1995.

  1995 Departmental Report.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he has taken to publicise the social fund to likely applicants; and what is the total expenditure involved. [9486]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This 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 Jim Callaghan, dated 24 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State of Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what measures he has taken to publicise the Social Fund to likely applicants and what is the total expenditure involved.
  Social Fund information is produced in partnership with the Department of Social Security.
  Products include:
  A 16 page, introductory leaflet entitled "How the Social Fund can help you" produced in English, English/Welsh bilingual and eleven ethnic languages.
  A detailed, 64 page leaflet "A guide to the Social Fund", published in English.
  A series of three posters, publicising the help available and outlining the basic conditions people would need to satisfy before they might be eligible for an award from the Social Fund.
  The leaflets are made available to the public from Benefits Agency (BA) offices. They are also available to welfare advisers, Post Offices, Doctors Surgeries and Libraries external to the BA on request, from BA offices and HMSO, Chadderton. Posters are displayed in Benefits Agency offices and are also available to welfare advisers.
  The Social Fund publicity budget for 1995–96 is £77,300.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for discretionary social fund awards were refused in (i) 1993, (ii) 1994 and (iii) 1995 in total and by(a) region and (b) local DSS offices. [9484]

  Mr. 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.
  361
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jim Callaghan, dated 24 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many applications for discretionary Social Fund awards were refused in (i) 1993, (ii) 1994, and (iii) 1995 in total and by (a) region and (b) his local department's offices.
  The information is not available in the format requested. With the creation of the Benefits Agency in April 1991, former Departmental Local Offices and Regions were grouped into Districts and Area and Territorial Directorates. The information that is available is contained in Annex A - C, for the financial years 1993\94, 1994\95 and 1995\96 year to date. Copies will be placed in the Library.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mrs. Marilyn Hume
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on behalf of Mrs. Marilyn Hume, 10 St. Anne's court, Aigburth road, Liverpool L17 6BH; and if he will make a statement. [9675]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Alton, dated 24 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what representations he has received on behalf of Mrs Marilyn Hume.
  The Benefits Agency has received representation from the Citizens Advice Bureau, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, Doctor C A Young and Doctor S A Kumar on behalf of Mrs Marilyn Hume.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Social Security Fraud
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many instances his Department has identified in the past 12 months of attempted social security fraud based on impersonation with particular reference to attempts to secure benefits by changing a name and assuming the national insurance number of the other person; and if he will make a statement. [9309]

  Mr. Heald
  The information requested is not available. However, a total of 355 multiple identity investigations are currently under way, comprising 14 investigations with over 150 identities in each investigation and 341 investigations containing between two and 149 identities in each investigation.

  Funeral Payments
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received in respect of funeral payments from the social fund since the 5 June 1995 amendments were implemented. [10205]
  362
  Mr. Roger Evans
  This Department have responded to 54 letters and 19 parliamentary questions concerning social fund funeral payments since 5 June 1995.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the value of the basic state retirement pension for(a) a single pensioner and (b) a pensioner couple in 1970 and at each uprating since 1970; and what it would have been if it had been uprated in line with whichever was the higher of average earnings or prices. [10203]

  Mr. Heald
  The available information is in the table. As there was no uprating in 1970, the table shows the effect of uprating by the higher of prices and earnings since November 1969.

  £ per week

  Actual rate

  Rate if uprated by higher of prices and earnings

  Uprating date

  Single

  Couple

  Single

  Couple

  November 1969

  5.00

  8.10

  5.00

  8.10

  September 1971

  6.00

  9.70

  6.15

  9.95

  October 1972

  6.75

  10.90

  7.15

  11.55

  October 1973

  7.75

  12.50

  8.05

  13.00

  July 1974

  10.00

  16.00

  9.30

  15.00

  April 1975

  11.60

  18.50

  11.95

  19.30

  November 1975

  13.30

  21.20

  13.85

  22.35

  November 1976

  15.30

  24.50

  15.95

  25.70

  November 1977

  17.50

  28.00

  18.00

  29.00

  November 1978

  19.50

  31.20

  20.40

  32.85

  November 1979

  23.30

  37.30

  24.30

  39.15

  November 1980

  27.15

  43.45

  28.80

  46.40

  November 1981

  29.60

  47.35

  32.25

  51.95

  November 1982

  32.85

  52.55

  34.95

  56.30

  November 1983

  34.05

  54.50

  38.00

  61.20

  November 1984

  35.80

  57.30

  39.95

  64.35

  November 1985

  38.30

  61.30

  43.45

  69.95

  July 1986

  38.70

  61.95

  45.35

  73.00

  April 1987

  39.50

  63.25

  47.90

  77.10

  April 1988

  41.15

  65.90

  51.65

  83.15

  April 1989

  43.60

  69.80

  56.25

  90.55

  April 1990

  46.90

  75.10

  61.70

  99.35

  April 1991

  52.00

  83.25

  68.45

  110.20

  April 1992

  54.15

  86.70

  73.85

  118.90

  April 1993

  56.10

  89.80

  77.45

  124.70

  April 1994

  57.60

  92.10

  79.70

  128.30

  April 1995

  58.85

  94.10

  82.90

  133.45

  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of all pensioners, single pensioners and pensioner couples have total incomes of(a) £0 to £5, (b) £5 to £10, (c) £10 to £15, (d) £15 to £20, (e) £20 to £25 and (f) £25 to £30 above income support levels. [10270]

  Mr. Heald
  The available information is in the table. Due to the limited sample size available it is not possible to provide reliable information for the proportion of incomes falling within bands of less than £15.
  363

  Pensioner income levels

  Numbers in thousands (1993 prices)

  Income above I.S.

  Single pensioners

  Pensioner couples

  All pensioners units

  Proportion (per cent.)

  Numbers

  Proportion (per cent.)

  Numbers

  Proportion (per cent.)

  Numbers

  £0 to £15

  8

  200

  17

  750

  13

  1,000

  £15 to £30

  10

  250

  21

  900

  16

  1,150

  Source:

  Analysis of the Family Expenditure Survey 1993.

  Notes:

  1. Percentages are rounded to the nearest 1 per cent., numbers rounded to the nearest 50,000.

  2. The level of Income Support used for this calculation is that for pensioners aged 60/65, at April 1993 benefit levels.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will exempt supported lodgings from the proposed housing benefit changes in relation to young people; and if he will make a statement. [11029]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Social Security Advisory Committee has just completed its consultation on these proposals. The local authority associations will be completing their consultation shortly. I will consider all the representations which have been made on the provisions for young people with special needs, and will respond to them in the Command Paper.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the system of cold weather payment, in respect of immobile disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [10528]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There have been no representations on this matter. Cold weather payments are focused on the

  Year

  Month of uprating

  Rate of basic retirement pension £ per week

  Increase over previous rate percentage

  Equivalent annual increase percentage

  Change in RPI since previous AprilRate as a percentage of average earnings percentage

  percentage

  1969

  November

  5.00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1970

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5.6

  19.3

  1971

  September

  6.00

  20.0

  10.5

  9.4

  20.3

  1972

  October

  6.75

  12.5

  11.5

  6.3

  19.6

  1973

  October

  7.75

  14.8

  14.8

  9.2

  19.8

  1974

  July

  10.00

  29.0

  40.5

  15.2

  22.2

  1975

  April

  11.60

  16.0

  21.9

  21.7

  21.6

  November

  13.30

  14.7

  26.4

  —

  22.0

  1976

  November

  15.30

  15.0

  15.0

  18.9

  22.6

  1977

  November

  17.50

  14.4

  14.4

  17.5

  23.7

  1978

  November

  19.50

  11.4

  11.4

  7.9

  23.2

  1979

  November

  23.30

  19.5

  19.5

  10.1

  23.2

  1980

  November

  27.15

  16.5

  16.5

  21.8

  22.6

  1981

  November

  29.60

  9.0

  9.0

  12.0

  22.4

  1982

  November

  32.85

  11.0

  11.0

  9.4

  23.1

  1983

  November

  34.05

  3.7

  3.7

  4.0

  21.7

  1984

  November

  35.80

  5.1

  5.1

  5.2

  21.4

  1985

  November

  38.30

  7.0

  7.0

  6.9

  21.4

  1986

  July

  38.70

  1.0

  1.6

  3.0

  20.5

  1987

  April

  39.50

  2.1

  2.8

  4.2

  19.9

  1988

  April

  41.15

  4.2

  4.2

  3.9

  18.8

  1989

  April

  43.60

  6.0

  6.0

  8.0

  18.2

  364
  most vulnerable groups receiving income support, that is those with a pensioner or disability premium, or a child aged under five. So far this winter, 3.8 million payments worth almost £32 million have been made.

  State Pensions
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the value of the basic state retirement pension as a proportion of gross average earnings in the United Kingdom for each year since 1970; [10204]

  (2) what was (a) the annual percentage increase in the state pension and (b) the year on year April to April retail prices index for each year since 1970. [10259]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table. the rate of increase in the basic pension has been converted to an annual rate where the length of time between upratings was greater or less than 12 months.

  As there was no uprating in 1970 the value of the basic pension during that year is shown in the last column of the table as a percentage of average gross earnings at April 1970.
  365

  Year

  Month of uprating

  Rate of basic retirement pension £ per week

  Increase over previous rate percentage

  Equivalent annual increase percentage

  Change in RPI since previous AprilRate as a percentage of average earnings percentage

  percentage

  1990

  April

  46.90

  7.6

  7.6

  9.4

  17.8

  1991

  April

  52.00

  10.9

  10.9

  6.4

  18.3

  1992

  April

  54.15

  4.1

  4.1

  4.3

  17.8

  1993

  April

  56.10

  3.6

  3.6

  1.3

  17.7

  1994

  April

  57.60

  2.7

  2.7

  2.6

  17.7

  1995

  April

  58.85

  2.2

  2.2

  3.3

  17.5

  1996

  April

  61.15

  3.9

  3.9

  n/a

  n/a

  Source:

  "The Abstract of Statistics for Social Security Benefits and Contributions and Indices of Prices and Earnings", 1995 edition. Average earnings index (whole economy, unadjusted) (Tables 2.1 and 2.2 of the abstract).

  Retail prices index information taken from table 1.1.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the numbers of people in receipt of incapacity benefit who are no longer eligible for invalidity benefit at the most recent date for which information is available. [11088]

  Mr. Burt
  On 13 April 1995, all recipients of invalidity benefit transferred to incapacity benefit at the rate of the benefit in payment. At 31 August 1995, the latest date for which information is available, 1.64 million1people were in receipt of incapacity benefit who had, before 13 April 1995, been in receipt of invalidity benefit.
  1Note: Figures excludes a small number of cases paid clerically.

  National Disability Council
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he is in a position to announce the chairman and membership of the National Disability Council. [12066]

  Mr. Burt
  I am delighted to announce that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has appointed David Grayson1 of Business in the Community, as the chairman of the National Disability Council, and the following council members:

  Doug Alker1, Chief Executive of RNID

  Christopher Brocksom, Chief Executive of AXA Equity and Law

  Alan Dickson, Deputy Director of The Scottish Spastics Society

  Ann Foster1, Director of The Scottish Consumer Council

  Tanni Grey1, Chairman of the British Wheelchair Racing Association

  David Jenkins, General Secretary of the Welsh TUC

  Colin Low1, Vice Chairman of RNIB

  Jim McAllister, Divisional Director of Marks and Spencers

  Bert Massie1, Director of RADAR, and member of DPTAC

  David Mills, Managing Director of Retail Banking Services, Midland Bank

  Martin Reaveley1, Director of Corporate Finance and Planning, Bass PLC

  Phillipa Russell1, Director of the Council for Disabled Children David Roberts1, Founder member of Clwyd People First

  Kevin Shinkwin1, parliamentary advisor to the Muscular Dystrophy Group

  Alan Smith, Chairman of NACEPD

  Jenny White, Deputy Legal Advisor to the Electricity Association

  366

  1 indicates that the member is either a disabled person or the parent or guardian of a person with disabilities

  My right hon. Friend will also be inviting the chairman of the Northern Ireland Disability Council to become a member once he or she has been appointed.

  In making these appointments, the Secretary of State has met the commitments given in Parliament that membership will be drawn from throughout Great Britain and sought to provide common membership with the National Advisory Council on the Employment of People with Disabilities and the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Council. More than half of the membership of the council are disabled people or the parents or guardians of people with disabilities. They will bring to the council a wide range of experience of disability, the disabilities represented include sensory impairments, mobility difficulties and learning disabilities.

  The National Disability Council can make a great contribution to the reduction of discrimination against disabled people and the chairman and members will be crucial to its success. I believe that we have achieved the right balance of experience of business and disability.

ENVIRONMENT

  City Grants
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by region, the figures for city grants approvals and achievements since May 1988 in terms of(a) schemes approved, (b) grants approved (c) total private sector investment and (d) the gearing ratio and jobs created. [10188]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following table provides the information requested for city grant applications administered either centrally by my Department, or by English partnerships since 10 November 1993, city challenge partnerships and the urban development corporations.
  367

  Region

  Schemes approved1

  Grants approved £ million

  Private investment £ million

  Gearing ratio

  Jobs created

  North-east

  105

  104.183

  824.798

  7.92

  8,398

  North-west

  139

  134.003

  657.063

  4.90

  16,185

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  104

  78.760

  278.280

  3.53

  13,541

  Merseyside

  68

  55.807

  213.400

  3.82

  7,464

  West Midlands

  130

  141.321

  552.622

  3.91

  20,221

  East Midlands

  55

  52.028

  145.239

  2.79

  5,815

  Eastern

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  South-west

  12

  22.894

  52.472

  2.29

  2,939

  South-east

  4

  4.262

  30.841

  7.24

  835

  London

  46

  50.776

  229.240

  4.51

  6,674

  Total

  663

  644.034

  2,983.955

  4.63

  82,072

  1 This does not include approved schemes on which grant was not drawn down.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responsibilities local authorities have to house asylum seekers whose applications(a) are under consideration and (b) have been refused; and if he will make a statement.[11203]

  Mr. Clappison
  At present the homelessness legislation requires local authorities to secure accommodation for asylum seekers who are unintentionally homeless and in priority need, if there is no other accommodation available for them. When the Asylum and Immigration Bill becomes law we propose to make an order that would remove entitlement under the homelessness legislation from those persons who apply for asylum after they have entered this country, and from those asylum seekers who remain in this country pending the outcome of an appeal against an initial negative decision. This will align entitlement under the homelessness legislation with entitlement to housing benefit.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Enviornment how much each local authority took from balances to fund budget expenditure in 1995–96. [11596]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have placed the information in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Enviornment what would be the effect of an 8 per cent. increase in council tax on(a) the total yield of council tax in Great Britain, (b) the total yield of council tax in England, (c) the council tax bill in England for each valuation band, (d) the average council tax in England, expressed as the total yield from the council tax divided by the total number of chargeable dwellings, (e) council tax benefit, (f) the retail price index and (g) index-linked benefits. [11728]

  Mr. Gummer
  The information relating to Wales and Scotland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland.

  If council taxes in England had increased in 1995–96 by an additional 8 per cent. compared to actual levels, the approximate effect is estimated as follows:

  (b) the gross yield of council tax would increase by £780 million;

  368

  (c) average council tax levels, before council tax benefit or transitional relief, would increase

  Band A: by £32 to £439

  Band B: by £38 to £512

  Band C: by £43 to £585

  Band D: by £49 to £658

  Band E: by £60 to £804

  Band F: by £70 to £950

  Band G: by £81 to £1,096

  Band H: by £97 to £1,316

  (d) the average bill per chargeable dwelling, before council tax benefit or transitional relief, would increase by £40 to £538;

  (e) council tax benefit would increase by £170 million;

  (f) the increase would add around 0.2 percentage points to the percentage change over 12 months in the all items retail prices index.

  (g) the precise effect on those benefits linked to the retail prices index would depend on whether this marginal change resulted in benefit levels moving up or staying unchanged. As an approximate guide, an additional 0.2 percentage points on the rate of inflation would add around £80 million to the cost of those benefits in a full year. There would be no effect on those income related benefits which are usually linked to the Rossi index.

  Chicken Litter Fuelled Power Station
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the proposal to establish a chicken litter fuelled power station at Poole farm, near Wellington, Somerset; and if he will make a statement. [11826]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government office for the south west has received two representations objecting to the proposed electricity generating station at Wellington. Somerset.

  Copies of the relevant papers have not yet arrived from the local planning authority, Somerset county council. Upon receipt it will be considered whether the issues raised merit my intervention.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what estimate he has made of the annual telephone costs to(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) his Department's non-departmental public bodies staff for each of the years (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94,

  369
  (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97; and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas of (a) to (c); [11398]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the expenditure of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all external consultants including management consultants for each of the years (a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–

  Annual telephone costs

  £000

  1989–90

  1991–92

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  DoE (Central)

  3,554

  3,051

  2,728

  2,532

  1,920

  Property Holdings

  n/a

  385

  159

  132

  145

  PSAS

  6,052

  6,047

  2,170

  105

  50

  Total department

  9,606

  9,483

  5,057

  2,769

  2,115

  Planning inspectorate

  0

  0

  162

  77

  46

  Building research establishment

  173

  194

  237

  172

  108

  Figures for planning inspectorate for 1989–90 and 1991–92 are included within the departmental total.

  The figure for Property Holdings for 1989–90 is included within the figure for PSAS.

  Expenditure on consultants

  £000

  1989–90

  1991–92

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  DoE (Central)

  9,835

  6,547

  9,195

  9,567

  10,739

  Property Holdings

  n/a

  1,125

  223

  204

  529

  PSAS

  177,400

  182,850

  25,120

  752

  441

  Total department

  187,235

  190,522

  34,538

  10,523

  11,709

  Planning inspectorate

  0

  40

  632

  465

  80

  Building research establishment

  31

  187

  220

  212

  151

  The buying agency

  n/a

  n/a

  9

  17

  25

  Security facilities executive

  n/a

  n/a

  56

  368

  150

  QEII Conference Centre

  n/a

  n/a

  60

  10

  32

  Figures for planning inspectorate for 1989–90 are included within the departmental total.

  The figure for PSAS includes works consultancies.

  The figure for Property Holdings for 1989–90 is included within the figure for PSAS.

  Excludes expenditure on the Department's strategic IT consultancies.

  The remaining information requested on telephone costs and consultancies is not held centrally in the form required and could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department makes use of CCTA's metropolitan telephony service, which provides us with full managed telephony and directory services. The Department, along with other MTS users, maintains a current directory of staff, location and telephone extensions. The MTS service provides an annual estimate of telephony charges.

  The Government telephone network connects more than 1,000 Government offices nationwide. As users of the GTN, and GTN dialling codes booklet is available to all staff in this Department. It enables staff to identify the operator in any other Government building for inquiry services.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of absenteeism rates in days per annum for staff in his Department for each 370
  96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will estimate the savings accruing to his Department from the use of consultants in each of these years. [11395]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The tables set out the information available on annual telephone costs and expenditure on consultants respectively.

  of the years (a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96. [11397]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following information gives the average number of sick days per staff member for the calendar years 1992, 1993 and 1994; it covers non-industrial staff in my Department—excluding Health and Safety Executive, Ordnance Survey and PSA Services. Information is not available for earlier years andwill not be available for 1995 until late summer.

  1992: 8.0

  1993: 8.1

  1994: 7.17

  Source: OHSA sickness absence database.

HEALTH

  NHS Administration
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what expenditure was incurred on(a) general and senior managers and (b) administrative and clerical staff salaries

  371
  in the national health service in each region in each year since 1990–91. [9035]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 6 November 1995,Official Report, columns 624–25. Provisional expenditure for 1994–95 is shown in the table.

  Hospital and community health service salary costs for managerial and administrative and clerical staff 1994–95

  £000

  Managerial expenditure

  Admin and clerical expenditure

  Northern and Yorkshire region

  100,963

  199,367

  Trent region

  59,387

  139,380

  Anglian and Oxford region

  70,363

  148,005

  North Thames region

  122,338

  285,923

  South Thames region

  112,835

  243,981

  South and West region

  91,730

  183,010

  West Midlands region

  70,588

  166,298

  North-west region

  93,474

  212,515

  Special health authorities

  1,633

  3,650

  Total England

  723,361

  1,582,129

  Sources:

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

  2. The annual financial returns of NHS trusts.

  Notes:

  1. The figures are provisional.

  2. Salaries and wages costs incurred by family health services authorities and the special hospitals service authority (HQ London, Broadmoor, Ashworth and Rampton hospitals) and the UK transplant support service are excluded as corresponding costs are not identified on the same basis.

  3. Managerial staff consist of general senior managers for health authorities and executive board members and senior managers for NHS trusts.

  4. The figures are based upon gross costs including employers' National Insurance and superannuation contributions.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department collects on(a) general practitioners and (b) other medical staff taking early retirement. [10931]

  Mr. Malone
  Statistical information about general practitioners and other medical staff are recorded, along with all other groups of national health service employees by the NHS Pensions Agency, and are categorised by reason of termination. This covers the type of retirement and age. Data are not readily identifiable for specific posts.

  Efficiency Scrutiny
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) by how much the total budget of the North Mersey Community Health Trust has been reduced as a result of his efficiency scrutiny; [10713]

  (2) what plans he has to maintain the present efficiency scrutiny arrangements into 1996–97, and beyond. [10711]
  372
  Mr. Malone
  The efficiency scrutiny into the burdens of paperwork in national health service trusts and health authorities will complete its report within 90 working days. There are no plans at present to extend its remit beyond the end of March 1996. The efficiency scrutiny team will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and the Prime Minister's efficiency adviser, Sir Peter Levene, with recommendations for implementations within two years.

  The aim of the efficiency scrutiny is to make proposals to cut down on unnecessary bureaucracy in the NHS so that more time and effort can be devoted to patient care. It is not within the terms of reference of the scrutiny to reduce the total budget of any particular trust. Copies of the terms of reference will be placed in the Library.

  Continuing Health Care
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish his Department's analysis of the responses to HSG(95)8. [10929]

  Mr. Bowis
  Yes, in due course.

  Medical Negligence Claims
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount of money was paid out by the NHS in relation to medical negligence claims in each of the last five years. [10741]

  Mr. Horam
  Data on medical negligence alone are not collected centrally. For the estimated costs of overall clinical negligence claims, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister for Health gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 6 March 1995,Official Report, columns 40–42, for 1991–92 to 1993–294. Figures for 1990–91 and 1994–95 are £60 million and £155 million respectively.

  Promotional Calendars (Cost)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will indicate how much "The New NHS Number is for every 1" desktop calendar cost to the NHS Management Executive to produce and send; to how many people it was sent; and if he will list the recipients. [10736]

  Mr. Horam
  The costs of production and distribution totalled £28,000, and it was sent to 30,000 people. The recipients were general practice managers for distribution within their practices, and those officers with responsibility for implementation of the new NHS number in family health services authorities and acute hospitals.

  The purpose of the calendar is to raise awareness of the new NHS number and to provide a visual reminder on a daily basis of the importance of using it. The total cost will be more than offset if as few as 1 per cent. of GP practices use the new NHS number.

  School Dental Service
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pupils in Lancashire were both inspected and re-inspected by the school dental service in each year since 1990. [10874]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the expenditure on mental health services as a proportion of total NHS spending in each year since 1988–89. [11053]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information in the form requested is not available.

  Elderly Mentally Ill
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how may EMI beds there are in the Sunderland, Hartlepool and Durham health authority areas; and how many there were in each year since 1990. [11092]

  Mr. Horam
  Information is published annually in "Bed availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library. Information for 1990–91 to 1992–93 is available for individual health authorities. For subsequent years, the information was collected by national health services trust or directly managed unit.

  Tomlinson Projects
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been allocated to Tomlinson projects in each year since the programme started; and what was the allocation in each year to each health commission in the London area. [11110]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested on the London initiative zone programme, since it was established in 1993, is shown in the table:

  £000

  Family health services authority

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Barking and Havering

  1,716

  1,927

  2,094

  Camden and Islington

  2,920

  6,036

  7,095

  City and East London

  5,088

  13,132

  13,221

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  3,594

  9,941

  12,576

  Brent and Harrow

  1,210

  3,292

  2,048

  Enfield and Haringey

  2,786

  6,808

  5,258

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  2,436

  8,182

  6,029

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  1,318

  3,887

  5,876

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  10,750

  11,605

  24,214

  Bexley and Greenwich

  3,085

  2,181

  7,834

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  3,928

  4,490

  4,425

  Croydon

  523

  5,147

  5,743

  1. LIZ funds comprise central top-sliced resources together with funds from the Thames regions and local HAs.

  2. Figures are based on total LIZ plans, excluding funds carried forward from previous years.

  3. The table excludes payments made centrally by the NHS executive and regions in respect of the voluntary sector initiative (1993–94 and 1994–95) and GP educational initiatives (1994–95 and 1995–96).

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the projects funded by Tomlinson moneys to date stating the budget location, name and purpose of each project. [11111]
  374
  Mr. Malone
  Information on individual London initiative zone projects are available from the chief executives of the health authorities concerned. These are:

  Camden and Islington HA

  Brent and Harrow HA

  East London and the City HA

  Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster HA

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  Enfield HA

  New River HA

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  Croydon HA

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

  Bexley and Greenwich HA

  Barking and Havering HA

  Earnings
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS employees earn less than £4 an hour. [11152]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Surgical Beds
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current ratio of surgical beds to head of population(a) nationally, (b) in the northern region and (c) at Sunderland general hospital. [11137]

  Mr. Horam
  The information available centrally is shown.

  Number

  England

  Annual average daily available beds

  144,803

  Population (mid 1994)

  48,707,459

  Ratio (beds per 10,000 population)

  29.7

  Northern Regional Health Authority

  Annual average daily available beds

  10,184

  Population (mid 1994)

  2,927,525

  Ratio (beds per 10,000 population)

  34.8

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust

  Annual average daily available beds

  1,044

  Population (mid 1994)

  n/a

  Ratio (beds per 10,000 population)

  n/a

  Data on bed availability are collected by broad ward classification. "Surgical beds" has therefore been interpreted as "General and acute" which comprises beds for general patients (including the elderly), the younger physically disabled, neonatal cots not in maternity wards and beds for the terminally ill or those receiving palliative care.

  Sunderland Hospitals
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which premises previously operated by Sunderland Hospitals NHS trust have been deemed surplus to requirements in the trust's site and services review; [11150]
  375
  (2) what is the annual maintenance cost of the empty hospital and buildings formerly used by Sunderland City Hospitals NHS trust. [11138]

  Mr. Horam
  These are matters for City Hospitals Sunderland NHS trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. David Graham, chairman of the trust for details.

  Personal Information
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research he has evaluated into patients' willingness to share personal health information with NHS administrators; and what studies into patients' views on access to their data by non-clinical staff he proposes to commission; [11472]

  (2) what arrangements are in place for patients to give unambiguous consent for the sharing of their identifiable personal health information; and what plans he has to alter such arrangements; [11471]

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given when preparing his guidance booklet for the NHS on the protection of patient information to the principle of obtaining informed consent from patients for the sharing of their identifiable personal health information; [1190]

  (4) to what extent the Department requires health service bodies to (a) monitor and (b) control the practice of NHS administrative personnel accessing identifiable personal health information; and if he will make a statement. [11473]

  Mr. Horam
  We issued a consultation document on the protection of patient information in 1994 and have taken into account the many responses received, including from patients' organisations. We shall shortly be promulgating detailed guidance to the national health service. All NHS bodies and staff have a legal duty to keep patient information confidential. This is also a patients charter requirement.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what penalties exist for unauthorised access to identifiable patient health data; and on how many occasions these penalties have been used in each of the last three years. [11475]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 4 December 1995,Official Report, columns 42–43. The Department of Health does not hold figures about the imposition of legal penalties in such circumstances. National health service employers are responsible for any disciplinary action against staff.

  Surgical Wards
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of dedicated surgical wards required at Sunderland district general hospital to meet the needs of the population of Sunderland and north Easington. [11139]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter for Sunderland health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. George Bedell, chairman of the authority, for details.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 January,Official Report, column 553, how many trusts have been assessed in respect of their long-term financial viability; and what has been the outcome in each case. [11115]

  Mr. Horam
  The financial viability of all trusts is assessed as a part of each trust's annual business planning cycle. The outcome in the vast majority of cases has been the continued existence of the trusts as they were established.

  Trusts are merged or reconfigured for a number of operational reasons. Those which have resulted largely from concerns over their long-term financial viability are:
  West Dorset Community Health NHS trust with West Dorset Mental Health NHS trust to form the Dorset Community NHS trust.
  Royal Liverpool University NHS trust and Broadgreen NHS trust to form Royal Liverpool University and Broadgreen NHS trust.

  There are also two further proposals subject to public consultation for the following trusts:
  Louth and District Healthcare NHS trust and Lincoln Hospital NHS trust.
  Royal Free NHS trust and the Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital NHS trust.

  Public Information Lines
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 December,Official Report, column 812, if he will list those companies currently operating health information lines on behalf of his Department, the value of the contracts involving these companies and the period of their duration. [11145]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 22 January,Official Report, columns 13–14. The additional information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 December,Official Report, column 227, if he will make a statement indicating the number of calls that have been made to the health information service on a regional health authority basis; and what has been the cost of operating and publicising the health information service to each of the regional health authorities. [11143]

  Mr. Horam
  Details of the number of calls received by the health information service, on a regional basis, since its establishment in April 1992 to the end of December 1995, and details of the cost of providing the health information service, on a national basis, for the financial years 1992–93 to 1995–96, are shown in the tables.

  Number of calls received by the Health Information Service between April 1992 and December 1995

  1992 calls received

  1993 calls received

  1994 calls received

  1995 calls received

  Northern and Yorkshire

  13,415

  16,394

  60,358

  73,958

  Trent

  1,665

  9,366

  14,571

  32,009

  377

  Number of calls received by the Health Information Service between April 1992 and December 1995

  1992 calls received

  1993 calls received

  1994 calls received

  1995 calls received

  Anglia and Oxford

  1,716

  10,674

  16,499

  28,998

  North Thames

  5,113

  20,350

  30,434

  62,748

  South Thames

  942

  14,603

  18,397

  57,923

  West Midlands

  1,545

  8,370

  29,394

  48,886

  North and West

  17,059

  33,107

  82,541

  102,637

  South and West

  5,839

  17,893

  21,398

  50,028

  Pan-Thames1

  3,958

  5,536

  1,812

  —

  Total

  51,252

  136,293

  275,404

  457,187

  1College of Health National Waiting Times Helpline—discontinued as part of the Health Information Service.

  Cost of providing the health information service, on regional basis between 1992–93 and 1995–96

  Region

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  Northern and Yorkshire

  288,201

  260,000

  276,223

  346,120

  Trent

  177,181

  137,859

  149,637

  155,193

  Anglia and Oxford

  268,000

  268,000

  308,000

  308,000

  North Thames

  142,500

  236,200

  243,608

  237,629

  South Thames

  n/a

  221,714

  240,777

  255,210

  West Midlands

  102,965

  165,277

  151,156

  241,243

  North and West

  331,296

  344,548

  421,037

  573,371

  South and West

  197,500

  248,400

  254,900

  221,000

  Total

  1,507,643

  1,881,998

  2,045,338

  2,337,766

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive care(a) beds and (b) admissions there were for (i) infants, (ii) children and (iii) adults in each health region in each year since 1987. [11197]

  Mr. Horam
  The information available centrally is published in "Bed availability for England" and "Ordinary and day case admissions for England", both of which are available in the Library.

  Speech and Language Therapy
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of expenditure by each health authority in England and Wales for speech and language therapy services for(a) children with a record of needs and (b) children without a record of needs in (i) 1992, (ii) 1993 and (iii) 1994. [11589]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Childhood Cancer Study
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the United Kingdom childhood cancer study organised by the United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee for Cancer Research is expected to be completed; when the research project was first started; if 378
  his Department will ensure that the findings of the report are widely disseminated; and what is the total amount that his Department is contributing to the project. [10662]

  Mr. Horam
  The United Kingdom childhood cancer study organised by the United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research commenced in April 1992, following preliminary studies from 1 January 1992 to 31 March 1992.

  Field work and the collection of data are expected to be completed by the end of 1997 with subsequent analysis of the data.

  The findings of the whole report will be submitted for publication in peer reviewed scientific journals. The UKCCCR will also disseminate the results more widely after publication.

  The total amount that the Department of Health is contributing to the project is currently £635,853.

  Employment of Children
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many responses to the "Employment of Children" consultation document have so far been received; if he will publish them, what action he will take after the close of consultations; and if he will make a statement. [11544]

  Mr. Bowis
  To date, some 40 responses have been received. I have no plans to publish them. Future action will take into account the views expressed in response to the consultation.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of absenteeism rates in days per annum for staff in his Department for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96. [11337]

  Mr. Horam
  The available absenteeism rates for the Department of Health in the years 1992, 1993 and 1994 are shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of days sickness absence per staff year

  1992

  9.4

  1993

  9.7

  1994

  8.9

  Information is not available for 1995 nor for the years prior to 1992.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the annual telephone costs to(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) his Department's non-departmental public bodies staff for each of the years (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97; and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas of (a) to (c). [11338]

  Mr. Horam
  Annual telephone costs incurred by the Department and its agencies are as follows:
  379

  1990–91: £4,739,561

  1991–92: £3,017,000

  1992–93: £3,490,000

  1993–94: £3,419,000

  1994–95: £2,951,740

  1995–96: £2,914,000 Estimated outturn

  1996–97: £3,734,000 Forecast

  The figure for 1996–97 additionally includes the telephone costs of approximately 1,100 staff in the eight new national health service executive regional offices at seven separate sites.

  Separate figures for the Department of Health are not available before 1990–91 since such costs were incurred by the combined Departments of Health and of Social Security.

  No central records are available for the telephone costs of non-departmental public bodies.

  Internal telephone directors are available to all staff in the Department, its agencies, and non-departmental public bodies.

  Transplant Patients
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has given to health authorities and trusts in the light of the recent case of Mr. Peter Sumners; if he will conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the kidney transplant to Mr. Peter Sumners; what steps he has taken to minimise the risk to transplant patients in the light of the experience of Mr. Peter Sumners; and if he will make a statement. [11832]

  Mr. Horam
  The question of whether to conduct an investigation into this case, which was as a result of transplant which took place in 1986, is for the local trust. The decision about the suitability of a donor organ for transplant is a clinical one; however, we are confident that the stringent protocols that are now in place will exclude the possibility of such an incident in the future.

  Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has evaluated regarding the possible causes of MRSA; and what advice he has issued to doctors regarding prescribing practice in the light of increases in the incidence of MRSA outbreaks. [11834]

  Mr. Horam
  Methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus is the term used for strains on the bacterium staphylococcus aureus which have become resistant, principally to methicillin, but also to other antibiotics. Clinicians are expected to consider a number of factors, including resistance to infection, before prescribing antibiotics for a patient.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of(a) beds and (b) wards closed and i) admissions and (ii) operations postponed or cancelled as a result of outbreaks of MRSA. [11833]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.
  380
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the financial cost of MRSA in terms of isolating and treating patients; and what action he is taking to reduce or control the incidence of MRSA outbreaks. [11835]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the costs of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus is not available centrally. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on 22 January,Official Report, columns 16–17 for information on the action the Department is taking to reduce or control the incidence of outbreaks of MRSA.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department is taking to ensure early diagnosis of and fast treatment for bacterial meningitis. [11726]

  Mr. Horam
  Guidance on the early management and treatment of cases and contacts of meningitis has been issued by the Department of Health, the Public Health Laboratory Service and the National Meningitis Trust, which receive funding from the Department of Health. In October 1995, the chief medical officer wrote to all doctors and health authorities alerting them to the expected winter rise in cases of meningococcal infection and reminding doctors of the benefits of early administration of benzylpenicillin. Directors of public health were reminded in November of the need for local plans to respond to outbreaks of meningococcal infection, especially those involving schools. Since issuing its guidelines on control of meningococcal infection in 1989, the PHLS has issued regular updates. The guidelines are sent to all DPHs and local consultants in communicable disease control, the most recent being published in the communicable disease report of 8 December 1995.

  The Department and the National Meningitis Trust have collaborated in providing an information leaflet for parents of small children and for teenagers. The leaflet is included in the college bag for students, a group where there is a higher risk of meningitis than for other adults.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make available vaccination against bacterial meningitis for all children. [11727]

  Mr. Horam
  There is no vaccine available against the most common form of meningococcal infection, meningitis group B. Vaccine is available against group C meningitis but this vaccine is not appropriate for use on a routine basis. The vaccine is not effective in children under age two, the group at highest risk of group C meningitis, and in older individuals the protection it provides is only short lived. Because the available vaccine is not very effective, the independent expert committee, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which advises the United Kingdom Health Departments, does not recommend the meningitis C vaccine for general immunisation. The vaccine may be used in clearly identified target groups, such as school contacts, whenever local circumstances indicate. No country in the world uses this vaccine for all children.

  The Department of Health has invested considerable resources in trials of new meningococcal vaccines.
  381
  Haemophilus influenzae b (Hib) used to be the most common form of bacterial meningitis in the under-fives, but Hib meningitis has now been virtually eliminated since the introduction of Hib vaccine into the childhood immunisation programme in 1992.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Democratic Accountability
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to improve the democratic accountability of the Northern Ireland Office. [9634]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Our overall objective is, as part of a three-stranded process, to establish locally accountable political arrangements in Northern Ireland, on a widely accepted basis.

  Until there is agreement on such arrangements and they are in place, I want to improve the democratic accountability of the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments. I need therefore to consult the Northern Ireland parties which I shall shortly do. The remit of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee is, for example, an area with a promising potential.

  Republican Terrorism
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) violent attacks and (b) murders have been committed by republican terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland in the last year. [9635]

  Sir John Wheeler
  In the period 15 January to 14 January 1996 there were 225 punishment attacks, of which 144 have been attributed to republican groups. Over the same period there have been 10 terrorist-related deaths, of which eight have been attributed to republican groups.

  Arms and Explosives
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current positions taken by paramilitary organisations in Ulster on the surrender of weapons. [9637]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The international body concluded that the paramilitaries will not decommission any arms prior to all-party negotiaions. We see no sufficient reason why they should not begin. But no one should be allowed to block the path of peace. That is why we hope that an elective process may now be considered by the parties which, together with the recommendations the body has made, may well offer an alternative means to generating the necessary confidence which the body found to be lacking.

  Paramilitary Murders
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will give the number of murders committed in Northeren Ireland involving the use of firearms since the declaration of a ceasefire by paramilitary organisations in the Province. [9638]
  382
  Sir John Wheeler
  Since the Provisional IRA ceasefire on 1 September 1994 there have been 17 murders committed in Northern Ireland which involved the use of firearms. Of these, 10 have been categorised by the RUC as having a terrosit involvement.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on recent developments in the peace process.[9639]

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current political situation in Northern Ireland and recent progress on the peace process. [9646]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made on the Government's "twin-track" approach to the Northern Ireland peace process [9647]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the hon. member to the replies I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and to the hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice).

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the impact of the peace process on living standards in the Province. [9644]

  Mr. Ancram
  It is not possible to link the peace process directly to any general measure of the standard of living in Northern Ireland. however, in the first 12 months after the ceasefire employment increased by almost 11,000—1.9 per cent.—to the highest level ever recorded; unemployment fell by just over 9,000—9.5 per cent.—to its lowest level for 14 years and house prices increased, on average, by 5 per cent.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current annual level of inward investment in Northern Ireland; and what was the level prior to the ceasefire. [9640]

  Mr. Ancram
  During the nine months of the current financial year to 31 December 1995 Northern Ireland has secured eight inward investment projects promoting 2,306 jobs. In the 12 months of 1994–95 there were 10 projects promoting 1,969 jobs, and in the 12 months of 1993–94 there were 13 projects promoting 2,309 jobs.

  Food Companies
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what grants are available to food companies wishing to conduct inward investment in Northern Ireland. [9641]

  Mr. Ancram
  The range of grants available to food companies wishing to invest in Northern Ireland is the same as that for any other potential inward investor engaged in manufacturing industry or in internationally tradeable services.

  Mitchell Commission
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the Mitchell Commission. [9642]

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy in respect of the form the decommissioning of weapons and ordnance by paramilitary groups should take; and if he will make a statement. [9651]

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made on the decommissioning of paramilitary arms. [9655]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink).

  Shootings and Beatings
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current levels of shootings and punishment beatings in Northern Ireland. [9643]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I strongly condemn these wicked attacks on people. Such attacks divide the community and destroy the trust in Northern Ireland. The Government's position is clear. These murders, senseless shootings and attacks are appalling and must cease. There is no excuse of any kind. I am in no doubt that terrorists are involved in all such incidents and I call on all those genuinely committed to peaceful methods unreservedly to condemn such acts.

  Economic Prospects
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the prospects for the economy of Northern Ireland during 1996. [9648]

  Mr. Ancram
  Prospects for the Northern Ireland economy are very encouraging. Business confidence is high, employment is at record levels and output and trade are increasing. With continuing peace we can look forward to this excellent progress being maintained.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of(a) pensioners and (b) pensioners on income support in Northern Ireland. [9649]

  Mr. Moss
  The latest available figures show that at September 1994 there were 219,109 pensioners in Northern Ireland and at November 1995 there were 65,931 pensioners—excluding partners over pensionable age—in receipt of income support.

  Licensed Weapons
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many licensed weapons were in private hands in Northern Ireland; and what proportion of these weapons are owned by(a) Catholics and (b) Protestants. [9650]
  384
  Sir John Wheeler
  At 30 November 1995 there were a total of 133,869 weapons held on 88,092 firearms certificates received under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.

  There is no information held which would indicate the religious background of an applicant.

  Housing Executive
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future proposals involving the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. [9652]

  Mr. Moss
  The housing policy review entitled "Building on Success" was published on 19 December and copies placed in the Library. The conclusions confirm the Executive's role as a single, comprehensive, regional housing authority for Northern Ireland, and also propose to strengthen and enhance that role. I would welcome comments on those proposals by 31 March.

  Elderly Physically Handicapped
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the care of the elderly physically handicapped in Northern Ireland. [9653]

  Mr. Moss
  Care services for elderly physically disabled, and other vulnerable people, in Northern Ireland are provided on the basis of individual assessed health and personal social services care needs. In securing the delivery of services which respond flexibly and sensitively to the needs of individuals, and the relatives and friends who care for them, boards are expected to ensure that priority is given to those in greatest need and to secure value for money.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many four-year-olds arc currently receiving education; what proportion of their age group this represents; what is the cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [10168]

  Mr. Ancram
  Available statistics relate to pupils' age at 1 July. 26,089 four-year-olds were receiving education at the 1995 census date. This represents 100 per cent. of the four-year-old age group, as this is the age of commencement of compulsory schooling. The cost to public funds for the education of four-year-olds cannot he separately identified.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of absenteeism rates in days per annum for staff in his Department for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96. [11401]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The estimate number of days absence for non-industrial staff in(d) 1993–94 was 335,780 and in (e) 1994–95 was 362,438. Information for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90 and (c) 1991–92 is not available

  385
  and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. The estimated number of days lost in the first six months of 1995–96 was 165,765.

  Child Care
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average money spent per capita on child care in Northern Ireland; and what is the figure for English local authorities. [10311]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available in the form requested. HPSS bodies produce statements in support of the annual accounts which provide supplementary analyses of the expenditure in the accounts over programme of care. One programme of care is family and child care. The total expenditure on this category in Northern Ireland for 1993–94 amounted to £44 million. This expenditure figure has been related to the child population in Northern Ireland 1993 to give an average cost per child of £100. The equivalent figure for English local authorities is not held centrally.

  Care of the Elderly
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidelines he has issued about the provision of care to the elderly living in the community. [10565]

  Mr. Moss
  Policy and practice guidance has been issued by my Department to health and social services boards in relation to their community care responsibilities. "People First: Community Care In Northern Ireland in the 1990s" was issued in March 1990 and practice guidance on care management and assessment was issued in August 1991. In addition, the social services inspectorate produced a report on assessment and care management arrangements in Northern Ireland in June 1995.

  Radioactive Land
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now publish and place in the Library a map showing the changing areas of land in Northern Ireland to which the restrictions consequent upon the Chernobyl incident apply, indicating the dates of the different changes and the levels of radioactivity at each such date in those areas at the latest available date; and when he estimates all the remaining restrictions will be removed. [9515]

  Mr. Ancram
  On each occasion that derestriction takes place a press release is issued along with a small scale map outlining the changes per derestriction. Arrangements have been made to have copies of these maps placed in the Library. Derestriction is based on monitoring levels of radioactivity in live sheep and can be considered only where the levels are found to be below the action level of 1,000 becquerels per kilogramme.

  Although the continued downward trend is encouraging, it is not possible to indicate at this time when all restrictions may be removed.

  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish and place in the Library a map showing the area and land use, of the areas of land in Northern Ireland to which the restrictions consequent upon the Chernobyl incident have applied; and what 386
  uptake of radioactive material by trees in such areas there has been. [9516]

  Mr. Ancram
  On each occasion that derestriction takes place a press release is issued, along with a small-scale map outlining the changes. Arrangements have been made to have copies of these maps placed in the Library. These maps do not indicate the land use, which in the main is rough grazing with some forestry. There is no data available on uptake of radioactive material by trees.

  Incontinence Pads
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is in relation to the supply of incontinence pads to those who require them because of disability; what plans he has to review these arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [9210]

  Mr. Moss
  The organisation of continence services in Northern Ireland and the manner in which they are delivered, including the provision of incontinence pads, are matters for health and social services boards and trusts. They are under a general obligation to provide these services where the need exists and in the light of their resources and priorities. There are no current plans to review these arrangements.

  Fire Authority
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to change the membership of the Fire Authority; and if he will ensure that present representation from local authorities is maintained. [9862]

  Mr. Moss
  I am currently reviewing the constitution of the Fire Authority. No decision has yet been taken, but there will be full consideration about any proposed changes.

  Rural College, Draperstown
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons are employed at the Rural college at Draperstown, County Londonderry; how many are(a) Catholics and (b) Protestants; and if he will make a statement. [9860]

  Mr. Ancram
  Staff at the Rural college, Draperstown are employed directly by the college. I am therefore not in a position to answer the question.

  Six Mile Water (Effluent)
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many consented discharges are in operation on the Six Mile Water; and what was the river flow regime used in granting these consent discharges. [9915]

  Mr. Moss
  Four consents granted by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland under the Water Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 for effluent discharges to the Six Mile Water are currently in operation. The consents are based on the low flow in the river, known as the Q95, which is the flow exceeded for 95 per cent. of the time.

  Water and Sewerage Systems
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) water treatment plants and (b) sewage treatment plants are operating in County Antrim. [9914]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of the Environment's Water Executive operates 17 water treatment works and 158 sewage treatment works in County Antrim.

  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to improve the water and sewerage systems serving(a) Northern Ireland and (b) Mid Ulster. [10575]

  Mr. Moss
  The Water Executive will continue the programme of improvements commenced six years ago to enable it to meet the standards set by EC directives on drinking water quality, urban waste water treatment and bathing waters. New sources of water supply will be developed and refinements made to the water distribution system and sewerage system to make them more effective in dealing with current and future demand for services. On top of the £370 million already spent in the last six years on these objectives throughout Northern Ireland a further £66 million has been committed for the 1996–97 year. In Mid-Ulster planned capital investment over the next five years amounts to £35 million with particular emphasis being placed on strengthening the water supply infrastructure serving the towns of Omagh and Cookstown.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many power stations in Northern Ireland use aluminium sulphate in the treatment of water used in cooling towers; and what arrangements are in place for the disposal of the residue. [9913]

  Community psychiatric nurses for each health board in Northern Ireland

  Eastern Board

  Northern Board

  Southern Board

  Western Board

  Number

  WTE

  Number

  WTE

  Number

  WTE

  Number

  WTE

  1991

  61

  61.00

  12

  12.00

  16

  16.00

  26

  26.00

  1992

  67

  66.80

  18

  18.00

  13

  13.00

  24

  24.00

  1993

  72

  72.00

  24

  24.00

  18

  18.00

  32

  32.00

  1994

  68

  66.80

  22

  22.00

  16

  16.00

  40

  40.00

  1995

  66

  65.50

  26

  25.40

  17

  17.00

  40

  39.60

  WTE = Whole time equivalent. Number = Head count (staff in post).

  General Practitioner Fundholding
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what evaluation has been made of the results of the general practitioner fundholding initiative in the west of the Province. [10573]

  Mr. Moss
  The Western health and social services board is responsible for the monitoring of the GP fundholding scheme within its area and no separate evaluation of the scheme's operation there has been undertaken. On the basis of monitoring reports supplied by the board, I am satisfied that the scheme is working well in the Western board area and that patients of fundholding GPs are receiving a high standard of service.
  388
  Mr. Moss
  None of the four power stations in Northern Ireland use towers for cooling water. Consequently, aluminium sulphate is not used for this purpose.

  Road Deaths and Injuries
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the number of road deaths and serious injuries in the years 1994 and 1995. [10577]

  Mr. Moss
  The number of road users killed in 1994 was 157 and the provisional figures for 1995 is 144. The number seriously injured in 1994 was 1,648 and the provisional figure for the 11 months to 30 November 1995 is 1,520. good progress is being made towards achieving the Northern Ireland road safety target of reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured on Northern Ireland's roads by one third, compared with the average for 1981 to 1985, by the year 2000.

  Health Boards (Private Finance Initiative)
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many private finance initiative schemes he(a) has agreed and (b) is considering in respect of Northern Ireland health boards. [10566]

  Sir John Wheeler
  No scheme under the private finance initiative has been approved to date in the Northern Ireland health boards. One scheme has been approved to proceed to tender stage and eight other cases are currently under consideration which may lead to private finance solutions.

  Psychiatric Community Nurses
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the change in the number of psychiatric community nurses since 1989 in each of the Northern Ireland health boards. [10564]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is as follows:

  Homelessness
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if accommodation approved by the Northern Ireland tourist board is used by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to accommodate the homeless. [10316]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, whose chief executive has advised me that he is aware of one establishment approved by the Northern Ireland tourist board and used by the Executive to accommodate the homeless. While tourist board approval may exist for some other properties used by the Executive for similar purposes, a property's suitability is
  389
  determined by the Executive on the basis of its own technical inspections and tourist board approved status is neither a pre-requisite nor the subject of inquiry by the Executive. In the light of recent interest, I understand that the chief executives of the tourist board and the Executive will be meeting to discuss these matters.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations have been received about the need for proper liaison between the RUC, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the Northern Ireland tourist board and health and social services authorities on the placement of homeless families or individuals; and what response has been given. [10317]

  Mr. Moss
  I understand that a representation has been made to my noble friend who has responsibility for the Department of Economic Development about liaison between the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and other agencies on the placement of homeless applicants including instances where the accommodation used by the Housing Executive has attained the tourist board's approval status. The reply indicated that there was no evidence that the standard of accommodation in tourist board approved establishments has deteriorated as a result of the placing of homeless there and that present liaison arrangements were satisfactory.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about liaison arrangements between the RUC, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the health and social services authorities on the placement of homeless people with a criminal record. [10315]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive whose chief executive has advised me that, when considering both the temporary and permanent housing needs of homeless applicants, the Executive will liaise where appropriate with the RUC, the Health and Social Services Board and the Probation Board for Northern Ireland. Liaison arrangements operate on a case by case basis at local level between the Executive's district office staff and their counterparts in the agencies involved.

  Regional inter-agency meetings involving the Executive, the Health and Social Services Board and the Probation Board are held at least twice a year to discuss general issues relating to homelessness.

WALES

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is, in respect of the nursery voucher scheme in Wales,(a) the amount of new money he intends to make available, (b) the amount he intends to reduce from the budget allocation for local authorities, (c) the cost of providing a full time place for a four-year-old pupil, (d) the number of four-year-olds taking up nursery places in April 1997, (e) the number of places he estimates (i) local authorities, (ii) the voluntary sector and (iii) the private sector will provide and (f) the number of places available in Ysgolion Meithrin. [9047]
  390
  Mr. Richards
  The total cost of the scheme in 1997–98 is not expected to exceed £43 million. The scheme will be funded by a mixture of new money and a proportion of present local authority expenditure on provision for four-year-olds in the maintained sector. There will be a one-off transfer of money from the local authorities total, but this will be at the all Wales level and not deducted from individual authorities' budgets. The maximum amount of this transfer will not exceed a sum equivalent to the value of the voucher multiplied by the number of four-year-olds receiving education in the maintained sector. A final decision on the relevant levels of new money and present expenditure funding will he taken in the context of the public expenditure settlement for 1997–98.

  The cost of providing a full-time place for a four-year-old pupil will vary according to the sort of provision made and the sector in which it is made.

  The number of four-year-olds taking up places in April 1997 will depend on parental choice, though I would not expect it to be less than current levels. The sectors in which places are taken up will also depend on parental choice, which will be enhanced by the voucher scheme.

  Regeneration Scheme (Caernarfon)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the expenditure to date under the provision of the 1992 regeneration scheme for the town of Caernarfon; and how many new jobs have so far been facilitated by this expenditure. [9335]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Office's strategic development scheme has contributed £1.11 million for the period 1993–94 to 1994–95 towards environmental improvements and infrastructure works in Caernarfon. The Welsh Development Agency has contributed £2.91 million for the same period. Information on the number of jobs created to date is not available. However, the agency will shortly be conducting an evaluation to determine the number of jobs created and other results of the regeneration programme.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in(a) Alyn and Deeside and (b) Clwyd are (i) long-term unemployed and (ii) unemployed in the age group 18 to 24 years; and if he will make a statement. [9554]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In October 1995 the number of claimants in the Alyn and Deeside constituency who were long-term unemployed—over 52 weeks—was 617; the number of claimants in the age group 18 to 24 years was 621. The corresponding figures for Clwyd were 3,794 and 3,780, respectively. Over the last two years, the numbers in each of these categories have fallen by between a fifth and a third.

  Helplines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the helplines, or schemes which include a helpline service, for which his Department provides any funding, stating which are(a) independent organisations, (b) run by his Department or agencies of his Department or (c) of another classification; how many

  391
  calls each received in each of the last five years; and how much money each received from his Department in each of the last five years. [9802]

  Mr. Hague
  Information in the format requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In 1995–96, my Department is funding the following helplines run by external organisations.

  Organisation

  Helpline

  Welsh office funding in 1995–96 £

  ADAS

  Countryside and Agricultural Information Service (CAIS)

  Not separately identified

  Arena Network

  Help and advice on environmental issues for businesses

  1,100

  8 business development consortia

  Business connect

  1500,000

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Groundwater enquiry line

  Not separately identified

  Carmarthen Area Blind Society

  Helpline for the visually impaired

  Not separately identified

  Childline

  Childline

  73,000

  Cymru/Wales Clwyd Social Services Department

  Carers helpline

  6,000

  County Hospital, Pontypool

  Cardiac rehabilitation project

  Not separately identified

  Gwent Training and Enterprise Council

  Adult prospects

  3,250

  Gwynedd Carers Outreach

  Carers helpline

  Not separately identified

  Healthcare Management Information Services

  Health Information Wales

  63,000

  Healthcare Management Information Services

  Health Information Wales—Waiting Times Inormation Service

  1,000

  Mid Glamorgan Carers Support Group

  Carers helpline

  Not separately identified

  Network Scotland (on behalf of all UK Health Departments)

  National AIDS and Drugs Helpline

  34,000

  Newport MIND

  Crisis helpline

  500

  Pennell Kerr Forster

  Helpline for GP fundholders with accounting queries

  300

  Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Service, Merthyr

  Rape and sexual abuse helpline

  Not separately identified

  South Glamorgan Social Services Department

  Community Alcohol Team helpline

  1,800

  392

  Organisation

  Helpline

  Welsh office funding in 1995–96 £

  Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society (SANDS)

  Support helpline

  10,700

  West Glamorgan Health Authority

  National Incontinence Helpline 1996

  200

  West Wales Energy Group

  Local energy advice

  Not separately identified

  1This represents Welsh Office support in 1995–96 for the development of the Business Connect network, including information technology.

  In addition, my Department operates the following helplines:

  Helpline

  Cost to Welsh Office in 1995–96

  Number of calls in 1995–96 (estimate)

  Citizen's charter freephone

  275

  100

  Help and advice on energy efficiency

  1,500

  3,000

  Schools (Deficit Budgets)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the grant-maintained and (b) the locally-managed schools which had deficit budgets in the last financial year for which information is available, indicating in each case the number of years deficits have been carried over, the measures each school has been asked to take to get rid of the deficits and the legal obligations on school governors if the deficits arc not removed. [9475]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 15 January 19961: The information requested is as follows:

  The audited accounts for 1994–95 show that two grant-maintained schools—Cwmcarn in Gwent and Bishop Vaughan Catholic comprehensive in West Glamorgan—had deficits at the end of March 1995. This is the first year in which Bishop Vaughan had a deficit; that for Cwmcarn was carried over from 1993–94.

  The financial memorandum agreed between the Welsh Office and grant-maintained schools says that governing bodies must plan and conduct their affairs so as to remain solvent. If it becomes apparent to its governors that their school is in overall deficit, they must inform the Welsh Office. Officials then discuss with the school a strategy to extinguish the deficit. The Department is currently in discussion with both schools on action appropriate to eliminate the deficits.

  Should the governing body fail to implement the agreed strategy, then it is open to the Secretary of State to appoint additional governors to the governing body in accordance with section 67 of the Education Act 1993. If, however, it is his opinion that the governing body's actions are prejudicial to the provision of education at the school then, under section 64 of the 1993 Act, he can replace all or any of the first governors. In extreme cases, where the Secretary of State is of the view that the school is

  393
  unsuitable to continue, he can, under section 109 of the Act, give the school notice of his proposed date for cessation of his duty to maintain the school.

  As regards LEA-maintained schools, the position as detailed in the section 42 outturn statements for the period 1990–91 to 1994–95 is as follows:

  Local Education Authority

  Number of years in which school has had a deficit

  CLWYD

  Primary schools

  St. Ethelwood's, Shotton

  2

  Llanarmon-yn-Ial

  3

  Secondary schools

  Denbigh High School

  2

  Special schools

  Gwersyllt

  1

  DYFED

  Primary schools

  Gorslas

  1

  Ffarmers

  1

  Llanboidy

  1

  Llangennech Infants

  1

  Crymych

  1

  Llanarth

  1

  Blaenporth

  1

  Fishguard Juniors

  2

  Mynachlogddu

  2

  Narberth

  2

  Tregaron

  2

  Mathry

  2

  Bwlchygroes

  3

  Llangeitho

  3

  Llandyfaelog

  3

  Llangynin

  4

  Ffairfach

  4

  Coedmor

  4

  Alltwalis

  4

  New Inn

  4

  Pencader

  4

  Llansaint

  4

  Moylegrove

  4

  Llannon

  4

  Ysbyty Ystwyth

  4

  Angle

  4

  Llangwm

  4

  Secondary schools

  Ysgol Dewi Sant

  1

  Lampeter

  1

  Glanymor

  1

  St. John Lloyd RC

  2

  Ysgol Pantycelyn

  2

  Fishguard

  2

  Graig

  2

  GWENT

  Primary schools

  Brynglas J and I

  1

  Bryngwyn J and I

  1

  Cefn Fforest Junior

  1

  Hillside J and I

  1

  Ringland Junior

  1

  Varteg J and I

  1

  Llanyravon J and I

  2

  GWYNEDD

  Primary schools

  Nebo

  1

  394

  Local Education Authority

  Number of years in which school has had a deficit

  Trefriw

  1

  Brynsiencyn

  1

  Pencarnisiog

  1

  Faenol

  2

  Llangoed

  3

  Secondary schools

  Friars

  2

  Special schools

  Y Gogarth

  1

  MID GLAMORGAN

  Primary schools

  Cwmaman Infants

  1

  YGG Abercynon

  1

  Cwmbach Church Primary

  1

  Blaen-y-Cwm

  1

  Cymer Infants

  1

  Dunraven

  1

  Llwynpia

  1

  Pentre

  1

  Penyrenglyn Infants

  1

  YGG Ynyswen

  1

  Coed yr Esgob

  1

  Gellideg Infants

  1

  Gellifaelog

  1

  Goetre Infants

  1

  Ynysowen

  1

  YG Rhyd y Grug

  1

  St. Illtyd's

  1

  St. Brides C in W

  1

  Bargoed Infants

  1

  Hengoed Primary

  1

  Nant y Parc

  1

  Abertaf

  2

  Blaenrhondda

  2

  Llangewydd

  4

  Pencoed Juniors

  4

  Trallwng Infants

  5

  Secondary schools

  YG Rhydfelen

  1

  Cardinal Newman RC

  1

  Vaynor and Penderyn

  1

  POWYS

  Primary schools

  Archdeacon Griffiths

  1

  Builth Wells

  1

  Gungrog C in W

  1

  Llandinam

  1

  Llanfaes

  1

  Llangynidr

  1

  Oldford Infants

  1

  Rhayader C in W

  1

  Talgarth

  1

  Tregynon

  1

  Whitton (Aided)

  1

  Castle Caereinion C in W

  2

  Hay-on-Wye

  2

  Ladywell Green N and I

  2

  Llangorse C in W

  2

  Nantmel C in W

  2

  Ysgol Maesydre

  2

  Cwmdu C in W

  3

  Cwmtwrch

  3

  Guilsfield

  3

  Montgomery C in W

  3

  Mount St. Juniors

  3

  Trecastle

  3

  Trefonnen C in W 1

  3

  Forden C in W

  4

  395

  Local Education Authority

  Number of years in which school has had a deficit

  Llangurig

  4

  Manafon C in W

  4

  Radnor Valley

  4

  Banw

  5

  Clyro

  5

  Maesyrhandir

  5

  Sarn C in W (Aided)

  5

  Secondary schools

  Gwernyfed

  1

  Ysgol Bro Ddyfi

  1

  Maesydderwen

  1

  Crickhowell

  2

  South Glamorgan

  Primary schools

  Pendoylan C in W

  1

  St. David's (Vale)

  1

  Ysgol Sant Curig

  1

  Fairfield

  3

  Secondary schools

  Radyr

  2

  Llanedeyrn

  4

  Local management of schools schemes in general prohibit governing bodies from planning deliberately for deficits, except to the extent that the LEA may think it reasonable to make provision in its scheme to allow schools, in certain specified circumstances, to anticipate their budget shares for the following year in order to finance some major planned item of expenditure for which the full cost cannot readily be accommodated within the current year's budget share. Where deficits nevertheless arise, LMS schemes must make appropriate provision for their recovery, normally from the following year's budget share, except where clear practical considerations preclude recovery on this timescale. It is for LEAs to pursue any appropriate action in respect of deficits incurred by LEA maintained schools.

  Repossessions
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the extent of repossessions in Wales over the past two years; and what are his estimates of likely trends in(a) repossessions and (b) negative equity in 1996. [10258]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information is not recorded centrally on the number of cases in which mortgage possession orders lead to warrants to have the defendants evicted. However, recent figures on the number of possession orders and suspended orders are given in the table. Estimates of likely trends in repossessions and negative equity are not available for 1996.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  11995

  Mortgage possession orders

  3,958

  3,403

  2,297

  1,485

  1,245

  Suspended orders

  3,457

  3,673

  3,598

  2,253

  2,008

  Source:

  Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Note:

  1Figures are for the first 3 quarters of 1995.

  Estimates of likely trends in repossessions and negative equity are not available for 1996.

  Bristol Channel (Dredging)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the study on the impact of dredging on the coastal environment in the Bristol channel referred to in his answer of 2 May 1995,Official Report, column 140, to be completed. [10912]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Invitations to tender will be issued shortly. The study will commence as soon as a suitable contractor has been chosen. The work is expected to take two to three years to complete.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he has attended meetings of the Council of Ministers. [10696]

  Mr. Hague
  None to date. Members of the Government attending meetings of the Council of Ministers speak on behalf of the whole United Kingdom, including Wales.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many meetings of the Council of Ministers dealing with responsibilities held by the Welsh Office have been convened since he took up his duties as Secretary of State for Wales. [10695]

  Mr. Hague
  Between 5 July 1995 and 19 January 1996, the Council of the European Union met on 19 occasions when the title of the Council could in some way be related to responsibilities held by the Welsh Office as set out in the 1995 departmental report of the Welsh Office.

  CADW
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many offices CADW currently has in Wales. [10702]

  Mr. Hague
  This is a matter for the agency and I have asked the chief executive, Mr. T. J. Cassidy, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from T. J. Cassidy to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 25 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question in which you ask how many offices Cadw currently has in Wales.
  The Agency has only a single administrative office and this is located at Brunel House here in Cardiff, although it will be relocated into the main Welsh Office building in Cathays Park later this year. The Agency also has three works management units at Caerphilly and Neath these will be centralised at Crickhowell in April—and at Caernarfon. There are responsible for the management of industrial staff and the conservation maintenance programme for the estate in care.

  Community Councils
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many community councils there were in Wales(a) 1976 and (b) 1986; and how many there are currently. [10675]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Temporary Traffic Lights, Bryncoedifor
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how long the temporary traffic lights system has been in
  397
  operation at Bryncoedifor on the Bala to Dolgellau road; and if he will make a statement. [10708]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) on 24 November 1995,Official Report, column 415.

  Severn Flood Barrage
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated as to a River Severn flood barrage in the Llandrinio area; and if he will make a statement. [11257]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the total expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (1) advertising and (2) press and public relations. [11360]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is included in the following table.

  Expenditure on advertising and press and public relations by my Department and its executive agency CADW for the years requested are set out in the table below. Figures are not held centrally for NDPBs.

  Year

  Advertising

  Press and public relations

  Welsh Office

  1979–80

  61

  451

  1989–90

  411

  2,245

  1991–92

  349

  2,089

  1993–94

  275

  1,704

  1994–95

  255

  2,068

  1995–96 (i) to date

  352

  964

  (ii) estimate outturn

  465

  2,055

  1996–07 estimate

  408

  2,187

  CADW

  1979–80

  n/a

  1n/a

  1989–90

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  n/a

  n/a

  1993–94

  58

  370

  1994–95

  35

  471

  1995–96 (i) to date

  26

  312

  (ii) estimate outturn

  26

  374

  1996–97 estimate

  26

  375

  CADW was set up as an executive agency in April 1992. 1Figures before 1992–93 are not readily available and can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Expenditure on advertising includes television, radio and press advertising costs. Figures for press and public relations includes press and publicity staff costs, press cutting services and the cost of purchasing other forms of publicity material.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the annual telephone costs to(a) his Department, (b) his Department's
  398
  agencies and (c) his Department's non-departmental public bodies staff for each of the years (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97; and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas of (a) to (c). [11362]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is included in the following list.

  (a) 1979–80: No records available

  1989–90: £906,700 (actual)

  1991–92: £1,159,874 (actual)

  1993–94: £1,314,015 (actual)

  1994–95: £1,221,344 (actual)

  1995–96: £834,483 (spend to date)

  1996–97: Not yet finalised

  (b) 1979–80: No Agencies

  1989–90: No Agencies

  1991–92: £38,866 (actual)

  1993–94: £65,763 (actual)

  1994–95: £32,033 (actual)

  1995–96: £55,671 (spend to date)

  1996–97: £57,700 (estimate)

  (c) Not available centrally.

  (d) Internal directories are available to all staff in my Department and it's Agencies. Information is not available centrally on the position of NDPB's.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the expenditure of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all external consultants including management consultants for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will estimate the savings accruing to his Department from the use of consultants in each of these years. [11359]

  Mr. Hague
  Expenditure on management and other consultants engaged by the Welsh Office is as follows:

  £000

  1979–80

  not applicable

  1989–90

  342

  1991–92

  1,109

  1993–94

  1,454

  1994–95

  805

  1995–96 to end—December

  202

  My Department's plans for using external consultants in 1996–97 have not yet been finalised. There are no central records of expenditure on consultants by non-departmental public bodies, or the savings resulting from consultancy work.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of absenteeism rates in days per annum for staff in his Department for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96. [11361]
  399
  Mr. Hague
  The average number of working days sickness absence per member of staff by calendar year was as follows:

  1992: 9.82

  1993: 10.1

  1994: 9.14

  Statistics on a comparable basis are not available prior to 1992. Statistics for 1995 are not yet available.

  South Glamorgan Health Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority in relation to the cancellation of all extra-contractual referrals until the end of the current financial year. [11905]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department was made aware of the health authority's policy decision prior to its introduction.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the proposals to provide general practitioner out-of-hours health care, and the process of public consultation in Mid Glamorgan and in Wales. [11729]

  Mr. Richards
  The agreement reached last year between the Government and the British Medical Association provides the opportunity for GPs to organise their emergency out-of-hours services in ways that will maintain and improve patient services.
  400
  The arrangements for implementing the agreement at a local level rests with the relevant family health services authority.

  Retail Shopping Developments
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which superstore projects have received public funding from(a) regional selective assistance grants and (b) other grants in each of the counties of Wales; what are the amounts awarded; and if he will make a statement. [11730]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not readily available in the form requested. I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning out-of-town retail parks. [11731]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend's policy is set out in planning policy guidance note No. 6 "Town Centres and Retail Development". Planning policy guidance (Wales) which was issued for consultation in July 1995 contains revised guidance on retail development.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representation he has received in the last three years concerning the impact of new superstores and out-of-town retail parks on existing shopping centres. [11732]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I have received various representations in that time from individuals, companies, local authorities and other organisations relating both to specific retail proposals and to retail development generally.

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

Youth Training Allowance
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have not uprated the youth training allowance and the youth training bridging allowance.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government set minimum allowances which are topped up by a significant proportion of training providers and employers. They reflect the future career benefits to be gained from their training.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if those allowances are, as he implied, adequate now, they were grossly excessive in 1988? Is he aware, further, that they have caused considerable top-up costs to the Department of Social Security? Will the Government consider transferring responsibility for uprating those allowances to the Department of Social Security, which has an organised uprating procedure?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Earl in his first supplementary question. We have no plans to so uprate the allowances. If more money went into allowances, less would go into training.
As he is aware—though I understand that he feels otherwise—we believe that the policies we are pursuing whereby we seek to prevent young people of 16 and 17 from receiving income support are in their best interests. We provide three possible avenues—education, training or work. I am pleased to say that we now have only around 8 to 10 per cent. who are not pursuing one of those three options.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the failure to uprate youth training allowances could possibly mean that those not entitled to income support may become progressively worse off? Is that not an unfair situation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that to be the case. Many employers or training providers top up the allowances. Where individuals are in hardship, income support can be available; but we do not believe that there should be general entitlement to it for 16 and 17 year-olds.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, for those of us who are not so well informed, can my noble friend make clear what is the difference between the youth
1120
training allowance and the youth training bridging allowance? What kind of money is involved in the amount a person receives each week?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the youth training allowance is £29.50 for 16 year-olds and £35 for those aged 17 or over. The bridging allowance, which is £15 a week, is paid to those who are waiting to take up training under the YT guarantee.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, perhaps I may ask an allied question, and I apologise for not giving the Minister notice. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Prince's Youth Business Trust which over the past 10 years has set up in business around 24,000 young people. They are being severely affected by the phasing out of the enterprise allowance. Will the Minister please look at the situation again? The enterprise allowance will be much cheaper than keeping a young person on the unemployment register.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord speaks with extraordinary experience, and I am grateful to him for declaring his interest to the House. It is a valuable interest to society. I am prepared to look at the issue. As the noble Lord said, the matter goes slightly beyond the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the Government defended the decisions not to uprate the YT allowance as long ago as 1992? They said:
"the current minimum allowances are sufficient to meet the normal requirements of trainees living in the parental home".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/92; WA351.]
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, 1988 and 1995 are a long way apart. But in the same column of the same edition of the Official Report the Government said:
"Employers benefit considerably from Government expenditure on YT and are strongly encouraged to supplement trainee incomes wherever possible".
Can the Minister tell the House how many employers did so then, and how many do so now?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord's question as to how many employers supplemented trainee incomes then. As regards the present time, two-thirds of trainees are either in paid training or in receipt of the allowance and finding it topped up.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, why are those allowances not uprated on the same basis as other allowances for which the Department of Social Security is responsible?
Lord Henley: My Lords, they are not social security benefits and they should not be seen as social security benefits. I made clear earlier, but I think that this is a point worth making again, so I shall repeat it: if more money goes on allowances, less money is available for training. We have a very good record on training. As I said earlier, something of the order of over 90 per cent.

1121
of our 16 and 17 year-olds are either in work, in training, or staying on at school or college. In fact, more are staying on at school or college than ever before.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister explain why severe hardship payments for this group of young people increased from 1,669 in May 1990 to 10,988 in May 1994, and is that trend continuing?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not know whether the trend is continuing, but it obviously shows that the social security offices are applying those rules in the appropriate manner. However, I can advise the noble Countess—I know that she has advocated this for a long time—that merely giving 16 and 17 year-olds an automatic entitlement to income support would not only be highly expensive, but would not serve their best interests. In fact, I think that fewer people would stay on in full-time education or enter work or training if we were to go down that line.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the Minister mentioned that £15 is the bridging allowance for a trainee, but does he accept that it does not matter whether it is the Department of Social Security or any other department which pays that £15? Our point is that £15 in 1988 is now worth at least £21.76. Therefore, is it not about time that we accepted that that £15 is inadequate in 1996 and should be uprated, irrespective of who uprates it? According to a dossier from the citizens advice bureau, hundreds of thousands of people are suffering hardship because such allowances are far too low.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the £15 to which I referred is purely a bridging allowance for those waiting to start training—a training that will benefit them. As I made clear, those who are in vulnerable groups and likely to suffer severe hardship will have an entitlement to income support, but we do not think that there should be an automatic entitlement to that support.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister argues that this is not a matter for income support, but why has the youth training allowance been allowed to fall so low that it is topped up out of income support? Has the Department for Education and Employment compensated the Department of Social Security for the charge that it has thereby imposed on its budget?
Lord Henley: My Lords, generally speaking, the figures are more or less above the rates of income support. As I have said, we do not believe that there should be an automatic entitlement to income support, but that it is right that there should be an entitlement to income support for those suffering severe hardship.

RAS: Privatisation Benefits
3.15 p.m.
Lord Bancroft Lord Bancroft asked Her Majesty's Government:
What benefits they expect to accrue to the public sector borrowing requirement from the proposed sale of Recruitment and Assessment Services (RAS).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, the sale of the Recruitment and Assessment Services (RAS) will not significantly affect the public sector borrowing requirement. Privatisation will benefit RAS, freeing it to compete for business in wider markets and offering new opportunities for investment. Existing customers will benefit because, freed from public sector operational constraints, RAS will be better able to improve its services.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for effectively confirming by his Answer that the Government's decision is explicable only in terms of ideology. That is not the Question that I asked. However, is the Minister aware of the disquiet that is being caused by the privatisation (without parliamentary process or discussion) of a main safeguard of Civil Service integrity, however hedged about by contractual conditions? Is he further aware that last year RAS recruited 100 per cent. of the administrative fast-stream entry, the future leaders of the service, and has increased its share of total Civil Service recruitment from 7 per cent. to 11 per cent.?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I very much respect what the noble Lord says. He has wide experience of these matters. We look to privatisation to provide a better service with better value for the taxpayer, consistent with the overall aim of recruiting the right people. There is enormous expertise in RAS in terms of graduate recruitment, as the noble Lord indicated, but recruitment to the fast stream of the Civil Service represents only about one-third of its business. By making that expertise available to the private sector, which RAS cannot do at the moment, we have the prospect of a broader-based business with lower unit costs and better value for customers.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the proposal mean that what used to be the Civil Service Commission will be on offer for sale to private firms? If so, will there be very careful scrutiny of the fitness of any prospective buyers and plenty of time allowed for a necessarily delicate and detailed process, since the commission was widely regarded as having carried out its tasks well?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I stress that I am in full agreement with the underlying theme of my noble friend's question. Recruitment to the fast stream of the Civil Service must be handled with the utmost propriety. I stress also that that principle is in no way affected by the Government's proposals for RAS. Civil servants will remain in control of all appointments. The customers of RAS—namely, government departments—will be closely involved in setting up and managing the contract. Critically, the principle of fair and open competition on merit as the basis of selection will remain entirely unchanged. There is no question of the Civil Service Commission being privatised.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, does the Minister accept that in the 150 years since the Trevelyan-Northcote report the British Civil Service has

1123
become one of our most unique and prized national assets, and that the method of recruitment is an essential part of that tradition? Will he speak to his noble friend the Leader of the House and ensure, if this House is to discharge its proper constitutional function, that we have a full debate on this matter before there is any question of irrevocable decisions taking place? Will the Leader of the House—if I may address him directly for the moment—have consultations on this issue with party leaders and the Convener of the Cross-Benchers?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I should he happy to convey the noble Lord's remarks to my noble friend in so far as he has not already heard them, and I am sure that he has. The Government start from the premise that the administration of a recruitment service—that is to say, the operational mechanics of such a service—is not a task which needs to be undertaken by government. However, we recognise fully that appointments to the fast stream of the Civil Service represent a particularly important part of RAS's work. That is why we shall ensure that the Civil Service remains in control of the appointments to the fast stream not just through the terms of the contract with RAS, which will be tightly drawn, but by having civil servants on the panel of assessors.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has in no way replied to the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, today or in his article in December? If there is a three-year review of RAS in process, which will not be completed until the summer, what is the point of announcing in advance what the Government propose to do? Judging from the response of the whole of the House to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that there be an early debate on the issue, I hope that the Leader of the House will whisper in the Minister's ear that there is to be such a debate.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have endeavoured to answer all questions put to me this afternoon. I am sorry if noble Lords feel that I have not done so. I said also in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that we on this side of the House stand ready to listen to representations, and I am sure that we will receive them positively. My noble friend has indicated in my ear that he will be more than happy to have a debate on this subject if that is the wish of the House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that undertaking is of course extremely welcome. Perhaps I may declare an interest, as one who was rejected by the Civil Service Selection Board more than 40 years ago and has been profoundly grateful ever since. I should have been a rotten civil servant. Do not the assets of RAS include not just the expert staff but a capital asset in the form of the tests which have been developed over more than 50 years? Even though they may be retained in the ownership of government, how could those capital assets be used for the benefit of the people of this country if privatisation were to go ahead?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord has himself drawn attention to a key point, which is that the assets of RAS consist not merely of the staff, to whose expertise I
1124
have referred, but to the qualifying tests and exercises. They will remain at all times the property of the Crown and in the Crown's control. That is an important control over what RAS can do, alongside the detail of the contract.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, as someone who a long time ago held the job of First Civil Service Commissioner, may I ask the Minister how the Civil Service Commissioners will ensure that a privatised body's natural wish to shave costs will not result in a lowering of standards or the degree of rigour of the tests, without themselves undertaking a degree of monitoring and second guessing which would themselves negate the whole object of the privatisation?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the strict requirement that fast stream recruitment to the Civil Service must he based on merit in fair and open competition will form the heart of the contract with RAS. Adherence to that requirement will be the subject of a periodic independent audit. If the requirement is not met, then RAS would lost the contract. I stress that standards of probity and impartiality will not be compromised.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that it is a little difficult to understand what positive advantage would accrue to the Civil Service as a result of this proposal?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Civil Service, which is, after all, the customer in this exercise, has been consulted closely throughout. It will be involved closely in drawing up the contract and in monitoring it as it proceeds. I feel that the Civil Service will be able to control closely how RAS performs in the future.

Council of Ministers: Voting Statistics
3.25 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will state how many times in votes by qualified majority at meetings of the Council of Ministers during the period since the Single European Act came into force up to the end of 1995 (a) the United Kingdom has been in the minority and (b) Germany and France voted differently from one another.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, there have been two changes of voting system since the Single European Act. Voting figures for the period between the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty can only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Of 261 votes carried in the Council by qualified majority during the period 6th December 1993 to 31st December 1994, 197 were passed unanimously. Of the remaining 64 votes passed, Britain either voted against or abstained on

1125
21 occasions. During this same period Germany and France voted differently on 18 occasions. Final statistics for 1995 are not yet available.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her reply. Does she agree that the figures she has been kind enough to give, covering the three years to the end of 1994, indicate that, despite all the Government's protestations of acting with independence and, indeed, courage from time to time, by and large they seem to have gone along with practically everything that has come before the Council of Ministers? That means, for example, that in the three years ending 31st December 1994, during which time 4,850 items of legislation were passed, for all its protestations of independence and sole judgment, the UK rode along with the rest of Europe. Do the German and French figures indicate that in the overwhelming number of instances the Elysée Treaty of 22nd January, 1963, by virtue of which right down to senior civil servant level Germany and France agree beforehand what would be their attitude at forthcoming Council meetings, seems to have been very effective indeed?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, at times I become a little weary when the noble Lord thinks that there is a plot in all of this. We will vote in favour of something only if we agree with it. If we disagree with it strongly, we will vote against. If there is a reason to abstain and not to vote against, we will do that. The myth of a Franco-German stitch-up in Europe, to which several noble Lords come every now again, is just as unfounded as the myth of the UK's isolation in Europe. When the noble Lord goes on to talk about other matters, including quoting more than 4,000 items of legislation, let us get one thing absolutely straight on the record. When I answer questions, I answer them explicitly, as did my noble friend Lord Chesham when he answered my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux explicitly about acts of legislation, and said:
"These figures do not include acts of day-to-day management where validity does not exceed a few weeks".
That is why the figures in the Commission's annual report are higher than the Celex database. We only include acts that are meaningful. That is why we do not go along with all things only when they are in Britain's best interests.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, contrary to the deduction of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, it is largely a tribute to the British Government and civil servants negotiating on behalf of British interests that we have so few times been in a minority in a qualified majority vote? Will she confirm that both Germany and the Netherlands, among others, have lost far more often in majority voting than has the United Kingdom?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is absolutely right is saying that Germany and the Netherlands have lost far more often than the United Kingdom in majority voting. She is also right in pointing out that often, while agreement may
1126
not be reached on an issue at the first or second reading, so to speak, when it is thoroughly argued out it is frequently agreed by unanimity, the sense of the case having been fully explored. The need to explore cases fully accounts for much of the work not only in the Council of Ministers but also in COREPER.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that any rational analysis of the figures before her show that most of the countries behave similarly and that statistics about Germany, the Netherlands, France or Britain being isolated are roughly the same? Does she agree that it is only the chip-on-the-shoulder approach to Europe that brings the conspiracy theory forward? Can she provide figures showing the number of times the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has asked Questions on Europe in respect of which he has been profoundly isolated from his Front Bench?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have lost count of the number of times that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has been out of agreement with his Front Bench but I do not want to penalise him unduly. He is a good friend in personal terms and I appreciate that very much.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, is right in that it is arguing out the issues, in particular what lies behind the apparent issue, that is sometimes trumpeted by certain members of the press. That is essential and while I do not have to hand all the figures the noble Lord would like I can assure him it is a matter we watch with extreme care.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt what I know has been an extremely interesting series of exchanges. As always, I am in the hands of the House. I am conscious of the clock and we have a fourth Question which will be at least as interesting. Perhaps the House feels that it is time to move on.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Bosnia: Deployment of NATO Troops
3.32 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is the case that NATO troops in Bosnia will not be deployed either to protect UN teams investigating suspected massacre sites or to prevent the destruction of incriminating evidence by Bosnian Serb forces.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords. IFOR will provide security for UN teams visiting alleged grave sites. It will conduct foot patrols and aerial reconnaissance of sites and report any suspicious

1127
activities that might suggest tampering. These activities should ensure that sites are not disturbed until the tribunal has been able to investigate them.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. It clarifies considerably the position of IFOR and Admiral Leighton Smith, about which there have been conflicting reports. Does she agree that every effort must be made to uncover what appear to be the worst atrocities on European soil for 50 years, in which it would seem that more civilians and POWs have been murdered in cold blood than Polish officers were massacred at Katyn?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right, and every effort will be made in this regard. At a meeting on Monday this week in Sarajevo the commander of the NATO peace implementation force, Admiral Leighton Smith, and the chief prosecutor of the International Tribunal on War Crimes in the former Yugoslavia, Richard Goldstone, agreed the procedures to co-ordinate their respective missions. That is a good step forward. I assure the noble Lord that IFOR is very sensitive to this issue and is prepared to help the tribunal in whatever reasonable ways it can.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is of the utmost importance to secure the release of the many hundreds of prisoners who are still being held by all sides in this conflict. Since the deadline for their release has passed, will she tell the House what steps are being taken to secure their release? Is NATO supporting the UN in that task?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the answer to both questions is yes.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the Minister agree that her answers are further evidence of the admirable work that IFOR is carrying out?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, IFOR is doing excellent work and is also co-ordinating with the Higher Representative, Carl Bildt, very well. We know that the early weeks were difficult, in particular prior to 19th January, but the progress made is significant and it is palpable when one is in the zone.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if those in IFOR know that there is a warrant out for someone's arrest, will they arrest that person, and, if not, who will?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, IFOR can provide the security. It does not have the power of arrest. It must report any suspicious activities, and it will do that. It is then up to the war crimes tribunal and its chief prosector to make sure that persons who should be arrested are so arrested.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did Judge Goldstone accept the offers made by IFOR with unqualified satisfaction? Will the Minister give an assurance that, if he goes hack to IFOR and asks for additional
1128
measures of protection or control, they will be carefully considered and a report will be made by the Minister to the House about those demands?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand that Justice Goldstone has said that he is satisfied with the level of support offered by Admiral Leighton Smith. He has agreed that the IFOR support should be provided within the limits of its mandate and its resources. If there is any need for further assistance, the parties will be consulted. If there were any specific news to tell your Lordships of course I should seek to do that.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry to come back but "Yes" is not an answer to what steps are being taken, as I am sure the Minister will agree.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. I thought that she had asked two poignant questions and that we were both on the same wavelength. I believed that she asked me about the steps being taken to assist the investigation. Am I right?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, no; I asked about securing the release of the many hundreds of prisoners who are still being held in Bosnia.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. The steps being taken arc the responsibility of the High Representative and of IFOR. The way in which they are pursuing these matters is not known to all of us, but they are watching for every sign and following up signs in order to find out where people might have been taken. As regards those whom we hope are still alive—the prisoners behind the lines—it is a matter of negotiation, which is being pursued daily, if not hourly. We know that a large number of Serbs and Croats could be exchanged for Moslem prisoners, but working that out must be done on the ground, and it is being pursued in the most practical way.

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Inglewood on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Broadcasting Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 28,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 29 to 62,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 63 to 67,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 68 to 87,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 88 to 90,

Schedule 5,

1129

Clauses 91 to 93,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 94 to 95,

Schedules 7 and 8,

Clauses 96 and 97.—(Lord Strathclyde.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
3.39 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.]
Clause 14 [Financial arrangements]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 153A:
Page 8, line 21, at end insert ("and (c) to enable property adjustment orders to make provision as to pension benefits").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 153A I shall speak to the substantive Amendment No. 203C and to the consequential Amendment No. 212AC, which stands in my name and the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady O'Cathain, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
I do not propose to describe the amendments in detail. If the Committee agrees, I shall instead try to argue the issue in the hope that the amendments will attract the support of the entire Committee. When we discussed the Pensions Bill last spring we tried to make more equitable the financial provisions of divorce. Now we are dealing with a family law and divorce Bill in which we are trying to make more equitable the financial provisions of pension.
Why do we need to revisit the issue? Last spring there was wide agreement in the House, when we discussed pensions, that they were part of matrimonial property. The husband may have earned it—let us assume for these purposes that he is the pension holder—but the wife, in bringing up the children, supporting the husband and taking a range of part-time jobs to add to the family budget, has contributed her share too. Until last spring, however, even though a pension might be the largest financial asset in the marriage, she was entitled to none of it.
Clearly, when you are trying to settle financial matters at the time of divorce, if you ring-fence as untouchable the largest single asset then possible injustice follows. And it did. Countless women wrote to your Lordships—especially to the noble Baroness, Lady Young—describing the destitution into which they had been plunged.
In the Pensions Bill, your Lordships decided two things. First, that courts must take pensions into account on divorce and, secondly, that they could do this either by offsetting it with other assets, if there were enough of them, or by earmarking, that is deferred maintenance. splitting the flow of pension income when it comes to be drawn at retirement. I am sure we would all like to pay tribute here to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who fought so stoutly for an amendment that attracted the entire support of the House
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It was also agreed at that time that earmarking or deferred maintenance should be paid through the pension fund, rather than separately by the husband, to avoid pensioners having to pursue the issue through the courts.
These were good and valuable changes made by the whole House which were especially helpful to older women—women in their late 50s—who have too often written to us to say that they have been traded in for a younger model.
But deferred maintenance or earmarking has, as we now know, two great drawbacks. The first is that the wife's pension maintenance depends on the husband. It is a gamble. If he retires early she has less income; if he retires later she has to wait longer for it; if he dies early, she may get nothing; and when eventually after retirement he does die, she will get nothing.
Let us say that he is three years older than she. He dies at 80 and, unfortunately, she dies at 85. For 15 years after reaching pension age she will have had an adequate pension. Then, when she is 77, he dies. For the last eight years of her life her pension have vanished, because he has gone, and she will be forced onto income support at a time when she is increasingly frail, needs more home help, extra heating and perhaps more nursing. A frail, elderly lady is forced into penury, through no fault of her own, because deferred maintenance—though suitable for many couples—is a lottery on his life. That is no way to live.
The second difficulty with deferred maintenance is precisely that: it is deferred until retirement. A couple may divorce in their 40s, and that means that for the next 40 years their financial lives remain entangled, even though it may have been clean and decent for both of them to have had the opportunity of a clean break. With deferred maintenance they cannot do so. They have to keep track of each other and the pension scheme has to keep track of them both.
May I urge a third option which does not just offset assets against each other, if you are rich enough, and not just defer maintenance, which splits income at retirement if you are elderly enough. We need the third option of pension splitting, that is splitting the capital at the point of divorce, so that each party has the core of a pension on which to build while they continue in work, keeping both of them off poverty in old age and allowing both of them to get on with the rest of their lives. It is clean, it is decent, it is simple and it is fair. It is supported by every organisation that I am aware of which has an interest; by the entire pensions industry,

1131
by accountants and actuaries and professional associations, by business and industry led by the CBI, by the law societies and family solicitors societies, by organisations representing the elderly, such as Age Concern, and organisations representing women, from business and professional women's organisations to Fair Shares and the Mothers' Union itself. If then it is fair, and if it is, as I have suggested, so widely supported, why did the Government then resist splitting pensions? The Government gave, basically, two financial arguments. But those arguments no longer apply, as the Government concede.
The first argument was that it would cost the Government, as employer, £500 million a year if the departing spouse took her share of the pension out of an unfunded Civil Service scheme. The way to deal with that real problem is that in any unfunded scheme—the Civil Service scheme, for example—both fractions of the pension remain within that scheme and are not taken out until, or if, the pension earner transfers out or retires. That way there is no real cash outflow and, therefore, there is no cost to government as employer. The problem goes away. In good schemes—as the Civil Service scheme is known to be—most people would wish to keep their pensions there. Such a small restriction on Civil Service and unfunded schemes is a small price to pay for broad justice for the rest of our working people who are in occupational and private schemes. That was the first of the Government's argument, and we can show a way of addressing it which produces no cost to government as employer.
The Government's second argument was the cost to the Government as tax raiser. The Government, in this House, argued that tax allowances and fiscal drift would in 2037 cost —300 million. By the time it went to the House of Commons, the Treasury figures had become —200 million a year. Now the Treasury has conceded, in its Written Answers to myself on the 9th and 15th January, and in the House of Commons on 15th January, that in the year 2020–25 years from now—the cost to the Treasury in loss of tax will be £80 million, offset, says the Treasury, by savings of £70 million in income support, together with something in the region of £10 million in court costs and legal aid. In other words, costs of £80 million, savings of £80 million, cost to the taxpayer nil. Those are not my figures but Treasury figures, and I apologise if they are very different from the Treasury figure of £300 million which was bandied around last spring. The Treasury, on its own information, now accepts that the true cost to public funds is nil.
Last spring we did not, as some of us would have liked to do, press this amendment to a vote because we respected Treasury information that has subsequently turned out to be—how can I put it?—less than complete. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, did say at the time that we would have a second occasion on which to revisit this issue—that is to say, this Bill—and my faith in them, if not in the Treasury figures, remains unshaken.
1132
I would expect pension splitting to produce some technical difficulties with SERPS and GMPs, but we have drafted amendments which could possibly overcome such difficulties. No one ever said that pensions would be easy. It is technically difficult—we all accept that—and we accept that any amendments we have drafted may be flawed. However, we have overcome the two major arguments that the Government used to stop us going down that route last spring. We now know that the remaining arguments are lesser and technical. They can and should be overcome and they can and would be overcome if the political will was there. If the department were asked to resolve those difficulties it would do so. I hope that that is what Members of the Committee will say today.
The amendments are not party political; indeed, I believe that there is widespread support for them in the Committee. Certainly, Members of all parties in this Chamber have expressed their support. They do not favour women over men or men over women. The provision would apply equally to both. Many men would prefer to keep some present assets—savings—and part of their pension rather than lose all their present assets to keep a pension which they may never live to enjoy. Moreover, the provision would not privilege divorce over marriage. That is an argument to which I shall return if necessary. Instead, it would stretch a pension that normally covers one household to cover two, thus saving us all money on benefits in the process.
We are talking about a set of amendments which are fair, decent, clean and simple. Indeed, it represents what couples and the courts want as an option; it is what every professional organisation wants; and, on the Treasury's own figures, it need cost taxpayers nothing at all. I truly believe that Amendment No. 153A is a win-win amendment. We do not always have the chance to do what is right, fair, popular and free. We can do so today. In so doing, we will float thousands of elderly people off the poverty line in old age. I beg to move.
Baroness O'Cathain: I rise to speak to the amendment to which I have attached my name. One of the most compelling issues as regards the amendment is the fact that it is fair and just, as the noble Baroness said. Moreover, from the point of view of business, it would also introduce a system whereby there would be a reduction in administrative costs. It would make the organisation of pension funds as regards trustees that much simpler in the case of divorce. The amendment does not actually support divorce; indeed, it supports the situation which arises after a divorce where there is a break-up of the assets.
The two ways currently available in the case of a divorce have their problems. The first is that pension rights remain undisturbed but the value is taken into account in the allocation of assets and the second is the method of earmarking part of the pension for payment to the time hence when it actually comes into effect. However, the proposed method of splitting the pension is really the most sensible and easy way.
In the case of earmarking, the arrangements require pension scheme administrators to store and update information about a non-member spouse throughout the

1133
period up to retirement. Incidentally, I should like to make the point that it does not necessarily mean that it will be the woman who will benefit. It could well be that the woman is the higher earner in the case of a divorce—indeed, such situations do arise. That period could he 20, 30 or 35 years. The administrators must then implement the split of the pension and the lump sum payments and make two monthly payments rather than one. While employers, especially the CBI, welcome the Government's willingness to take account of the employer's administrative costs in earmarking arrangements (the costs are borne by the divorcing couple) those extra burdens in terms of costs are quite unhelpful.
In effect, splitting would mean a one-off administration cost—that is, the calculation and implementation of the transfer payment—and that should not be too difficult. Employers generally regard that as preferable to ongoing record keeping, and so on. Employee relations problems may develop when scheme members find that they do not receive from their employer the full benefit that they expected because of payments direct to a former spouse. That situation would be obviated by the amendment. Indeed, such problems could be exacerbated where a divorce has been bitter. Employers are concerned to avoid involvement in the personal affairs of their employees and, unfortunately, earmarking necessitates such involvement. Again, splitting would allow the employer to make a single payment which would mean an end to contact with the employee's former spouse. Such an arrangement should minimise the danger of employee relations difficulties.
The amendment should also have significant advantages from the perspective of divorcing individuals. Splitting better satisfies the common desire to achieve a clean break, as the noble Baroness said. I say that because each former partner would have his or her own separate assets, whereas earmarking only comes into effect when the scheme member chooses to retire. That may not occur at a time convenient to the former spouse who may not want to begin receiving such payments at an earlier time or, indeed, may have needed such payments far sooner than when the spouse who is receiving the main pension actually received it.
The provision of splitting gives freedom both to the employer and to the individuals concerned. On that practical basis alone, I believe that the proposal has much merit. Indeed, if we add that to all the merits outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I believe that the amendment is one that the Government should take away and act upon.
Earl Russell: I should like to join the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in the tribute that she paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the distinguished work that she has done on the subject and for which we are all extremely grateful. I should also, if I may, like to extend that tribute to the noble Baroness herself for the work that she carried out on the Pensions Bill. Indeed, I am also most grateful to my noble friend Lady Seear in that respect.
1134
Members of the Committee will have observed that I am not my noble friend Lady Seear. Unfortunately, my noble friend is, for reasons beyond her control, unable to be with us until some time around 5 p.m. this evening. Therefore, I have been appointed understudy and it is in that capacity that I now appear before the Committee.
We are discussing an immensely complicated subject. There is one major difficulty which I do not see how we can get around whatever we do; namely, that there is not enough to go around. However, I can see no reason whatever why one party—and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that there is no reason why it should necessarily be the woman—should suffer all the hardship. There is a case for some fairness even in hardship. Therefore, the argument for some form of splitting is a very strong one. Indeed, in terms of moral equity, it is very hard to answer.
The problem that we have to consider is how that ought to be done. I do not believe that I need to repeat the criticisms of the earmarking procedure which both noble Baronesses developed most fully. But I must say that I particularly like the way that the amendment tackles the problem. It seems to me that it follows the principles of drafting set out by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in the Renton Report, to which I have often paid tribute. It would allow for the statute to state a general principle and for the application of that general principle to circumstances which will be infinitely various to be a matter for the court.
One pension scheme is not like another. Moreover, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, pointed out, one retirement age is not like another. It is one of our big difficulties that the retirement of one partner is no longer under the influence of the other after divorce. That is probably the biggest reason why we need outside involvement. There will be immensely variable situations; for example, the numbers of dependants, who may or may not be children of the marriage; capital; property; and inherited resources. Moreover, there are quite severe complications as regards valuing art collections for probate.
Therefore, it will be necessary to consider each case on its merits. If we attempt to legislate in too much detail, we shall run into all the problems that are involved in laying down a formula. I shall not bore noble Lords with my views on those matters. I support the amendment.
I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned the saving of income support that results from the division of pensions. The amount of income support spent on topping up the state pension is considerable. I suspect that the amount spent in that regard in the age group 60 to 65 did not form part of the Treasury calculations.
I received a written answer this morning about the number of people over the age of 50 who have been out of work for more than 10 years. The figure is 2.5 million. There will also he a saving of income support in regard to that group. Many of them will have a spouse who is already beyond pension age. I should like to know whether the Treasury has taken that fact into account and reworked the figures and whether the saving is greater than it would otherwise have been.

1135
Before returning to this matter at Report, I should be grateful to receive clarification; but in the meantime I support the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: As my name is on the amendment I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on the amendment and on the speech that she made in support of it. I should also like to congratulate noble Lords who also spoke with such knowledge and intelligence.
Many aspects of marriage fall for consideration under the Bill, but one which is particularly relevant to the amendment is the concept of the norm of traditional marriage as a way of working out the different contributions made by husband and wife, operating co-operatively by way of differentiation of effort in marriage.
The wife inevitably is the child bearer and usually the home-keeper. By reason of those activities, even if she goes back to work, she is at an economic disadvantage. By performing those functions she releases her husband to obtain an economic advantage. Frequently his emolument these days will be paid in part in the form of a pension for work he has done but for which his wife has released him. That is recognised by the widow's pension that is present in most occupational pension schemes. The wife, having made that co-operative effort in the division of labour, is entitled in justice to enjoy that pension. It would be an act of simple injustice if she were to be denied it, without compensation, and if it were to be carried away for the benefit of another woman. After all, divorce is a licence to remarry.
I use the words "without compensation" because the situation is solvable, though frequently with difficulty, when there are sufficient other assets to compensate the divorced wife for the loss of her widow's pension. However, that is not possible if there are insufficient other assets. In those circumstances, if we are to consider justice at all it is essential that there should be some way of securing for her the widow's pension, the earning of which became due to her at negation.
The problem was serious enough under the 1969 Act, but in that case the unilateral repudiation of marriage could take place only after five years. Minimal use has been made of that provision. Under this Bill the situation is far more serious: there is unilateral repudiation simply on one year's notice. The problem is infinitely exacerbated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, fought valiantly on this issue when we debated the Pension Bill. We got nowhere. We were told that the problem was too complex, which we interpreted as meaning that the Treasury thought it would cost £300 million in loss of income tax. The noble Baroness and the noble Earl on the Conservative Benches have dealt with that aspect of the situation. The problem would be largely solved if one looked at the figures in the way they did under the amendment. The noble Baroness proposes a simple act of justice. There should not be unilateral repudiation of marriage merely
1136
on one year's notice, without cause and without facing the injustice that requires solution. I fully support the amendment and the remarks made by the noble Baroness.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I support the amendment for two reasons: it is eminently sensible and it gives me the opportunity of supporting my Front Bench on at least one occasion in relation to the Bill.
At the point of divorce it is right to see that the husband and wife are treated fairly. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, emphasised that point. My noble friend Lady Hollis assured me that the amendment would be equitable as between the sexes, husband and wife.
I am glad that the noble Baroness was able to deal with the Treasury opposition to this amendment concerning pensions on divorce. However, it is quite outrageous that the Treasury should use fiscal arguments to attempt to abort a measure which is so reasonable, sensible and fair. I hope that we shall not hear today that, because of the fiscal implications, a measure which is so sensible, fair and reasonable should not be agreed to.
I wish to ask only one question. What happens where there are second, third and even fourth marriages? I assume that the accrued pension contributions will then be split according to the length of that marriage. My noble friend Lady Hollis nods her head. I am glad that that is so because I believe that that is the only way it can be done.
I support the amendment. I feel quite confident that, whatever the Government say, the whole House—or most noble Lords—will wish to support it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has noted that all speeches so far have been in support of the amendment. I wish to say at once that I, too, fully support it.
It is clear that the splitting of pensions is practical. There are complex details to he resolved. However, I think that I know the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor well enough to believe that he is not the sort of person who relies on technical small details of this kind but is well able and well suited to understand the opinions held throughout the Chamber on matters of considerable importance like this. I very much hope that he will not disappoint those of us who do not wish to see this admirable remedy for certain troubles and difficulties frustrated. I hope that he will feel that it is up to him to deal with any minor technical problems that arise and that he realises that your Lordships' House in a matter of this kind is a very appropriate judge of the merits.
I add one further comment. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend has had time to read the clear report of the Law Society—it is not a body unduly tainted by sentiment—which has considerable knowledge of the practicalities involved. In particular, in the document that the Law Society circulated support is given explicitly to Amendment No. 203C which is grouped with this amendment. Perhaps I may invite the attention of my noble and learned friend and the Committee to the beginning of the Law Society's opinion. It states:

1137
"The Law Society supports this amendment, because it provides a better way to ensure that women who previously had a good standard of living do not suffer poverty following retirement because they are unable to benefit from the former husband's pension".
That seems to me a conclusive consideration. Members of the Committee will be well aware that in the affairs of today for many married couples the husband's pension is the main, almost sole, source of income apart from current earnings. The tendency has been—I speak with some experience having been Minister of Pensions and National Insurance for a number of years, as some Members of the Committee may recall—that for a considerable number of families the husband's pension is the main support for a couple in their old age. It seems absolutely right from the arguments so well put, if I may say so, by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that where there is a divorce, unhappily and unfortunately, the pension should be split and there should be power in the relevant authorities to ordain an adequate and sensible splitting.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with his very great knowledge of these matters and his humane sympathy with human problems and difficulties, will see his way to accepting the proposals contained in the amendment, if necessary at a subsequent stage of the Bill introducing any minor and technical repairs which may be necessary.
Lord Acton: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, described the amendment as a simple act of justice; the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, described it as practical; and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, described it as clean, decent, simple and fair. I regard the amendment as so obviously sensible that I, too, support it; and I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will see his way to agreeing to it.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: I support the amendments in principle. I shall be extremely brief because the main arguments have been effectively deployed already in all parts of the Chamber. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, there is little doubt that the Pensions Act 1995 was a big step forward from the previous position. However, as one reflected on that position, it seemed clear that it did not go far enough. The earmarking has definite difficulties—this is not the only difficulty—in particular for the older divorced woman, and it can create uncertainty.
When we discussed the prospect of a clean break option in debate on the Pensions Bill, there appeared at that time to be a number of considerable difficulties which had not yet been overcome. Some were technical, some related to costs. It appears from what has been said in the Chamber this afternoon, and from the briefing material from the Law Society, the National Association of Pension Funds Limited and others, that many of those difficulties have now been removed. They have been resolved through further discussions, including, of course, the matter of costs which is clearly always an important factor when one deals with issues like the vast expenditure involved in the social security budget.
1138
The National Association of Pension Funds Limited has stated that the clean break would be, "an inexpensive option". If the difficulties have been removed, and the cost implications are much less than appeared at one time, I hope very much that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be prepared to give sympathetic consideration to the principle underlying the amendments. It may well be that the amendments are not technically correct. I shall he quite content if my noble and learned friend says that he is prepared to consider seriously the points put from all sides of the Chamber and that if he is not satisfied with the details of these amendments he will bring forward government amendments at Report stage.
Baroness Hamwee: I support the amendment from a slightly different perspective. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, mentioned the support for marriage which is absolutely fundamental to the Bill. I know a couple who are not married, the man rather older than the woman. They have been together a long time and it is clear that their relationship is stable. I wondered why they were not married. I discovered recently that it is because of anxiety for the wife who is also older than the female partner in the current relationship. There is anxiety about her loss of pension rights. There could be nothing more moral and more in support of relationships as they are than to pass the amendment and allow three people who find themselves in that situation to rectify matters.
Lord Marsh: There are strong, fundamental disagreements among us in relation to the Bill, but there is virtually no disagreement on the amendments. That is significant. It is understandable because there can be no logic in differentiating between pensions and other matrimonial assets. It is impossible to do that in logic.
It has been said that there are technical problems which would arise from the amendment. That is true. However, as someone who has spent many years in the pensions industry, I venture to say that the problems are not insoluble and are certainly not fundamental. The change is long overdue on the grounds both of logic and of compassion. The time has now come when Ministers should overrule the actuaries on the subject.
Lord Milverton: I hope that if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not able to accept the amendment as it is, he will at least give it due consideration. It has great support and, as was said by one noble Lord, we know him as an understanding person, concerned about human relationships, especially marriage and people's rights in the breakdown of marriage. I hope that he will be able to give a satisfactory answer to the amendment.
Lord Boardman: I wish to support the amendment and illustrate it with a short example of which I am well aware. A civil servant who had been married for many years divorced his wife and married a young second wife. He died. His young second wife then became entitled to the pension. She was an honourable person and did her utmost to disclaim it; she asked the Civil Service to pass the pension benefit to the first wife to whom the civil servant had been married for many years. She was unable

1139
to do so. The second wife then arranged a whole series of deeds of covenant to ensure that the first wife received what she rightly considered her due.
The rules in regard to Civil Service pensions may have altered, since that was a few years ago, but it is an illustration of the need for a change along the lines of the noble Baroness's amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Divorce is dismal. All divorce reflects human failures. The question therefore arises: what is to be done about the financial assets of the marriage. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, rightly said, the pension fund is either the greatest matrimonial asset or the second greatest. It is properly to be seen as a joint asset. It has been earned either directly or indirectly by both parties. The wife is fully entitled, I submit, in justice though not at present in law, unless and until this amendment takes effect, to her full part.
In the majority of cases—although not all, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said—at present the wife is left in a dependency which is indecent and unnecessary. I believe that there is no argument in principle against the thrust of the amendment and that any technicalities are not beyond the ingenuity of the human mind to resolve.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I too wish to support the amendments and to congratulate all Members of the Committee who have spoken so compellingly in favour of them. In lending my support I should declare a rather personal interest. Sadly, I am in the process of agreeing a financial settlement in divorce proceedings at the moment. A quite substantial part of my assets is represented by my personal pension fund. I believe that it is called a self-invested personal pension plan. It seems obviously fair, fair beyond peradventure, that my wife should in future be able to share in that fund and in the income arising therefrom. The amendments seem just as persuasive to me, even in cases where the pension is not the main asset.
Although it is not strictly the position in my own case, I wish to mention a situation which has perhaps not been fully exposed in the debate so far. It is that there must be many divorce settlements where the pension of one party represents such a substantial share of the joint wealth of both parties that, if it is not possible to split the fund and income, as proposed by the amendments, the family home may have to be sold, to the disturbance and therefore the detriment of the children who might otherwise continue to live where they have been brought up.
The amendments are not prescriptive. They would give the court the power to allocate this important asset either as agreed between the parties or as seems appropriate to the court. It appears to me that the case made by all other speakers is completely watertight, especially now that the dread hand of the Treasury has been so skilfully removed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I should he interested to hear anything that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor can conceivably think of to say against the amendments—even acknowledging his considerable acumen. I very much hope that he will not employ his talents in that way.
The Lord Chancellor: That sounds slightly like a challenge and there is nothing that brings one forward quite like a challenge. I understand and fully sympathise with a great deal of what has been said about the amendments. I have sought to study the detail and have not found the amendments self-evident in their application, but I have no doubt that we can consider them later. They are quite complicated and I find it difficult to understand the main amendment and how it would work. If that is to be achieved, the Committee would need to decide matters of policy which go outside what is covered in the amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said that the pension is an asset just like other matrimonial assets. Of course, in a sense, that is true, but in another sense it is rather a special asset. The reason for that is that, generally speaking, the pension is not assignable. It is possible for a husband and wife between them so to arrange their property disposition from the point of view of tax as to minimise the tax burden on the couple. In the ordinary course most property assets are capable of being held jointly or in such proportion as the parties may decide.
However, that is not true of a pension. The pension is not assignable. That is the reason for the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, when the second wife—upright spirit that she must have been—generously wished to give the former wife a share of the fund which had been accumulated during the first marriage. However, although she was a beneficiary of that pension under the law, much as she would have liked to do so she could not assign it to anyone else. Therefore, the only way in which she could handle it was to give deeds of covenant out of the money that was payable to the former wife. Thus the pension is different in that respect, and it is quite an important respect.
Let us as take as an example a case where the husband is the earner and the wife has fully contributed to the family but has not earned a separate income. The only income coming into the home is the husband's salary during his working time, and then his pension when his working time is finished. There is no way in which the parties can divide that amount between them in such a way as to make any part of the husband's income the income of the wife for tax purposes. This is a fiscal point, but a very general one. It is part of the structure of our tax law as it is. The same is true of a pension, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, with his great experience of these matters, knows. The result is that the husband and wife between them, while they are married, can do nothing to reduce the total tax burden arising as a result of the payment of a salary during working time and the pension after retirement.
If a power of this kind is granted, on divorce that will alter the matter and give rise to two separate pensions, which will therefore be subject to tax separately thereafter. The total tax burden on the couple will therefore be reduced, which from their point of view is eminently a good thing. But there is no way in which they can reach that situation except through this kind of power. Thus, an incentive to divorce would, from that point of view, he created. That is certainly the case. If it is done simply in this way, it will have this effect—

1141
assuming that the tax regime remains as it is, which is an important assumption that I am making. If a couple are nearing pension age and the pension is substantial, a way of reducing their total tax burden would be to divorce and split the pension fund, and then to remarry, with the result that each would have a separate pension. It is a way of overcoming the difficulty of the non-assignability of pensions.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Marsh: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. For very many years until relatively recently, when a wife's unearned income was taxed at the rate of her husband's earned income—I speak from personal experience—getting married was an extremely expensive business. I managed to wipe out my wife's unearned income in the three minutes of the service in Marylebone Registry Office—which she did not appreciate! We still got married, and so do most people in those circumstances.
The Lord Chancellor: That is absolutely right in that case. All I point out, and wish the Committee to have full acquaintance with, is that divorcing, if this particular power is granted, will have exactly the same effect in reverse. It will enable the tax burden of the individuals in the circumstances I mentioned to be reduced.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Would my noble friend give way? Surely that is always the case. It is the same with all the other assets. Divorce can be very tax efficient. But surely my noble and learned friend is not suggesting that that is a reason for it.
The Lord Chancellor: That is not so true of other assets. If a couple want their income to be tax efficient, they have the possibility of so arranging the assets between them as to maximise the tax allowances. The reason why that is not possible for the pension is the non-assignability of the pension, just as the salary that one earns is non-assignable. Therefore, in respect of this kind of asset, it is not possible during marriage, by agreement, to arrange the situation in the way it would be possible to do by reference to divorce. All I want the Committee to understand is that, while this proposition is extremely attractive from the point of view of fairness, it has quite considerable consequences. In other words, it enables a couple, in respect of the division of property, to do something that they could not do with the fullest agreement assuming that they remain married.
Lord Shaughnessy: Can the noble and learned Lord help me in one respect? It seems that the Committee has a feeling that something should be done about the pension arrangement, and in all equity that seems quite appropriate. Is there no way that Parliament, in its sovereignty, can adjust the law to make provision for this, either in this Bill or in some other way?
The Lord Chancellor: Certainly, Parliament can in its sovereign way make arrangements, but they would be fairly far-reaching if they were to be fair to everyone. Basically one is removing the non-assignability of
1142
pensions. Their non-assignability has been there for good reason and is of very considerable importance. I cannot see why, if it is done for people who are being divorced, the same should not follow for people who are married. That is a big problem.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This really is an extremely complicated matter. I am not well up in tax matters nor, I imagine, are a number of others in this Chamber. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that it would be tax efficient because there would be two tax allowances instead of one? But is it not the case at present that the state pension is assignable and a wife attaining the age of 60, if her pension is on her husband's contributions, is able to set her part of the pension against tax? Therefore there is assignability in the case of the state pension. Could the position not be overcome, and indeed would it not help marriage generally speaking, if the allowances were interchangeable? Would that not solve the problem?
The Lord Chancellor: It would be helpful if the salary or other emolument of that kind could be split in a way that suited the parties. It would be of tremendous advantage to many people. It is not such a mystery.
The position is that, ordinarily, a person's salary is taxable on the basis of that person's allowances. If one has other property, the right thing to do might well be to arrange matters so that the rest of the income is derived in favour of the wife. To that extent the recent changes are beneficial. But to take as a paradigm case an example where the husband receives quite a substantial salary and the wife is at home, working and supporting him in every way that she can to earn that salary, at present the reduced rates of tax based on allowances are all applicable to his salary. If he and his wife could arrange that, say, half the salary belonged to her and half the salary belonged to him, they would both be a good deal better off.
Lord Meston: I have heard of bogus marriages and now I hear of bogus divorces. Is there any evidence from any of the other jurisdictions which already allow pension splitting to support the argument that people will go through an artificial divorce?
The Lord Chancellor: I am not sure about that. I am not certain of the tax situation in other jurisdictions either. The point about people going through a bogus divorce is simply taking the argument to its logical conclusion. My point is that this power, as distinct from the arrangements made under the Pensions Act 1995, has the effect of enabling the pension itself to be split. Therefore, the income tax position of the two people could be substantially improved as a result. I want the Committee to understand that point. I hope that I am making it clear. I do not think that it needs any special knowledge of income tax or anything of that kind. It is quite a simple point. It arises from the non-assignability of the pension. In effect, this provision overcomes the non-assignability of the pension in the case of divorce. If the result were to be as I said, it certainly would be

1143
possible—I do not say that it would necessarily happen—as a tax efficient arrangement, if people agree to do it. I myself would not wish to encourage that.
Lord Milne: Surely that would only occur when the pension is practically the sole income of the pensioner. With single assessment, it is now perfectly possible for one spouse to transfer assets to the other spouse to equate the income of the spouses. So it will only occur when the pension is the main source of income and it must not be a great income.
The Lord Chancellor: That is precisely the point that I want to make. So far as other assets are concerned, they can be arranged between husband and wife in such a way as to be most tax efficient. But that is not true of a pension. I only mention the point in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who explained that the pension is just a form of matrimonial property. Of course it is. It is the deferred earnings of the worker. But it is different in this respect.
I entirely agree that it applies principally in cases in which the pension is the main asset, but this problem is strongest in the case where the pension is the main asset and requires division, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said in her excellent introduction of this matter. That is where the problem arises. There is that effect.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, is concerned about the floodgates being opened to the galloping throngs of those who intend to divorce simply to benefit their income tax position. Has any calculation been made at all of the net loss to the Revenue? Secondly, is not the principle for which we are contending that the tax regime and the regime of law ought to be the servants of just objectives, which every speaker has supported?
4.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The tax system should be a fair one for everyone, so far as possible. My point—it is for the Committee to consider what, if any, effect they feel that this point should have—is that it will confer a power in respect of pensions which is not available in respect of income of exactly the same type enjoyed by a couple in marriage. Of course the couple who are divorced are then in a different position from those in marriage. That is an important question. Therefore there is a comparison to be made between the situation of divorced people who are able to get over the difficulty of non-assignability of the pension and the situation of married people who will remain subject to that problem. So far as concerns the cost to the Revenue, I look at the matter from the point of view of the parties rather than that of the Revenue and the general tax regime with which we have been familiar for some time, and there is certainly an incentive there.
There are other matters to be considered in relation to this amendment. One of the most important is that it proposes that the benefits which are payable under an order of this kind would not be subject to the provisions of Part XIV of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act. That is an important part of the amendment. Certainly, it raises a technical question, but it is not a small
1144
question. There are very important questions of tax law about what the regime should he. Part XIV confers benefits as well as raising other matters—for example, in relation to lump sum payments. We need to know at some stage—not today, of course—the kind of regime that is envisaged for these payments.
There are fundamental issues in relation to this matter which I have sought to mention in respect of divorcing couples, particularly as this is a family law Bill. I want the Committee to understand that. I shall not go into them, but there are other fundamental issues about the tax regime which will apply to withdrawn or divided pensions. As an example, let me take the case of the husband, who is the earner and has the pension, and his wife who is not in employment. The regime applying to what she receives would not be the ordinary employee regime. The rules of the pension schemes are extremely complicated and there is a lot of policy involved. One would need to look very closely at what the policy should be in regard to these new types of pension scheme which are related to but not the same as the provisions relating to employee pension schemes.
There are also questions relating to where the pension fund is situated, particularly perhaps, so far as I am concerned, trust funds that are situated in Scotland. There are various matters of that kind which have to be considered.
I wanted to make that particular consideration clear to the Committee because it is relevant to concerns that some Members have expressed in relation to these proposals. Therefore, I suggest to the Committee that we should consider this amendment carefully. I should wish to have it considered carefully and sympathetically. Personally, I understand well that the Committee would like to see something along these lines carried into law. I should not like the Committee so to act without fully appreciating the point which I made earlier. I have now sought to discharge my responsibility in that connection. I have at least tried to make the point clear to the Committee.
In the light of the discussion, I should certainly wish to consider sympathetically this series of amendments, with the proviso that I believe that there are a great number of quite difficult questions associated with this matter that we would have to consider and try to resolve. I feel that their resolution would be likely to take a little time.
Lord Mishcon: I hope the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for submitting a very humble suggestion for his consideration. At present this Bill operates, as regards divorce, based on a declaration that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. If that were made the subject of a statutory declaration, would not the party that the noble and learned Lord is thinking about, who is merely trying to get a divorce in order to pay less income tax, be guilty of perjury if they made the statutory declaration that the marriage had irretrievably broken down?
The Lord Chancellor: I had thought about that. I wondered whether it might be possible for them to say that that marriage had irretrievably broken down, but

1145
they were hoping, perhaps as a result of the financial changes made, to enter into a new one. It may be that the Committee has given more emphasis to the particular illustration I gave than I intended. The really important point is that those being divorced are able to do, in relation to a pension, what people in marriage cannot do.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the concluding words of his speech. I have admired him for many things, although it has never previously occurred to me to compare him to Cleopatra, but on this occasion he has truly shown an "infinite variety". The noble and learned Lord has never surprised me quite so much as he has this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, hit the first nail on the head. These are not normally matters on which one acts on a strictly economic calculation.
I recall a long series of exchanges with the noble and learned Lord in 1991 as regards the benefit penalty in the Child Support Bill. His argument implied that he believed that people breaking up marriages, when considering whether to name the father of their children, would act on a strictly economic calculation. I thought that that would not happen. I believe that events have shown that I was right. If people acted on a strictly economic calculation most of us would not get married. There are limits to complete, dogmatic, economic theory.
Were anyone to consider such a proposal it would have a very severe and detrimental effect on their own marriage. When I left home this morning I was happily married. Were I to decide now to take advantage of the noble and learned Lord's suggestion, and organise a divorce for financial benefit, I believe that when I reach home tonight my marriage would have irretrievably broken down, in which case I would be unwittingly telling the truth.
The noble and learned Lord's argument cuts equally seriously against the reduction in the married couple's allowance—a point with which we on these Benches agree. That also has the effect of creating an incentive to be apart in order to have two personal allowances. If the Government and the Treasury were taking the noble and learned Lord's argument seriously they would not have done what they have about the married couple's allowance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has compared the Lord Chancellor to Cleopatra. I suggest that there is another comparison with her:
"The barge she sat in … Burned on the water".
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sure that I am speaking for the co-signatories to these amendments; namely, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who at very short notice—and I am very grateful—stood in for the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I am sure that I speak for everyone in expressing gratitude to the speakers this afternoon. I believe about 13 Members of the Committee
1146
contributed speeches and about another half-a-dozen additional speakers contributed with interventions. I believe that there was not one speaker who spoke directly, or by intervention, who did not support the principle of these amendments. The whole Committee has spoken today and it is saying to the Lord Chancellor, "We believe that the principle of these amendments is right". The precise wording may not he right and no one is going to the stake about that. We are asking the noble and learned Lord today to take these amendments away and to come back with government amendments, if they should be more satisfactory, which embody the voice with which the Committee has spoken today.
The Chamber has spoken today in a way which I have never heard before regarding pensions Bills or anything else of that kind. However, it would be wrong not to try to address some of the issues that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor raised in his remarks. He said that the amendments may be flawed and I entirely accept that. I am happy to withdraw them. They come with the full support and drafting of the National Association of Pension Funds and the Law Society. If the drafting is incomplete, so be it, but that is not an issue or a problem for us.
I shall try to address the issue, which I believe is the only one the Lord Chancellor raised; namely, that somehow this amendment would be an incentive to divorce. The Committee will note that the Lord Chancellor did not challenge at any point what I call the Treasury argument—that is to say, the cost would be balanced out for the public Exchequer because the savings on income support would offset the costs to tax revenue: it is between the couples concerned.
I have two points to make. Almost everybody, and certainly women, are poorer after divorce. People do not divorce to get rich: they are almost always poorer after divorce. We are saying that they should not be penalised by financial arrangements and locked into an unhappy marriage when all of us would respect and recognise the fact that it is time to make a clean break. Let us consider a married couple. If they were to divorce, following these amendments, they could split their pensions, but they would only be better off if they came to live together, having separate pension provision. The mind boggles at people in their late fifties or sixties getting divorced and then coming together again in their sixties to enjoy the tax privileges that they had so carefully arranged 10 to 15 years ago when they were divorced. I do not recognise that world and I do not believe the Committee does, either. If there is a problem in this area we can certainly look at it in terms of the issue of lump sums and so on. At the moment the Law Society says that financial arrangements are such that people offset the lump sums against the tax revenues.
I do not believe that the Lord Chancellor himself believes he is right. All governments have conceded this matter in one basic respect; namely, in the state old-age pension. That costs nearly £30 billion a year and represents £59 to a married man and £35 to his wife on his contributions. They get divorced and he continues to receive £59 a week on his contributions and she gets £59 a week on his contributions. The state recognises in its own pension scheme that in order to avoid poverty

1147
in old age different financial arrangements have to be made after divorce than in marriage because two households cost more than one. The state recognises that with its own pension scheme. Why is that justice denied to people whose main income derives from occupational pension schemes? The Government have already conceded this issue in its own scheme. They should not now deny the chance for similar justice to pension schemes.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor then went on to talk about taking away the non-assignability of pensions. This is what this amendment will do and is precisely what it is intended to do, but only to assign it to one person and one person only; that is, the previous spouse or, to follow my noble friend, a second spouse or whatever at the point of divorce.
The reason that pensions were non-assignable in the first place and were privileged by means of tax concessions was because it is in the state's public interest to ensure that no one willingly has poverty in old age. Those tax privileges were meant to apply to personal pensions and the like as an encouragement to people to save for their old age. Tax concessions were made available so that they could do so but they were non-assignable so that they could not be used by creditors, for example. That was the purpose of the concessions; to make them non-assignable to pay off debt because it was not in the public interest to have the taxpayer helping somebody to have their debts paid off cheaply. It was not about marriage but about that.
Within marriage you do not need to assign a pension; it is matrimonial property for the two of you. The injustice arises only at and after divorce. That is why in that issue and instance, and only then, do we need the possibility of a pension being split. It is for no other reason than to remedy an injustice. All the other reasons to make it non-assignable—to aid creditors, mortgages, and what you will—would remain. Simply in this one situation would it be assignable, to rectify a grievous wrong. It would only be necessary at the point of divorce. And so the argument that it cannot be done in marriage falls because it does not need to be done in marriage, and that is why we are not asking for it.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said at the end that he thought this was fair. He admitted, if I may say so, that his objections were technical only. He was responding and giving us the benefit of a brief. Those technical objections can and must be met.
5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I made it plain, I hope, that there are technical difficulties to be dealt with. The point I was making on the main matter is one of principle that your Lordships should understand. That is what I was seeking to do on that point. I will leave it at that. I am not suggesting that that of itself is any more than something that your Lordships should have in mind in considering this amendment. As I said, I am very happy to consider it further. Other details such as
1148
non-assignability attaching to the benefits for the wife have to he considered, because I do not think that is clearly protected under the present arrangement.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I entirely accept that. I was about to say that I think we have addressed the financial arguments produced by the Treasury to suggest that there is no cost for the taxpayer in supporting these amendments. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has produced some technical difficulties, which certainly exist—no one would suggest otherwise—but we all know that they can he overcome.
The third set of arguments brought forward by the noble and learned Lord were that, by definition, the proposals appear to accord privilege to divorce over marriage. I am suggesting that the situation after divorce is very different from the situation in marriage itself. Injustices occur at the moment and this would help to rectify them. The Government themselves have recognised this in their own handling of the state old age pension.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord has taken the opinion and view of the entire Committee this afternoon. I know that he had, if I may so put it, a set of arguments which he felt it important for the Committee to hear. However, I am convinced that the noble and learned Lord knows and believes that what the Committee has been arguing today is the right thing to do. We can do it on this Bill and we can do it without cost to the Exchequer and we can do it now. With the assurance of the Lord Chancellor that he will take this away and think sympathetically—I think that was his word—about this, I am delighted to ask him to do precisely that on behalf of all of us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Coleraine: I should like to speak to the central position which would arise under Clause 14 of the Bill, the thrust of which I generally support. The main object of Schedule 2 which is to be introduced by Clause 14 is to provide that in the case of divorce or separation an order about financial provision may be made under the 1973 Act before a divorce order or a separation order is made. It would obviously be inconsistent with the whole thrust of the Bill and mediation, together with the period for reflection and consideration, were the existing law to be continued into this new Bill. Under the existing law, orders for financial provision and property adjustment may be made only at the time of the decree nisi and can only take effect on the decree absolute being made. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has two amendments tabled for discussion later, Nos. 197A and 197B, and it might well be that he will wish to address points covered by those amendments at the same time, because they cover the same ground as do the points I am going to make.
Clearly the existing law cannot continue. We must have some way of making it possible to go to court during the period of reflection and consideration. This should not be deferred until the divorce is over; but the

1149
effect of the amendments made to the 1973 Act under this Bill would be to make it possible for a divorcing party to apply to the court for financial provision and for the application to be heard very soon after the statement of breakdown has been made to the court, very soon after the moment when the one year for reflection and consideration starts.
The effect of this would be to destroy all hope of reconciliation were a party to start straight off by going to court, because he or she might get the order made very soon afterwards and would find himself the beneficiary of a financial provision or property adjustment order which would completely destroy any confidence on the part of either party that there was any possibility of reconciliation. It would also completely short-circuit any possibility of mediation taking place. I am only here this afternoon to draw attention to the problem and to suggest one or two ways in which this position might be rectified.
One way would be to say that an order might be made as soon as the divorce proceedings were started but only brought into effect after the divorce when the application is made a year later. I would not for a moment support this approach because once the order has been made, whether we like it or not, the marriage will effectively be at an end and there would be no possibility of picking up the pieces later. It seems to me at the moment that the only way to resolve the problem is to provide for a date during the period for reflection and consideration during which there may be no application to a court for a court order. My own feeling is that it might be possible to say that there should be no application to a court before six months, or even nine months, of the year were up.
This would have the additional beneficial effect in that it would strengthen the period of reflection, because there would be a period during which the parties engaging in the divorce would not be able to go to court and would have to consider seriously either reconciliation or settling their differences by mediation. I believe that all those who favour fostering mediation in divorce proceedings, as I do, would recognise that this procedure would be beneficial.
There have been suggestions from time to time that there might be a compulsory period, set off during the early stages of the year, in which nothing could be done except attempts to reconcile. I do not favour that because I feel that reconciliation and mediation must be able to go hand in hand throughout the whole of the period. The effect of providing a period during which the application to the court may be made would have very much the same effect and be extremely beneficial. I hope the ideas that I am presently canvassing may be seen by the Committee to be good.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, for introducing the Committee to the fact that amendments listed in my name, beginning with Amendment No. 197A, are associated with the question of whether Clause 14 shall
1150
stand part. All my amendments are designed to address the grave financial injustices which exist in the present law and which are likely to be made worse by this Bill.
Under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 of the Bill as drafted, as the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, said, the parties can apply for financial orders before the mediation period even begins. Clearly that cannot he right. That is totally at variance with the attempt by a civilised society to support marriage.
The effect of the Bill would be to enable orders dealing with maintenance and matrimonial homes to be made before the period for reflection and consideration even begins. Maintenance and lump sum orders may be obtained at any time after the filing of a statement of the breakdown of the marriage; that is to say, at the very start of the divorce process. Orders giving the matrimonial home to one of the parties may, in special circumstances, be made at any time after the filing of a statement of breakdown; again, at the very start of the divorce process.
We are rightly concerned about "quickie" divorces. But Schedule 2 will give us the "superquickie" divorce. It means that a divorce in all but name may be obtained within weeks rather than months, still less the 12 months claimed. The parties concerned may not be allowed to remarry for 12 months, but in every other way the divorce settlement will have been sewn up. That surely defeats the purpose of mediation and pays lip service to the chances of achieving any reconciliation.
How does that save saveable marriages, which we are told is one of the purposes of the Bill? I am told by lawyers that once the matrimonial home is settled or transferred, then reconciliation becomes highly unlikely. Do we or do we not want to save marriages? How can we allow the possibility of a superquickie divorce? Under the present law financial and property orders are made after a decree nisi but are not carried into effect until after the decree absolute. The wrangling in divorce settlements takes place between the two decrees.
Perhaps I may say in passing to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the statistics he cited on Tuesday showing that only 15.9 per cent. of divorces involving children under 16 are obtained in less than 6 months is nothing like the figure of 75 per cent. that some have bandied about. I believe that only 32 per cent. of all divorces take place within six months. Under Schedule 2, orders can be made at any time after the statement of breakdown. The court does not have to wait for the divorce order. One can quickly see that that is a significant change in the present law where the court has to wait until the decree absolute.
Let us consider the following scenario. A wife wishes to divorce her husband. Her solicitor writes to him asking him to agree a settlement. He also adds that an appointment has been made before the judge in 28 days time to invite the judge to make an order moving the husband out of the home. That could arise under Part III of the Bill. The husband may agree so as to buy time. The wife can lodge a statement of breakdown on day one and, shortly after, the solicitor may obtain an early appointment before a judge and is able to present the

1151
parties' agreed settlement. Under Schedule 2 it seems that the judge will be able to rubber stamp the agreed settlement. How many judges will then say, "Wait 12 months"? Is not the experience of divorce courts proof that judges will use such powers as they possess?
My amendments are designed to face that problem. Specifically, Amendments Nos. 197A, 197B and 203A ensure that orders cannot be made by the court until after the period of mediation has ended and cannot take effect until the divorce order is made or the separation order comes into effect. The amendments are designed to make the mediation year effective and to give reconciliation a reasonable chance. That should also help the innocent party and the party that does not wish to divorce. In particular, it will eliminate the superquickie assets splitting which the Bill will otherwise introduce under Schedule 2. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will see that it is an area of the Bill which requires careful review and amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Young: I wish to speak briefly in support of what my noble friend Lord Coleraine said on Clause 14 stand part and also because the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, are obviously relevant to it.
As I understand the position, Clause 14 and Schedule 2 make fundamental changes in the law as it now stands. Financial provision orders by the court—that is, those that require the payments of large lump sums—can be made at any time after the statement of marital breakdown. In certain special circumstances property can be reallocated before the divorce. That has a number of implications of a serious character. For example, asset splitting can technically start on day two—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, in his remarks. That could well lead to irreversible court orders within three months.
Without wishing to repeat all the arguments, that appears to run contrary to the principle of the Bill that there should be a year for reflection and consideration. Court orders for lump sum orders or property adjustments make reconciliation unlikely, if not impossible. I believe it to be true that such orders set the divorce in concrete long before the divorce order actually comes through. In other words, although the legal permission to remarry only comes with divorce under the Bill, all the practical arrangements can be set up well before the divorce order and very soon after the initial statement.
As was pointed out, that is a "superquickie" divorce and cuts right across what I understand my noble and learned friend seeks to do in the Bill. That is a point I recall my noble friend Lord Coleraine raising at Second Reading or perhaps at an earlier stage at the Committee. It is important and although no amendment has been tabled in that regard I hope it is a point that my noble and learned friend will address.
Lord Elton: I rise now for the avoidance of confusion later on. I notice that Clause 14 stand part is a group on its own; that the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, was speaking
1152
fall to be debated some hours hence, and that among them is a solitary amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I do not know whether it lies with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, to decide whether we should deal with the whole chunk now. I am merely anxious, on behalf of us all, that we do not deal with them twice. I wonder whether those on the Front Bench, or others, could give us some guidance.
The Lord Chancellor: I am quite content to deal with those amendments at any time, but. I certainly do not want to deal with the same amendments twice if I can possibly avoid it. It is a question of what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, wants to do with his amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford, has tabled a number of other amendments which may hear on the same matter. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will indicate what he wants to do and I can then deal with the points that have already been made—that is, unless the noble Lord would like to leave it until later.
Lord Meston: It was not entirely clear to me to which of his several amendments the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, was speaking. When I have caught up with that point, I shall perhaps be able to give a clearer indication.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: Perhaps it would be easier if I listed the amendments which I should like to have included in my last speech. I refer to Amendments Nos. 197A and 197B, 199A to 199C, and 203A and 203B. I know that some of those amendments may not be entirely relevant to a Clause 14 stand part debate, but the Bill is so intricate that all of our amendments are in some way interrelated. I hope that the Committee will understand why I spoke as I did, especially given that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that he does not want to deal with the same subject twice or three times this evening. Perhaps I may help the noble and learned Lord by advising him that I intend to speak later to the second group of amendments which stand in my name, that is, to Amendments Nos. 203D and 204A.
Baroness Trumpington: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, has a copy of the groupings. Quite frankly, I was totally lost when he was speaking to amendments which are practically at the end of that list. Naturally, it is up to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to decide whether he wants to answer those amendments now, but we certainly do not want to go over the same ground twice. When it comes to the noble Lord's other amendments, perhaps I may suggest that he sticks to their place in the groupings and does not confuse the Committee.
Lord Meston: May I respectfully agree with the noble Baroness. It seems entirely appropriate to deal with Amendments Nos. 197A and 197B now because they deal with the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the timing of the application of the order as compared with the timing of the divorce. I suspect that the other amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, cover other ground, as do my amendments, Amendments Nos. 199 and 206. Frankly, I should prefer to deal with them in their correct place.

1153
Having said that, I do not want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and others down the path which was addressed at the beginning of this debate. However, I should like to take this opportunity of a debate on Clause 14 stand part to express some concern about the structure of Schedule 2. That concern relates more to the technicalities of the drafting than to the substance of the provisions. The main object of Schedule 2 is stated in Clause 14(2)(a) as,
"to provide that, in the case of divorce or separation, an order about financial provision may be made under that Act before a divorce order or separation order is made; but
(b) to retain (with minor changes) the position under that Act where marriages are annulled".
From a drafting point of view the essential problem seems to be that provisions which fall at present in a single subsection of the Matrimonial Causes Act become three subsections in this Bill. As there are no substantive changes to the law relating to financial provision or property adjustment, that makes me wonder whether it might not have been better to try to make the minimum alterations that are necessary to the Matrimonial Causes Act in order to achieve the same object. I do not find that redrafting user-friendly. Of course, it may be that I lack familiarity with the Bill as drafted and that practitioners such as myself are too familiar with the existing provisions. However, I find the new provisions complicated and dense and wonder why they have been drafted in that way.
I have not presumed to table an amendment at this stage, but I wish to reserve the right to do so on Report. It must have been possible—I imagine that it was contemplated—to have redrawn the existing provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act in such a way as to produce something which made far less change to the existing statutory structure and to have reproduced that amended structure in the Bill, possibly by way of a Keeling schedule to show how the provisions would look if amended in that way. I wonder whether we should look more fundamentally at the drafting of Schedule 2 to see whether this might be done differently.
The Lord Chancellor: The question of what orders a court can make and so on is important in that while the parties are in the stage of their marriage having broken down, the intervention of the court may be necessary to regulate matters between them, particularly in respect of periodic payments. The wife might have no income at all, for example, and it must then he right for the court to have the power to intervene. Therefore, the power to make orders of some kind at an early stage is a necessary one.
The question of the matrimonial home is also important since there may well be situations in which (for example, because of violence) the best way to deal with the matter is to give the wife the matrimonial home as early as possible because if that is not done, the violence may well continue with damaging effects.
Turning to the rule on property adjustment orders, apart from in special circumstances such orders take effect on divorce or when the separation order is
1154
granted. I think it is important that where the parties are able to bring such matters forward, they have an opportunity to do so if that will help them in their relationship. We have to look not only at the past, but also to the future. I think that the court needs the power to make orders between the parties from the time that it is seized with the matter.
I have now set up an ancillary relief advisory group to look at the current procedures with regard to ancillary relief and, as far as is possible, I should like to have its advice on the various matters that have been raised in the Committee. There are two competing problems. There is the problem of things requiring to be done during the interim period. We need a structured framework to allow the court to intervene if the parties cannot agree during that period. There will not be a complete vacuum during that time. Therefore some power in the court to make orders is required. Of course the firmer the orders are, if they take effect only on the divorce order being made, the more clear it is what the future arrangements will be. That is part of what the period for reflection and consideration has to look to. I agree that it is important that the schedule should go in accordance with that principle.
So far as concerns divorce in all but name, if the Committee thinks back to our previous discussion, one of the possibilities that the parties have is to make agreements while they are still married about all their property, without intervention by the court at all. The parties could agree, for example, that the matrimonial home became entirely the property of the wife. They could do that before any divorce proceedings were considered.
To say that settling property matters is divorce in all but name is, with respect, to undervalue what the divorce order does. A divorce order is what frees parties to remarry. They can make any arrangements—subject to the point I made before about assignability and so on—with regard to their property that the law allows. They can make agreements about such matters if they want to. I do not want to do anything which would create unnecessary dispute. On the other hand, I do not want to do anything that freezes unnecessarily matters which have been the subject of discussion during the period of reflection and consideration.
I hope that the Committee will agree that it is necessary for the court to have powers under the equivalent of Schedule 2 in the interim period. Whether those powers should be further restricted than they are is a matter that I am happy to consider in more detail, but we need something of the kind. With regard to the drafting, I would wish to take the advisory group's views on that. The intention was to make the matter plainer. So far as concerns the noble Lord, Lord Meston, we do not seem to have been entirely successful in that respect. I hope that with that explanation the Committee will allow Clause 14 to stand part of the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for what he has said. I hope that he will look further into the point that I have made. It is obvious

1155
that at any time during a marriage there must be power for the court to intervene with regard to the matrimonial home, for example, but I should have thought it would be sensible if it were those powers which continued into the period of reflection and consideration.
Without wishing to change the thrust of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, the way I would put it is that what we do not want is not divorce in all but name, but irretrievable breakdown in all but name. If there is acrimonious dispute over ancillary provisions very early on in the divorce proceedings that will negate any prospect of progress through mediation or reconciliation.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Grounds for financial provision orders in magistrates' courts]:
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: This is a short, strictly exploratory Motion, that Clause 15 should not stand part of the Bill. On the face of it is unobjectionable. It is concerned with a provision under the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978. A magistrates' court may make two sorts of matrimonial order: a separation order and a maintenance order. I am concerned purely with the maintenance order. Under Section 1 of that Act a magistrates' court may make financial provision if the respondent:
"(a) has failed to provide reasonable maintenance for the applicant";
under (b) a reasonable contribution for the children; under (c) has been guilty of unreasonable behaviour; or, under (d) has been guilty of desertion.
The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978, in other words, brought the law of domestic proceedings under the Magistrates' Courts Act into line with the wording of the Divorce Reform Act 1969. What the Bill proposes is that paragraphs (c) and (d) relating to unreasonable behaviour and desertion should be omitted. That is presumably in line with the tendency of the Bill to try to eliminate fault when seeking relief. My noble and learned friend will correct me if I am wrong in that.
Does not the first provision, that the respondent, who will almost always be the husband, has failed to provide reasonable maintenance for the wife, itself frequently, in fact more often than not, involve the investigation of fault? The husband says, "It would he unreasonable for me to provide any maintenance at all in view of the conduct of my wife". There are infinite varieties of such a defence. Equally, the applicant has to prove that it would be reasonable for the husband to supply her with maintenance.
As I said, my question is a short one. Does not that provision itself, notwithstanding the elimination of paragraphs (c) and (d), invoke the investigation of fault, or be liable to, and will do so more often than not?
The Lord Chancellor: The provision that requires that the respondent has failed reasonably to provide for
1156
the applicant or child of the family may involve investigation of conduct, or something of the kind, or of the circumstances.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I do not believe that we are concerned with the child.
The Lord Chancellor: The child is of course one of the parties in respect of whom this may arise. The question is whether the respondent has failed reasonably to provide for the applicant—just to restrict it to that. It applies equally to a child. If reasonableness in the circumstances requires an investigation of fault, so be it, but there might he many cases in which what is really in question is whether the amount is reasonable. In other words, it is accepted that the respondent should be providing for the applicant, but the applicant may say, "It is not enough. You have given me £1 a week and it should be £20". Reasonableness is a broad concept. It requires investigation of matters such as fault only so far as the court may require to do that in order to judge whether in the circumstances what the respondent has done is reasonable.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. I respectfully agree that the quantum of maintenance may be sometimes in question. I wanted to ascertain—and I believe that it is conceded—that the conduct of the parties, the fault on either side, may require investigation. I wanted to know that because of the claim that an achievement of this Bill is to eliminate investigation of fault in case that exacerbates relations between the parties. I believe that my noble and learned friend wishes to intervene.
The Lord Chancellor: Only when my noble and learned friend has completed what he wants to say. I never said that it is possible to eliminate altogether such matters. I said that the purpose of the Bill is to eliminate them so far as possible; in other words, not to require that these matters be alleged or looked into unnecessarily. It may well be that sometimes it is necessary, and I make the point that we are saying only in so far as it is necessary to investigate these matters in order to decide on a question of reasonableness would they arise. Certainly there are many cases in which the main questions between the parties are as to the size of the payment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. So be it. The point is that, here again, investigation of fault may be required. On Tuesday we heard that it might arise in different circumstances quite early in a marriage that an application for a separation order is made. My noble and learned friend said that that may well require follow up by an interim periodical payments order. He conceded that that too could well require the investigation of fault on either side.
I thought that we ought not to pass this provision before noting that, here again, investigation of fault in conduct may well be required. Later we shall come to the requirement in respect of the financial provisions under Section 25 of the 1973 Act and to property adjustment orders under that Act in Section 24.

1157
We are merely noting as we go through the Bill that time and again conduct and fault fall for investigation. Arguments that it is impracticable to ascertain accurately in a court of law where the fault lies, as was argued earlier in Committee by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, simply goes by the board.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not accept the latter conclusion, but I accept that it may involve some investigation of conduct to decide whether the respondent has failed reasonably to provide for the applicant or a child of the family.
Clause 15 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Jurisdiction in relation to divorce and separation]:
[Amendment No. 156 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 9, leave out lines 1 and 2.
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 157 is a probing amendment. It is to leave out lines 1 and 2, which provide that a divorce order shall not be made while nullity proceedings are pending. That is entirely reasonable. One cannot dissolve a marriage—indeed, one cannot separate the parties—until one knows that they are validly married. That was the doctrine of the ecclesiastical court and has been acted on by the lay courts ever since.
My only doubt as to that was whether it goes far enough. The question of the validity of a marriage these days—or perhaps I should say in my time—is often investigated by a party seeking a declaratory judgment. I do not know whether that has been considered. If it has not, perhaps my noble and learned friend will give it such consideration as he thinks it merits. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I join the noble and learned Lord in questioning how Clause 16(2)(c) is to work in practice. It suggests that the court's jurisdiction is exercisable only if one of three possible states of affairs obtains. Presumably it is not intended in any way to restrict the party who is on the receiving end of a nullity petition from lodging a statement of marital breakdown, because it would be wrong if that could happen.
I move briefly to Amendment No. 158, which stands in my name and appears in this group of amendments. Clause 16(7) purports to define nullity proceedings by reference to Section 5(3) of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973. That section deals with jurisdiction in nullity proceedings but does not actually define them. Either Clause 16(7) is intended to define nullity proceedings, in which case it should do so, or at the least the word "nullity" should be added before the word "proceedings", which is proposed in Amendment No. 158.
The Lord Chancellor: As regards Amendment No. 157, my noble and learned friend Lord Simon is
1158
asking not to delete paragraph (c) but rather to consider adding to it the matter of a declaratory action in respect of issues concerning the marriage. I shall be happy to consider that.
As to Amendment No. 158, I am advised that what we have is all right. Let me explain why. Nullity proceedings are defined as proceedings in respect of which the court has jurisdiction under Section 5(3) of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973. As Section 5(3) is concerned only with the court's jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for nullity, the reference to proceedings in Clause 16, as currently drafted, can only mean nullity proceedings. Not only is the addition of the word "nullity" superfluous; it could be misleading as it implies that Section 5(3) deals with other proceedings as well as those of nullity.
That is the explanation of why we think what we have is better. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is properly impressed with the cogency of those observations.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I ask leave to withdraw the amendment in view of what has been said by my noble and learned friend, for which I express my thanks.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 158 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles moved Amendment No. 158A:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
CHILDREN'S WELLBEING: CONSIDERATIONS OF THE COURT
(" . In deciding any question under this Part the court shall take account of the following—

(a) the conduct of each of the parents of the child and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant;

(b) in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, the principle that the child's welfare is best served by regular and reasonable contact with each party to the marriage who is the natural parent of any such child;

(c) the risk occasioned by the new living arrangements of the parent with whom the child will reside including any likelihood of risk arising out of cohabitation with any party who is not the natural parent of the child.").

The noble Baroness said: We have discussed the question of disputes between the parents. The two amendments that I have tabled are specifically concerned with the children of the marriage. As to the jurisdiction of the court, which is dealt with in Clause 16, it is appropriate to raise the issue. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor—perhaps I am optimistic—will agree that the jurisdiction of the court should specifically include the duty to take account of the conduct of each of the parents, the regular contact of each party with the child and the risk occasioned by the new living arrangements of the parents. My noble and learned friend has already said that investigation into the conduct of a party may be necessary in certain cases.
The question of payment of maintenance for the children should be specifically mentioned here. The heading of my amendment deals particularly with the children's well-being and the considerations of the court. That would include, in Part I of the Bill, any

1159
financial arrangements being made for the children as well as the arrangements being made as between the parents.
This clause, I accept, is fairly widely drawn. It also includes any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant. That may include guardians or grandparents who have a duty or obligation to maintain a child of divorced parents.
As to subsection (b) of my amendment, I am sure most noble Lords will agree that, whatever our views of this Bill, it is advisable—and we would wish it to happen—that a child should have regular and reasonable contact with each party to the divorce. Here again it is helpful for the court to have it explicitly set out on the face of the Bill. It is very often said that while the court is concerned, understandably, with the conduct of the parents in these cases, the children do not always get the priority that they deserve. I am trying to strengthen in this Bill the protection that should be accorded to the children, who, after all, will suffer most from the divorce.
The third point in relation to Amendment No. 158A is about the risk occasioned by the conduct of the parties or the way one of the parties is living, particularly in the case of the party with whom the child or children are resident. We all know the difficulties there can be where a cohabitee has come into the home, or where different matters arise out of the conduct of the party 'with whom the children are resident.
These are matters which I hope my noble and learned friend will consider including on the face of the Bill. He may rightly say that the court automatically takes these matters into account, but it would be helpful, in considering the provisions of the Bill, that they should he spelt out as being part of the duty of the court towards the children of the marriage.
The same thinking is contained in Amendment No. 158B. It should be an obligation on the court welfare officer who has to compile a report concerning the children of the marriage—this was a point raised by my noble friend Lady Faithfull—that he should interview the children in the presence of each of the parents separately so that the child can say what he or she thinks in relation to the situation. That would be much fairer on the children than any other way. Where it is not done, the court welfare officer should say that he or she has been able to get this evidence, and that should also be taken into account by the court when making its decision.
These amendments are fairly explicit in their content and I very much hope that my noble and learned friend will consider including them on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Faithfull: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. As to subsection (a) of Amendment No. 158A, it says:
"the conduct of each of the parents of the child and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant".
Throughout this Bill there is cross-representation, or cross-fertilisation, whatever it is called, with the Children Act 1989, and it would be very helpful, if possible, to refer to the Children Act 1989. There is a
1160
checklist in the Children Act to which, in addition to what the noble Baroness has recommended in Amendment No. 158A, I hope very much the court will refer.
As to subsection (b) of Amendment No. 158A, keeping regular contact with each party, there is very real trouble over the question of access. When I moved Amendment No. 155, I wished to know whether, if the court order was breached in regard to access, the party who was suffering by not seeing the child or having the child kept away from them would get legal aid. I think my noble and learned friend gave the answer yes.
One of the difficulties is that there are a number of cases where a man is not eligible for legal aid and yet he does not have enough money to go to court when access arrangements are not being fulfilled. It is a very great problem whether the father or the mother has the care of the child. Very often the access arrangements are not adhered to and the absent parent loses contact with the child over a number of years. I am not sure how this can be resolved, but there should he somebody safeguarding the interests of the child.
As to Amendment No. 158B, I am not quite sure. We debated this question on, I think, Tuesday. Although I recognise the recommendation of the noble Baroness that the child or children should be interviewed in the presence of both parents, we also discussed the proposal that the child or children should have someone to whom they could go either at the time of the divorce, or, afterwards, when access arrangements were being breached. We did not resolve the question, and I mention it only in relation to the noble Baroness's recommendation.
6 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: With respect, I strongly counsel against the suggestion that any child should he interviewed in such circumstances in the presence of both parents. The more the child is kept out of the conflict the better. To have both parents present while questions are put to the child, whoever puts them, seems to me to be attendant with considerable danger. I respectfully agree that there should remain someone to whom the child can go, not only during the proceedings but also, as the noble Baroness postulated, after an access order has been made.
One of the functions that we envisaged as regards the Family Court was the fact that the welfare side should be available in such circumstances. However, failing the establishment of that Family Court as we urged it, I suggested that the best person to represent the interests of the child throughout was the Official Solicitor. I agreed with the suggestion made by the noble Earl. Lord Onslow; namely, that it is the interests of the child, much more than the views of the child, which need emphasis.
If the Official Solicitor is brought in at an early stage, I fail to see why he should not be available to the child subsequently. I understood that my noble and learned friend was prepared to brood over the suggestion that the Official Solicitor was the best person to represent the interests of the child. However, that does not mean

1161
that that should be the responsibility of the extremely eminent lawyer who is immediately responsible to my noble and learned friend; indeed, he has an official who is constantly and intimately concerned with such problems on a daily basis.
Lord Wilberforce: I should like briefly to suggest that Amendment No. 158A may be quite useful in practice. Of course, it could be said that such provisions will be held in mind in any event by any experienced court dealing with the matter and that there is no need to state them on the face of the Bill. Indeed, that is generally true in relation to this sort of provision. However, one might bear in mind that not all courts are equally experienced and that a number of other persons will be involved with the application of such considerations; for example, the parties' legal advisors or the parties themselves.
I believe that it might be quite useful to have such provisions on the face of the Bill so that they may be present to the mind of the parties at the stages when such matters are being considered. No doubt they would also find their way into any information pack which may be prepared for the use of parties or their legal advisers. Therefore, although the proposed provisions may be self-evident and tautologous, I believe that they may serve a useful purpose in practice. I should like to express my support for them.
Earl Russell: For the first time during the proceedings on the Bill, I am glad to be able to take the chance to agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Indeed, we are back on familiar territory and I am very pleased to be there. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord that having the child interviewed in the presence of each of his parents, whether jointly or severally—and I am not quite clear about that—would put that child in a position whereby he would not be quite sure whether he was executing the judgment of Solomon or was its victim. It would be a very painful situation.
However, I have a great deal of sympathy with the intention behind the amendments. I imagine that one of the problems that they are intended to address is the fact that so many children lose contact after divorce with one of the parents, usually the father. The noble and learned Lord and I exchanged words on the matter on Second Reading. I entirely agree with what he said about the difficulty involved in doing anything about it. But if the amendment—or some other version of it—could help, I believe that it would be well worth trying.
In its present form of drafting, Amendment No. 158A is, perhaps, a little more prescriptive than I would have wished. Subsection (b) states that,
"in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary",
the welfare "principle" must be assumed. It may very often be correct to do so, but I should like a little more room for discretion involved than the present wording allows. I say that because one can get some very unexpected reactions. I have in mind one case which was not actually a custody case. I must apologise, first,
1162
to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, if this was a matter with which she had to deal. I do so because it actually happened in Oxford.
The child of two Jehovah's Witnesses aged eight was knocked down, severely injured and was bleeding to death. The parents refused to sign the form giving permission for a blood transfusion, as they would because of their religion. A judge was summoned to the child's bedside; a care order was made; the transfusion was given, and the child recovered. However, the parents refused to have the child back because they said that it was no longer the same child.
I believe that the judge and the hospital in that case did right. However, it goes to show quite how much one must pause and consider the unknown reactions that may arise. If one attempts to enforce access with a legal big stick, the reaction of one or the other parent may be quite unpredictable. Such a generalised discretion as the one suggested would, perhaps, force the court to run upon a waterfall. I believe that it should have discretion to hold back from that waterfall if it sees fit.
As regards subsection (a) of Amendment No. 158A, I would also be interested to know how the reference to "the conduct" of the parties impinges on the very long debates that we have had about fault during the course of the proceedings on the Bill. I am not able to work that out in the time available; and, indeed, I certainly do not intend to detain Members of the Committee. However, if fault is to come into the Bill, I believe that it should come in through the front door and not accidently by the back door. If we bring such a provision into the Bill accidently, it may create no end of legal confusion afterwards.
The Earl of Onslow: I had read that phrase in the amendment which refers to,
"the conduct of each of the parents",
and found myself in exactly the same dilemma on the fault question. In the actual granting of a divorce, I believe that the fault question should be left outside. However, it is impossible to talk about custody arrangements without taking into account the behaviour of one or both of the parents. That suggests to me that we should have a little bit of "front door", "back door" or twin tracking—or whatever the latest cliché is.
I can see two distinct considerations. One is bringing a contract to an end in the most civilised way, with all the hoops that one has to go through to do so: the other is the matter of dealing with the fall-out from that contract being broken. One cannot divorce—I am sorry that was a rather silly pun which was not intended; I meant to say that one cannot separate the conduct of parents from child responsibility, but you can and should separate it with the end of a contract.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I support the amendments. It is helpful that the courts should have guidance. The guidance that is given here is quite firm and will ensure that the interests of the child are safeguarded.

1163
We are very well aware of the recent trend that says that two parents do not matter and that one parent will do. I do not speak for Families Need Fathers, as suggested by the noble and learned Lord the other night, although I very often agree with what it says.
The Lord Chancellor: I did not mean to suggest that. The noble Lord has stated that he often agrees with that organisation. I meant that he put forward views which closely resemble its views in a number of respects.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble and learned Lord is correct, and I often sympathise with its views particularly in relation to access to children. All too often the courts do not enforce access orders which they have made. Children are then removed from the vicinity where the father lives which makes access extremely difficult and costly.
A child may be taken away from his natural father who will be devoid of all contact with his own child, whereas a stepfather will have daily access, and that access could be detrimental to the interests of the child. It is therefore in the interests of the child that there should be contact between both natural parents. That fact cannot be over-emphasised.
The noble Baroness had done a great service in bringing the amendments before the Committee. I know that the noble and learned Lord will take these matters very seriously. The existing arrangements are not good enough. There is insufficient provision in the Bill to safeguard the interests of children and to ensure that the rights of both parents in relation to children are properly taken into account.
Lord Meston: The provisions in the amendments concern:
"any question under this Part".
I understood that considerations of residence and contact are always dealt with under the Children Act. Under that Act the kinds of principles that are stated in Amendment No. 158B are carried out as a matter of common practice. It is good practice for a welfare officer to interview a child in the presence of each of its parents. If that is not done it is usually the subject of comment by the court and something that the court would take into account.
6.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The court has a duty to be satisfied in relation to arrangements for children and has powers to enforce the Children Act which is the legislation that deals with private disputes between parents about children, and allows the intervention of the local authority, should that be necessary. The principle is that the court should not intervene and no public authority should intervene unless it is necessary. The family is best able to decide these matters, but the Children Act facilitates the intervention of the court.
The principles espoused in the Children Act have been operating for a considerable time. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that those with day to day involvement have
1164
found that the principles of the Children Act and the methods of employing those principles have worked extremely well.
One of those principles is quite plain; that is, that those with parental responsibility for children should be in contact with them unless there is a reason to the contrary. That is the central point in my noble friend's first amendment. That principle is already embodied in the Children Act.
The Bill deals with arrangements following disputes in divorce, but disputes about residence or contact with children are dealt with under the Children Act, whether they arise before or after a divorce or where there is no question of divorce and the parties are merely in dispute about where their children should be.
The general principles of Amendment No. I58A are correct. The difficulty is in reconciling those principles in an individual case. For example, Amendment No. 158A(a) states:
"The conduct of each of the parents of the child and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant."
A situation that often occurs is where there has been abuse or cruelty by one parent to the children. That would normally displace any idea of contact. It would depend upon the nature of the cruelty, and there is always the possibility that the person responsible will repent, but that kind of consideration generally prevents an order for contact with both parents.
I agree with noble Lords who have said that it is extremely important for both parents to have contact with children after divorce. All the research shows that to be correct. One of the principles that moved me to put forward the Bill was to avoid difficulty in that area. In that sense my noble friend Lady Elks and myself are in agreement.
The first amendment is unnecessary because of the provisions in the Children Act which are presently enforced. The court must consider all the circumstances, for example any risks in relation to one of the parents setting up with somebody else, depending upon the nature of their relationship. Those circumstances would be taken into account when considering arrangements for residence and contact.
In relation to the welfare officer provision in the second amendment, under the Children Act there has been an adoption of national standards for probation service Family Court welfare workers. The Family Court welfare service is part of the probation service. Those standards were introduced on 1st January 1995 in the light of previous experiences. It is a framework to ensure that Family Court welfare work is carried out consistently and fairly. The standards require the court welfare officers in preparing reports carefully to consider whether or not it is appropriate to see the parties separately or together, to visit each party at their home, to contact other relevant agencies, for example a school, doctor or health visitor, to see each parent alone with their siblings, to see each child with both of its parents, to see each child with each parent at their home

1165
or to see any other significant carers or the new partners of a parent. I believe that that is the point referred to in paragraph (c) of Amendment No. 158A.
It is emphasised that the inquiry should be even-handed and fair to both parties. The standards also specify that the report should give details of the inquiries undertaken, including who was seen at each interview, where, and the source of any information included in the report. Thus, the court welfare officer's attention is specifically drawn to the need to consider the full range of options for interviewing the child and his parents, but the officer retains the flexibility to decide exactly what is appropriate in each individual case. In addition, the court will be made aware in the report of what inquiries have been undertaken. The court is able to consider the weight to be given to the report along with all the other evidence before it.
I suggest to my noble friend that that standard which is adopted throughout the court service gives effect in a good general way to the principles that she has embodied in Amendment No. 158B. If my noble friend wishes it, I can give her a full copy of the standards.
I hope that in the light of those assurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment, leaving the mechanisms of this issue to the functioning of the Children Act.
Baroness Elles: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his reply. I should like to study it closely in Hansard.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in discussions on the amendment. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, that the Bill would benefit from having the provisions in Amendment No. 158A on the face of the Bill. I accept from my noble and learned friend that many of them are included in the Children Act. While I hate to disagree with him, I suggest that not all the elements set out in the amendment are spelt out in the Children Act. The checklist that courts are required to go through does not enumerate all those issues. Clause 9 of the Bill requires only that the court consider whether there are children and, if there are, the arrangements to be made for them, I believe under Section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Although I accept that the Children Act contains certain provisions, they do not cover every element spelt out in Amendment No. 158A. Even if the provisions are included in various parts of the Act, we owe a duty to the children who, I believe, will suffer as a result of the Bill. I know that the noble and learned Lord probably does not think that they will suffer, but the fact is that many children will suffer as a result of the Bill and it is our duty to ensure that they are fully protected under the Bill and that it is not left to the interpretation or discretion of a court to decide whether or not to include certain provisions on a checklist.
I shall not press the amendment to a Division. However, I very much hope that the issue can be considered again with my noble and learned friend between now and Report stage. There is the specific
1166
provision as regards risk arising where there is a cohabitee. That is a useful addition to the Bill. I accept that the drafting of the amendment is loose, and that it could be better worded. However, paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 158A specifically states:
"in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary".
I accept what my noble friend Lady Faithfull said. Access is a difficult issue. However, I hope that my noble and learned friend will consider stating that principle.
As regards Amendment No. 158B, I know that the court welfare officer has a duty under the Children Act. However, I am informed—I may he wrongly informed—that the court welfare does not always have either the time or the opportunity to ensure that his report to the court contains the full details which may be necessary for a court to decide on the welfare of the children. I understand that judges tend to follow the court welfare officer's report. That is understandable. I believe that no stone should be left unturned to ensure that the position of children is protected in so far as is humanly possible.
The Earl of Onslow: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor one question to clear my mind. Am I right in saying that the Children Act applies absolutely to any divorce proceedings that will take place if the Bill goes through? If that is the case, surely it is unnecessary to put any extra provision into the Bill. If what my noble friend Lady Elles wants does happen—as, I am sure, we all hope—it is surely not necessary to put the provision down twice.
The Lord Chancellor: The Children Act applies where a court has to consider questions of residence or contact in respect of children. This is the sort of situation in which those questions arise. The Bill will require the court to consider the arrangements for the children. If the court then considers that an order under the Children Act should be made it has power to enable that to happen and then the principles of the Children Act will apply.
Baroness Elles: Perhaps I may conclude. It is correct to say that contact and residence provisions are contained in the Children Act. The proposed amendment does not include only residence and contact, but other matters as well.
In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Perhaps we can consider the issue between now and Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 158B not moved.]
Clause 17 [Time when proceedings for divorce or separation begin]:
[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 9, line 27, leave out ("or").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 160 and speak to Amendment No. 161.
These are drafting amendments. The word "or" at the end of Clause 17(3)(a) should not be there. A provision to the effect that marital proceedings are both divorce proceedings and separation proceedings at a time when no application for an order has been made was erroneously omitted from the final print of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 9, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) Marital proceedings arc to be treated as being both divorce proceedings and separation proceedings at any time before an application for a divorce order or for a separation order is made by reference to the statement.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Intestacy: effect of separation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have a Motion that Clause 18 shall not stand part of the Bill, and for more than one reason I am glad to be associated in this with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer.
Clause 18 disapplies part of the ordinary law of intestacy in the case of a separation order. By the normal law of intestacy, going back a long way, a widow enjoys a substantial right; in other words, there is a bias of the law in favour of marriage. Under this provision that right is no longer to be enjoyed after a separation order, notwithstanding that the parties remain married.
When we discussed separation orders on Amendment No. 2, my noble and learned friend confirmed that part of the purpose was to allow a spouse who had a conscientious objection to divorce to seek a separation order instead, in order to keep the marriage alive, if only because while the marriage is alive there is still a chance of a reconciliation. However, after a divorce there is little chance of it.
What the Bill does repeatedly, as it does here, is nevertheless to show a bias in favour of divorce and against separation. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, identified the first bias that we examined in Amendment No. 5 and there have been several instances since then. However, this is the most glaring. Why should a spouse who conscientiously prefers a separation order be penalised as to intestacy? The Bill is really saying: "You may take a certain course from conscience, but you must not think that you will enjoy the ordinary financial advantages accruing from that. We will larn you to be a toad".
As I understand it, the provision reproduces the effect of Section 18(2) of the 1973 Act. Perhaps, when he replies, my noble and learned friend will say whether that is right. The provision in the 1973 Act is repealed in the repeals schedule, Schedule 10 to the Bill. That is presumably why we have Clause 18. However, the 1973 Act itself replaced Section 40(1) of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, which itself replaced Section 20(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act
1168
1965. I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but in other words the provision goes back no further than the 1965 Act.
I see no reason why we should attach any particular value to a statutory provision in a matrimonial statute of the swinging 1960s, particularly when it is contrary to the ordinary law of intestacy. By that law, if a marriage subsists the surviving spouse enjoys special rights on the intestacy. I oppose Clause 18.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: In the course of our debates on the Bill, to my regret I have not invariably found myself in agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. On this occasion I can intervene with a confidence born of the fact that he and I are indeed in agreement. It would be presumptuous on my part to seek to clarify or embellish the case which he expressed so clearly and with such erudition.
In the course of one of our earlier debates there was a question as to what were the effects of a judicial separation. Clearly one such effect is that the marriage remains in existence. One of the reasons for retaining that option may he that one of the partners at least wishes to retain the rights and claims which are normally associated with marriage. If one partner enters into a new relationship and wishes to provide for the new partner or the children of the new relationship, he or she—and normally it will be he—can do so by making a will. If he neglects to do so, then a simple respect for the institution of marriage would seem to indicate that the normal consequences would follow. Certainly there is no obvious reason why the other partner should lose his or her rights under the marriage.
I simply add that this anxiety is, to my knowledge, shared by the Law Society. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will tell us the reasoning behind the clause, but I am bound to say that it is not self-evident.
The Lord Chancellor: So far as I am concerned, the reasoning behind the clause is that I have sought, generally speaking, to retain the existing law as regards the effects of orders. As my noble and learned friend Lord Simon explained clearly, that is the existing law and it has been so since 1965. The fact that it is the existing law does not mean that we should not change it, but until now there has not been much pressure to change the provision, as I have understood it. Generally, in regard to financial matters, I have left the existing law as it is. It is a big subject to get into in a systematic way. We shall have other amendments suggesting changes, some more dramatic and some less. That is the reason that I put in the provision. If the views that Members of the Committee have expressed represent the general view of the House, I have no feeling against it myself. My only reason for including it is that it happens to be the law and has been for about 30 years.
Baroness Elles: Will my noble and learned friend explain the logic of why he wishes the clause to remain when it is already part of the law? He was not keen on my amendment on children which he also says is part of the law, but in another Act. It does not seem to me

1169
logical why we should keep one provision which is the present law and not allow something which is the present law in another part of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: As usual, my noble friend has an extremely good point. However, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon said, as regards drafting, Schedule 10 repeals a number of the provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Thus, in order to preserve the effect of the existing law I have to put in this provision. One of the effects of that is to bring the matter to the Committee's attention in a way that it would not have been if I had left the provision in the 1973 Act. Perhaps it is a good idea. However, that is altogether a different argument from the previous one. I am certainly not repealing the Children Act nor do I propose to do so in this Bill. What I am doing is to propose the repeal of parts of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Therefore, I thought I should put the provision back in. It represents the existing law but if the Committee believes that the existing law should be changed, I have no strong reason against it.
Lord Coleraine: My noble and learned friend explained why the provision was introduced in the swinging sixties. Therefore I feel that we ought to go ahead and follow the course recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, and indeed to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I seem to recognise in his reply—I hope rightly—some green edges. He is obviously not committed to this provision beyond the fact that it represents the existing law. But if the existing law is contrary to principle, if it is in derogation of marriage, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, has shown, we have no reason at all to be attached to it.
I undertook at the outset of the Committee stage that I should not press any of my amendments to a Division, and I think that covers this case. But I shall certainly return to the matter on Report. I hope in the meantime my noble and learned friend, having given himself a locus penitentiae, will tell me that it is not necessary and that he will do the job for me.
Clause 18 agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 162:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
FUNDING FOR MARRIAGE SUPPORT SERVICES
(".—(1) The Lord Chancellor may, with the approval of the Treasury, make grants in connection with—

(a) the provision of marriage support services;

(b) research into the causes of marital breakdown;

(c) research into ways of preventing marital breakdown.

(2) Any grant under this section may be made subject to such conditions as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a rather important amendment, to which I spoke earlier. I am very glad to have the opportunity of moving it. It gives the Lord Chancellor a basis for supporting research of a
1170
most important kind, as well as supporting by grant in appropriate circumstances the marriage support services. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee had given notice of her intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 162, Amendment No. 162ZA:
Line 4, after ("marriage") insert ("and family").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment made its way onto the Marshalled List after we had debated the point. It is not moved.
[Amendment No. 162ZA, as an antendment to Amendment No. 162, not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Speaking therefore to my noble and learned friend's Amendment No. 162, I have only one small point, which I put forward in no very hopeful mood. It relates to the statement that my noble and learned friend may make grants only,
"with the approval of the Treasury".
Those words appear in statute after statute, and are totally unnecessary. There is firm and fair machinery within the machine of government which prevents my noble and learned friend splashing about with public money at his unfettered discretion. There is, indeed, a Treasury official who watches closely what is happening in my noble and learned friend's department; and similarly, all his officials are aware of that. They are firmly aware that they must not incur public expenditure except with the consent of the Treasury. The words are entirely unnecessary. I know that the Treasury values them greatly, but it is utterly wrong to include them. I venture to speak as a former Treasury Minister. I am all in favour of Treasury control, but not of cluttering up the statute book with a whole number of unnecessary phrases.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): We are still debating Amendment No. 162, but, with apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I must call three other amendments before we proceed further with this one; namely, Amendments Nos. 162A, 163 and 163A.
[Amendments Nos. 162A to 163A, as amendments to Amendment No. 162, not moved.]
Baroness Seear: We on these Benches very strongly support Amendment No. 162. It is sometimes thought that those of us who are strongly in favour of this Bill are not in favour of marriage. That is completely false, and we should like to have it on record that that is so. We support this amendment because it will give great support to marriage. We want to make that absolutely clear. I should, however, like to see the amendment somewhat strengthened. I agree very much with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I have been waiting for someone to say that it is ridiculous that we are so much in the clutches of the Treasury. After all, the Prime Minister is the First Lord of the Treasury; if he decides that money should be spent, surely it should be spent.

1171
That aside, one would like to see it made absolutely clear that there will he money for these services. I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that research is extremely important, but we also want to see support for conciliation services. On a number of occasions during debate on this Bill we raised the issue of the uncertainty of money being available for conciliation services. Those services are a very, very important prop to the sustaining of marriage. Unless money is there for them, a great many people will not take advantage of them. We are confident on these Benches—and I think probably this is true throughout the Committee—that while the present Lord Chancellor is in post he will be assiduous in giving support of this kind. But Lord Chancellors come and go. I do not say that the next one will be any better or worse, but there could come a time when a Lord Chancellor was less interested in these matters. We should like to see it firmly on the face of the Bill that these moneys will be available whatever the Treasury says and whoever the Lord Chancellor may be.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: I support this amendment firmly and emphatically. I remember saying at Second Reading that I hoped the moneys would be available for marriage support services, and for research into the causes and ways of preventing marital breakdown. These are essential if this Bill is to bring about a hoped for improvement.
I agree that those of us who support the Bill have been accused of being soft, liberal and unsupportive of marriage and the family. That is not so. But we feel that the noble and learned Lord's Bill puts marriage and the family at the centre. However, if resources are not available, the last state will he worse than the first. That is the point. This is a Bill that seeks to bolster marriage, to build it up, and to provide counselling for those whose marriage has broken down. Therefore from these Benches I strongly support the noble and learned Lord's amendment, provided that we may have some fairly firm assurance that resources will be available for these extremely positive measures to support marriage and the family in such a way that it is more than just legalism.
Baroness Hamwee: In a genuine spirit of inquiry, I ask about the status of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill. The financial effects of the Bill are described in that memorandum. The provisions in Parts I and II of the Bill are designed to be cost neutral. The argument might be advanced that by making an investment in the services described in the amendment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, there will be savings made elsewhere but that, no doubt, would be over time.
1172
I hope that the noble and learned Lord can reassure the Committee that the provisions of the Bill have precedence over that memorandum, which will be changed, as necessary, if—as I hope—the amendment is accepted.
Baroness Young: Before my noble and learned friend rises to reply, I should like to put a question to him. I do not think that anybody can quarrel with this particular amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I can.
Baroness Young: I bow to the superior wisdom of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I am quite certain that there is a lot in it that I have not seen. But leaving aside his point—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: With the consent of the Treasury.
Baroness Young: Yes. Having been an ex-Minister myself I have in fact seen that before. I do not have much sympathy with my noble and learned friend on anything to do with this Bill. However, on this particular point, I see that he must put that in, whatever the noble and learned Lord says.
There is a rather more serious point that I make on this amendment with regard to paragraph (a)—the provision of marriage support services. I am very concerned about much of the briefing material that has been sent to me by organisations that purport to support marriage. On reading them, it is perfectly clear that what they support is marriage as a kind of aà la carte menu on a series of lifestyles. I shall not go into that matter now. However, it seems to me that there are a great many organisations which, when one comes down to reading about what they are doing, are not supporting marriage. They say that if it is difficult, one may do something else and so on. It is a very serious point that I make. If public money is put into anything, it should be put into making quite sure that we are supporting marriage and not a sequence of, what I understand is now the politically correct term, alternative lifestyles.
Baroness Elles: Before the noble and learned Lord replies perhaps I may put my question to him. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, drew attention to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill and the financial effects of the Bill. There is mention of the effects of public service manpower. Will the marriage support services be entirely confined to voluntary organisations—of which my noble friend Lady Young has spoken so strongly—or will they also apply to certain professional bodies being set up by the Government; or will they rely on the Churches? By whom will the marriage support services be fielded? What kind of people are they?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Adverting again to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, my noble and learned friend will correct me if I am wrong but I understood the memorandum to mean that there will be a saving on legal aid and that will go

1173
to financing the mediation services, those two items balancing out. This amendment would impose additional cost. It would help very much if we could be told what would be the cost of the amendment annually so far as can be envisaged.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I hope that I can like this amendment. I should very much like to be able to like this amendment. I hope that it is not just a sop to those who are opposed to the Bill. For example, the amendment speaks of:
"(a) the provision of marriage support services".
I should like to know exactly what those support services are. The amendment continues:
"(b) research into the causes of marital breakdown".
I know that one of the great causes of marriage breakdown is lack of money. I want to know what the Government intend to do to ensure that married couples get more money—are allowed to keep more of the money that they earn. The amendment goes on:
"(c) research into ways of preventing marital breakdown".
I said at an earlier stage of the Bill that, although the Government have expressed their intention of bolstering marriage and their belief in marriage, all their actions have contributed to undermining marriage, particularly in relation to financial support for marriage. Indeed, over a long period of time, they have reduced the allowances of married couples, especially the married man's allowance, which has made it more difficult for married couples to exist and easier for couples to exist financially if they are not married. If we believe what is said in this amendment, we believe that the Government wish to put that kind of thing right.
It has also been government policy to favour the single person. I do not particularly object to that. If two people live apart—cohabit rather than marry—they can have two tax allowances. But if they are married and the wife remains at home and has no income of her own, they can only have one tax allowance plus a very much reduced in value married man's allowance. I have advocated for a very long period of time that the two allowances should be transferable. Where, in fact, a woman does not go out to work, she will then be able to hand her personal allowance over to her husband who is in work or vice versa.
Those are matters that have to be examined. If marriage is to be strengthened, it is necessary to enable one of the partners at least, if they wish to do so, to remain at home and look after their own children. It is absurd for us to give financial and tax encouragement for women to go out to work and a detriment for them to stay at home and look after their children.
If this amendment means that all those matters will he investigated—they are, believe me, very serious matters—then I am very much in favour of it. I do not want to delay the Committee beyond the dinner hour, though I could speak on this issue for a long time. I simply say to the noble and learned Lord the
1174
Lord Chancellor that if that is the intention and if we want to get to grips with the financial difficulties and indeed other difficulties faced by married couples, then I am all in favour and this is an amendment by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I could support.
7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful for the support that this amendment has received. It is a considerable move from the present position. It puts on the statute book very clearly recognition of the importance of the three subject matters referred to. The phrase,
"with the approval of the Treasury"
is one which my noble and learned friend and I have discussed in a number of different contexts over quite a period. I believe that the phrase has appeared in statute both before and since my noble and learned friend was a distinguished Treasury Minister.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that the Prime Minister, as First Lord of the Treasury, can do anything. I suppose, subject to the law, that that may be true, but it is not the Prime Minister who is going to make these grants but the Lord Chancellor. Therefore, it is only natural that he should be subject in this respect to the First Lord of the Treasury. I am grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said in this connection. I shall do my best to get as much as I can and for it to be properly used for the purposes of this provision. Exactly what I shall be able to get from year-to-year may vary very much. I am unable to make estimates about that because it will depend on the success of the scheme. In my view, one of the matters of extreme importance is showing to what extent the work supports marriage and helps to prevent marital breakdown. The more successful the scheme is, the more likely it is to be supported. As Members of the Committee have observed, success in that connection—apart from the human relationships and those with children, which we all value as important—has important consequences for public finance.
The purpose of this clause is to enable the Lord Chancellor, with the approval of the Treasury, to make grants in connection with the provision of marriage support services. That envisages that they will he carried out by the Churches or other voluntary bodies of that kind. Many other different types of organisations are envisaged.
I particularly refer to what my noble friend Lady Young said. This clause will condition the power to make grants and therefore it emphasises the point made by her, that under this clause it will be legitimate to fund only those services which are for the support of marriage. That is what the clause says. It will clarify the matter. That is one reason why it is wise to keep the provision in this way, but it does not mean, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked when we debated this matter before, that children are not included. The provision focuses on marriage as the matter being supported.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, remarked on the tax treatment of married women. I see the point that he makes. He has advocated it over

1175
more than 17 years, but as yet he has not been successful. We have made a change in respect of any other income that the married woman has. There is separate assessment for her income. In the good old days, as some would see them—but that is not a view which I share in this respect—the income of both was aggregated. I believe that we have made some progress. The noble Lord would like to make more and he will no doubt continue to wish for that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I may make the point that that is so, but to take advantage of the situation the woman has to have some income. I fear that in most families a woman not at work has no income at all and that is the problem.
The Lord Chancellor: I understand that. I have to look at what has been done. Where people have between them income-bearing property, it is possible, as long as it is not a pension or a salary, for the woman to get the full benefit of that income and therefore the full benefit of a separate assessment. 1 understand that if she has no income she cannot get tax allowances. That applies whether she is married or single. In other words, though the noble Lord compared the married state with the unmarried state, he must compare like with like.
In the noble Lord's example of unmarried people the woman has to have no income, and if she has no income, she will certainly not receive any kind of tax allowance. Therefore, in comparing like with like, I believe that this Government have improved the situation although not as yet to the state that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would like to take it. We have made progress and I hope that the noble Lord will be generous enough to acknowledge that. I also believe that we have made progress with this provision. The approval of the Treasury is a small price to pay for having this power in the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Is my noble and learned friend inclined to answer the two questions I asked? First, does the financial preface really envisage that the cost of mediation will be paid for by a saving on legal aid and, secondly, how much is it envisaged will he payable under this new clause?
The Lord Chancellor: As regards the new clause, as I said it will vary from year to year. Therefore, it will be unwise to say precisely what may come from that. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum refers to the Bill as introduced.
As regards the cost of mediation, it is so far as it requires to be borne by the Legal Aid Board under the extensions. As regards mediation and services, I hope that the people who are able to pay for them will do so. That is the situation that obtains. However, this Bill enables the Legal Aid Board to incur costs for mediation, which is not the present position. The costs incurred for mediation in that respect, paid out of the public purse, are likely to be about the same
1176
as the savings in legal aid which otherwise would be defrayed in respect of the representation that will become unnecessary if this Bill takes effect.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend for the answer to that question. As regards the first question, I should like him to give an estimate of how much is likely to be spent on the support services, although he may not be in a position to do so at present.
The Lord Chancellor: I would prefer not to at the moment. This is a completely new provision. There has been no payment under it until now. The responsibility for making grants in this area has been with the Home Office. The matter was transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department when the White Paper was published. Some grants have been made without the need for statutory authority. I believe that the statutory authority makes a difference and for my part, as has been said, I would wish to use this provision effectively, but it would be unwise for me at this juncture to estimate how successful I shall be in getting money.
Lord Coleraine: I believe that my noble and learned friend is quite clear on the point, but I ask him to confirm that in referring to marriage support services supporting marriage, he is speaking entirely of existing marriages and not marriage support services supporting, in anticipation, marriages which may form later on when existing marriages break down. A concern which many of us have about the expression "marriage support services" is that they may also extend to treating existing marriages as only part of a large problem and try at the same time to support the anticipated future marriages, which I do not believe should be the case and I do not believe it is what my noble and learned friend has in mind.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not sure that I fully understand the question, but let me attempt an answer and then if it is not the right answer to the question, my noble friend will correct me. When two people are married but their relationship has broken down and they are contemplating divorce, trying to consider whether the marriage has broken down irretrievably, I would think that a marriage support service could properly help them to keep the marriage together.
One of the purposes I have in mind in this Bill is that where parties are married they will face up to the responsibilities of that marriage before it is dissolved. I think that that is extremely important. As I have said earlier, the rate of breakdown in second marriages is very high and I believe part of the reason for that is that people have not faced up to the responsibilities of their first marriage before going into a second one and that the obligations and so on of the first marriage have continued to affect the relationships of the people in the second marriage. So part of the purpose of this Bill is to require people to face up fully to their obligations under the first marriage before they are divorced. However, there is no question so far as I am concerned of a grant being made to an organisation to help them

1177
move the people who are in a situation of marriage breakdown in a first marriage into a later marriage, not at all. On the other hand, the provisions of this Bill, if they work as I have said, will have the effect of making the chances of success of a second marriage better than they are now.
Of course, marriage support services would include a future marriage. I think that preparation for marriage is an important part of the whole situation and I believe it would be right, if at all possible, to help services that are designed to help people who are entering marriage to make them ready to understand and fulfil the commitments which I believe a proper marriage requires. In that sense it is a future marriage, but I think that perhaps my noble friend was concerned that I was trying to encourage people to get out of one marriage and into another. That is the last thing that I would want to do, but I would wish to support, if it was possible and necessary—that is, assuming they were needed—services which help people to prepare adequately for marriage. I hope that I have answered my noble friend's question.
Lord Coleraine: My noble and learned friend has understood me and has answered my question. I do not think he is saying that he would consider a marriage support service endeavouring to preserve an existing marriage as in any way preparing for a second marriage.
The Lord Chancellor: That is so, but I think that the obligation to face up to the responsibilities of the first marriage is an important step to take and it would help the success of a second marriage, if people want to go into that. That, in my view, is important in itself for a first marriage. I think that this is facing up to the responsibilities that people have undertaken. That is an important part of this Bill and an important change from the existing law. I believe it will be effective and that it will also have the effect that, if someone goes into a second marriage, the chances are that the second marriage has a better chance of survival because the responsibilities of the first marriage have been faced and taken into account before that second relationship has been entered into.
7.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has spoken extremely well on this because there is obviously in all our minds a terribly important concern for the state of marriage and the family, our present society and our present crumbling culture. Obviously we want marriage to be restored to the lifelong commitment it always has been. However, we must live in the real world. Anyone who is a parish priest knows perfectly well that there are people for whom the second marriage is the real marriage. It becomes a Christian home where children are brought up according to the best approved ways within Christian marriage. I hope, as I have already said in this Committee, that we shall not think that somehow you bolster marriage by making the divorce laws more punitive; you do not.
1178
What we want is good marriage. I do not want to be anecdotal, but time and time again we meet people who have made an undergraduate marriage, who have married because their mother and father wanted them to, have married an unsuitable person and then, older and wiser, they actually make a second marriage. If they have been helped along the lines indicated by the noble and learned Lord, then their second marriage can be the success we know many of them to be, although of course I realise the statistics show that if people go straight out of one marriage into another, very often the second one gets just as far as the first one did and then breaks down again. We do not want that. We want to make laws in this country which will be positive and will make for good marriage. That is our aim in life. We are not saying it is just one other life-style among many. If I may say so, it is not right to suggest that bodies like Relate, Catholic Marriage Guidance and One Plus One are of that ilk. They are not. They want to support marriage and the family. Let us support them, for they have a lot to offer.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Committee stage begins again at 8.15 p.m.?
Moved, That the House he now resumed.— Lord Lucas.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: May we know, at any rate when the Committee stage begins again, at what time the House will rise? What happened on Tuesday was profoundly unsatisfactory; indeed a discredit to Parliament.
Lord Lucas: I will certainly talk to my colleagues and to the usual channels, and I will report the results of that conversation to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1995
7.18 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1995 be approved. In moving that Motion it may be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to the International Sea-Bed Authority (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1995 and to the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) (Law of the Sea Convention) Order 1995.
These three orders will enable the Government to implement the provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, with a view to the United Kingdom's forthcoming accession to the Convention.

1179
The convention was the product of the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which was held over ten years between 1973 and 1982. The aim of the convention was to establish a comprehensive legal regime for the oceans. In this it is largely successful and is beneficial to United Kingdom interests. It confirms important rights, such as the freedom of navigation and overflight. It provides for a package of maritime limits: notably a maximum of 12 miles for the territorial sea and 200 miles for the exclusive economic zone, within which coastal states have jurisdiction for the conservation of natural resources and the protection and preservation of the marine environment. These maximum limits are generally accepted and have caused some states to withdraw more extravagant and unjustified claims. The convention also contains extensive provisions on the peaceful settlement of maritime disputes.
The Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution)(Law of the Sea Convention) Order is one element of the package of 18 tough new measures to reduce illegal discharges of wastes from ships, which was launched yesterday. The package includes measures to tighten the regulations, to improve enforcement of the regulations, to improve port waste reception facilities and to improve awareness of the problem among shipowners.
I am pleased to say that this new initiative, which was achieved following lengthy consultations with all interested parties—including ports, users, waste companies and environmental groups—will put the United Kingdom at the forefront of international action on the discharge of waste from ships. A number of measures flow as a direct result from the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas; some go beyond the recommendations encapsulated in that report.
The Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution)(Law of the Sea Convention) Order will help us to enforce the regulations on marine pollution from ships. Currently, we are only able to bring prosecutions for pollution offences which occur in our territorial waters. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs, as we are sometimes able to identify ships which pollute waters just outside the 12-mile limit. At present, our only recourse in such cases is to report the incident to the ship's flag state. Experience has demonstrated, however, that that is rarely an effective means of bringing sanctions against polluters.
This order will permit the Department of Transport to make regulations which will greatly increase our ability to prosecute polluters. As proposed by the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, we will take powers to the maximum extent consistent with international law. That will allow us to bring prosecutions for illegal discharges which occur up to 200 miles from the UK coastline. We will also introduce provisions to enhance our co-operation with neighbouring states by making it possible for UK courts to prosecute ships which have polluted other states' waters.
1180
The other two draft orders confer privileges and immunities on two new international institutions established by the Law of the Sea Convention: the International Sea-Bed Authority and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Privileges and immunities need to be conferred in order for the Government to meet their international obligations under the convention.
In relation to the International Sea-Bed Authority, the privileges and immunities are to be similar to those provided for in the 1947 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations. As regards the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, they are similar to those conferred on the International Court of Justice.
The authority is located in Jamaica and the tribunal in Hamburg. In practice, therefore, there are only likely to be claims for refunds of VAT on goods and services purchased in the UK for the official purposes of the organisations. The privileges and immunities conferred by the orders are, of course, granted in accordance with the limitations imposed by the International Organisation Act 1968, as amended, under which the orders are made. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committed].—(Viscount Goschen).
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for speaking on these three draft instruments in the way that he has, particularly as the one which falls within his own remit was hardly dealt with by the Foreign Office Minister in another place. That is regrettable and there are therefore a number of questions I wish to put to the Minister in that regard. I gave him notice of the questions. This is not a controversial party political matter; it is a matter in which a number of bodies outside the House are interested.
I wish to say at the outset that the Opposition support all three statutory instruments. We believe that they arc important and I welcome many of the measures that the Minister announced yesterday. I have not had time to digest them all but they represent an important contribution to the defence of the maritime environment. Again, I want to put a number of questions to the Minister in that regard, of which I have not given him notice because it is only within the past one-and-a-half hours that I have managed to obtain copies of the documents concerned.
In addressing the first two statutory instruments, which are within the remit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we particularly welcome what has happened. I should perhaps declare an interest at this stage in covering all three matters, in that I am chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Protection of the Sea.
Viscount Goschen: Hear, hear!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, at last I have done something which meets with the approbation of the Minister. I am glad about that.

1181
That body, in 1952 when few people were even talking about the "environment", was established by my noble friend Lord Callaghan, who showed a substantial measure of prescience in so doing. Since then it has taken a keen interest in these policies. It is over 13 years since the final text of the Law of the Sea Convention was accepted at the Plenipotentiary Conference in Jamaica in 1982. The United Kingdom then joined the United States and other G7 states in not signing because of problems it thought it had with Part XI in relation to deep seabed mining. But 155 states signed within the first year and further negotiations ensued over a long period of time. It was not until 1994 that the G7 countries felt that their objections to Part XI had been satisfactorily resolved.
The statutory instruments are designed to ensure that the United Kingdom can meet the obligations of the convention and to take advantage also of its opportunities. However, will the Minister confirm that many of its provisions are part of customary international law and are therefore already binding on the United Kingdom and other states—for example, rights in territorial waters; the 200-mile fishery zones; the rights of transit passage through straits such as the Dover Strait and rights over the Continental Shelf?
Ratification of the convention by the United Kingdom remains important because it allows this country to participate in the new institutions, as the Minister outlined, established by the treaty and to take advantage of the new rights; for example, to control pollution in the 200-mile exclusive economic zone.
In our view the instruments cover key issues, including inter alia privileges and immunities to institutions established by the convention. The Minister dealt with the International Sea-Bed Authority and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. I sincerely hope and believe that the new authority will not be another high-spending international institution, and that the voting system has been adjusted to ensure that the interests of developed states are well represented in the decision-making process.
I believe the tribunal is to be based in Hamburg and will represent the flagship of the new significant dispute settlement procedures based on the convention. Perhaps I can say in parenthesis that I wish Mr. David Anderson, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who is to be the United Kingdom nominee for the tribunal, every success in the challenging role that he will face.
I turn from that to the third statutory instrument, which again we welcome. It will enable the United Kingdom to take advantage of Part XII of the convention, which grants more extensive powers to coastal states to exercise control over pollution from ships within the 200-mile zone. Is it right that the United Kingdom does not propose to claim formally a 200-mile exclusive economic zone but will be designating an area of the sea above its Continental Shelf as an area in which pollution control powers may be exercised? If that is right, would the Minister be kind enough to explain the reasons for taking that course?
1182
Having said that, it may be a little academic because I recognise that the really important issue is that the United Kingdom will now claim the powers to regulate vessel-source pollution in waters to be designated but which presumably will be up to 200 miles from the coast or the agreed boundaries with our neighbours, since the Secretary of State will be designating the geographical area within which the United Kingdom will exercise these powers and by which it will be able to apprehend, inspect and punish violations of the convention in those areas. Can the Minister inform the House when the United Kingdom proposes to ratify the convention, which is justifiably called (because of its general application and its fundamental impact on all matters concerning the oceans), a Constitution for the Oceans? It would be helpful if the Minister could throw some light on that because it is important.
I turn now to a number of issues germane to maritime pollution. Will the Minister confirm that, although vessel-based marine pollution remains a significant threat and the Government are determined to do a great deal about it, a far larger threat to the marine environment is represented by land-based sources of marine pollution, accounting for something like 85 to 90 per cent. of all marine pollution? That is not generally recognised by the man or woman in the street who thinks that such pollution comes entirely from ships at sea, but that is a wrong perception.
Does the Minister agree that an obligation arises from Agenda 21 of Chapter 17 of the Rio Agreement, as well as from Chapter 28 which deals with the role of local authorities and which is known as "Local Agenda 21", for signatories to take effective steps to deal with those issues? Is the Minister aware that the Advisory Committee on the Protection of the Sea has played a significant part in seeking to marshal a coherent contribution from local authorities internationally in that regard? What are the Government doing in positive terms to make a meaningful contribution to reinforce those efforts from an NGO to which many local authorities have responded well?
Does the Minister agree that the real importance of this draft statutory instrument is that it must be effectively enforced as well as implemented? MARPOL 1973 was designed—and its objective remains—to achieve:
"the complete elimination of international pollution of the marine environment by oil and other harmful substances"?
The United Kingdom has implemented the MARPOL obligations by the Merchant Shipping (Operations Book) Regulations 1988, but how well is that being enforced? Are threats posed to its proper enforcement as a result of cuts in the Coastguard Agency and in the Marine Safety Agency? Can the Minister safely assert tonight that there will be no compromise with safety as a result of those cuts? I am sure that he will aver that that is the case, but a mere assertion is not necessarily the whole story.
The Minister must justify the position that the Government are taking because, on the face of it, a serious review of the coastguard service could result, as I understand it, in a loss of something like 10 to 15 station officers around the United Kingdom, with

1183
380 auxiliary coastguards being replaced by people known as "watch assistants". What will be the difference in the effectiveness of the roles to be performed by the watch assistants as against the auxiliary coastguards? How well trained and skilled will they be? Would it not be much more desirable, especially from the point of view of those who are seeking to deal with a polluting ship or seeking to help somebody in difficulty, to have a more highly skilled and trained force available? What impact will there be on safety? I have to ask the Minister whether it is not really all about saving money so that the Department of Transport can makes its contribution to tax cuts before the next election. In that context, my last question is: can the Minister say something about the areas most likely to be affected by the changes?
I should like to say a word or two about the Marine Safety Agency. Further pressure will be imposed on the MSA to reduce its staff at a time when it will be taking on new responsibilities. They are set out in some of the 18 new measures to combat marine pollution from ships which the Minister announced yesterday. The MSA is already under pressure and is delegating more than ever to classification societies. There is a debilitation of its surveying staff and I believe that, as a result, there has been a reduction in this country's influence not merely at present, but more importantly for the future, with regard to important maritime councils. That will be the inevitable effect of a lack of surveyors.
Can the Minister say something about aerial surveillance? There is reason to suppose that that is not being enforced as effectively as one would wish even within the 12-mile limit, so how is it likely to be effective within the new 200-mile limit?
I turn now to fines. I welcome very much what the Minister said. Indeed, I began to prepare my notes before seeing what the Minister was going to say, which is pertinent to my own thinking. The fines that applied previously were hopelessly inadequate. Therefore, the suggestion that is now emerging from the Department of Transport is very much to be welcomed and I congratulate the Minister on it. Like his officials, he has realised that much more draconian penalties are required if there is to be a suitable deterrent.
I also very much welcome what the Minister said about waste reception facilities. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds was particularly concerned about that and drew my attention to the serious pollution which occurred last September off Flamborough Head and to another incident on 27th December when a very large number of oiled birds were found. The RSPB may well have drawn the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, to that also. The RSPB has asked that regional waste auditing systems should be put in place to supplement aerial surveillance. That system already operates in the Netherlands. I may be wrong but I have not yet seen any reference to that, so the Minister may want to say something about it. I must ask: if it is working well there, why not apply the same system here?
I turn now to some of the other points raised in the Minister's press release and in the document that was published yesterday. The Minister referred to the waste
1184
management plans which are designed to improve port waste reception facilities and to encourage shipowners to use them instead of dumping their waste at sea. That is a commendable suggestion. However, following consultation, the Minister is proposing to introduce that on a voluntary basis, reserving the right to introduce a mandatory requirement if that breaks down. Given that we are not talking simply about British flagged ships, but about flags of convenience which show little regard for voluntary systems, why should the Minister believe that a voluntary system is likely to have any real effect? I repeat that it is not only British ships which use British ports, but those of many other nations.
The Minister said in the statement that parliamentary approval for the plan would be sought at the earliest opportunity if it was necessary to make it a mandatory requirement. I believe that it is necessary to introduce a mandatory requirement in any case, but can the Minister say anything about the bid that he will make in the next Session of Parliament—if we have one, which is a moot point? We would wish to pursue that proposal when we take office after the next election.
The Minister spoke about the scale of charges. It is a difficult question, as I recognise. Can he say what scale of charges he has in mind? Will the ports he able to discharge those expenses? What consultation is going on within the EU? I doubt very much whether we can expect to make rapid progress within the IMO, but perhaps we can hope for some more purposive efforts to be made within the EU.
Is there any reason to suppose that mandatory requirements in relation to the regime for waste disposal and the enforcement of marine pollution regulations that the Minister has in mind are being applied elsewhere in the EU at present? Having asked those questions and been a little critical—not very much—I hope that the Minister recognises that we shall use our best endeavours to ensure that the proposals he is putting forward, for which I once again thank him, and which are essentially constructive and helpful, will be a positive support for cleaner seas round the coasts of the
UK. I thank the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with the matter.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I shall attempt to be brief. I do not have many questions to add to the large number which have already been asked. We welcome the first two draft orders relating to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Sea-Bed Tribunal. I too should like to know how soon we are likely to complete our accession to the convention.
On the merchant shipping order, I understand that in relation to the North Sea lines will he drawn on the map which will divide the North Sea into regulatory zones according to each nation which borders onto the North Sea. I managed to get in touch with one of the Minister's officials. I wonder whether there is going to be a hole in the middle of the North Sea. I hope there will not be. One could imagine a sort of doughnut of orders with a gap in the middle. I hope that that has not happened. I imagine also that there will be a much greater

1185
extension of our zone and those of other nations towards the Atlantic Ocean. I see from noble Lords shaking their heads that that will not happen. I shall be interested to hear how it will be done. That comes under Article 2 of the order.
I welcome the fact that we and other nations will be able to exercise greater control over pollution by merchant vessels at sea. I support the power to fine up to £50,000 which I gather to be attached to the order. The important matter which was referred to earlier is the prevention of such merchant vessels from discharging at sea by encouraging them to discharge at ports. However, I am not satisfied with the idea that ports will not be obliged to make a waste disposal plan. A large number of other companies—a port is a large company—are obliged to do so in the context of local government and so on. The disposal of waste is a serious issue, no matter where it is generated. It is becoming more and more serious with every day that passes. So I hope that we can move to a satisfactory regime in that respect.
The one question I have to ask is whether it is presently in the Minister's mind to enable ports which have such regimes to charge vessels entering their ports in such a way that vessels are encouraged, because they have had to pay for the discharge process in any case, to discharge their waste inside and not outside the port.
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in the end, we have had a rather different discussion from that which occurred in Standing Committee in another place. I welcome that, because we have had an opportunity to discuss a number of important issues surrounding marine pollution and the measures that we are taking to prevent it. I welcome the remarks on that subject made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas.
The noble Lord asked me a number of questions. He was good enough to let me know in advance the subjects that he wanted to raise in the debate. It might be helpful if I said in the first instance that the package of measures that we have announced will go a great deal of the way towards addressing the problem of pollution from vessels. A number of intricate questions were asked. Some were to do with charging and some to do with the facilities being provided. I hope that I shall be able to deal with them during the course of my remarks.
The important point is that ships should discharge their waste, be it garbage, oily waste, chemicals, noxious substances, or whatever, in properly provided facilities in port rather than chuck them over the side when they are at sea, which is always the easy option. Our enforcement to stop that so-called easy option will be a major plank of the regulations.
The noble Lord raised the issue of whether some of the provisions contained in the convention are not already part of the legal system, agreements or arrangements. The noble Lord is right. Many of the provisions are now customary in international law, but the law is obviously much more certain when agreed internationally by the convention. It confirms a number
1186
of those points. I can confirm that the authority will not be a high spending body. It will be of modest size, but we hope very effective.
The noble Lord also asked me whether we would establish the exclusive economic zone. The rights and obligations given by the convention are more important than just the name. As the noble Lord said, we have had a 200-mile fisheries zone since 1976. The Continental Shelf, which extends beyond 200 miles, is regulated by its own Act—the Continental Shelf Act 1964.
The prevention of pollution order will allow the UK to declare jurisdiction over marine pollution out to 200 miles. We are considering the case for the declaration of a zone. I believe that is the answer to the noble Lord's question. We shall, of course, keep that firmly under review. We have already exercised most of the rights covered by that zone.
I was asked by both speakers when we will accede to the convention. We have, of course, already announced our intention to do so. The Government will be in a position to accede to the convention once the remaining necessary procedures have been completed. Most of the legislation to give effect to the convention is already in place. The consideration of these orders this evening is an important part of that process.
The noble Lord inquired about sources of pollution. He welcomed what we are doing to address pollution from vessels, but asked about pollution from land. That is a different and bigger subject, but I happened to glance at a few figures which were incorporated within the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. I understand that an estimate has been made about the sources of pollution. In that document we see that waterborne land source pollution accounts for about 44 per cent. of the total; airborne land pollution some 33 per cent.; marine transportation some 12 per cent.; marine dumping, which is mainly land source waste, some 10 per cent.; and offshore oil production some 1 per cent. That reinforces the point which the noble Lord made about the degree of the problem from pollution coming from the land. It is an issue that we address on a number of different fronts. That is not to say that the 12 per cent. which comes from marine transportation, according to this particular estimate, is not important. We must do everything we can to address that matter.
The noble Lord asked me about enforcement, which is a key issue. It is vital that we enforce the provisions effectively and a number of tools are available to us. Aerial surveillance is extremely important. It is not the only method but it is one of the tools at our disposal. Masters of ships should be aware that the whole of our sea is regularly patrolled by remote sensing aircraft and we will continue to pursue aerial surveillance. It is an extremely good deterrent and it is also helpful for distinguishing the various vessels which are responsible for the pollution.
The other aspect of enforcement relates to the Marine Safety Agency, a matter that was raised. I believe that the agency has a good record in port state control which is an issue that we pursue according to the provisions of

1187
the Paris Memorandum of Understanding. We inspect some 30 per cent. of vessels when our obligation is to inspect some 25 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, invited me to give an assurance as regards the continuing effectiveness of both the Marine Safety Agency and the Coastguard Agency. Of course I can give that firm assurance. Both agencies do a splendid job and I can give an absolute assurance that they will continue to perform their roles, which are safety and pollution related. The Coastguard has a marine pollution control unit which is a valuable resource in combating pollution.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I expected him to give that assurance, but how does it weigh against the serious depletion in the numbers of an already depleted MSA and Coastguard? It is difficult to reconcile the further incursions as regards the number of people employed against the essential criteria of safety, which I know the Minister respects. However, I fear that the Treasury may have a serious effect upon his thinking.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we must judge by results, and the results put out by both agencies in terms of the work that they have done over the past years show chat they have been extremely good at their jobs of enforcing safety measures and of co-ordinating search and rescue. In consideration of the budgets, at the top of our list of objectives is to maintain an efficient and proper service for people who go to sea and to prevent pollution. That will continue to be the case and, as requested, I can give an assurance about that.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised the issue of fines. It is important that we seek powers to raise the level of fines. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to Draconian penalties but believe that a big stick is indeed required in this case because we have often seen some serious incidents. Having the ability to fine people a large sum of money is extremely beneficial in terms of the tools at our disposal.
I turn to the waste management plans. Of the package that was announced, that is the key measure, and where we see planning between all the bodies involved. On a number of occasions insufficient information is available about the facilities provided at each port; for instance, whether there is a facility for receiving oily waste, noxious substances, chemicals or whatever. The consultation that was undertaken with the industries—and I stress the plural—was long and took into account a wide spectrum of organisations. It was considered to be the most effective method and I believe that it will produce major benefits. We have said that initially the plan will be introduced on a voluntary basis and at the earliest opportunity we will be seeking powers to make a mandatory requirement for the facilities and the planning stage that we have spoken about. I referred to the earliest opportunity and we will have to see when that is. There are a number of issues in the merchant shipping world that can perhaps be brought together with legislation. I believe that the issue of waste reception facilities is important and it should have its due priority.
1188
The best way to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, is to send her a map. It is not easy to describe accurately any potential holes about which she might be concerned. I will write to the noble Baroness with a map. I hope that that will give her confidence hut, if not, perhaps she will be good enough to come back to me.
I hope that I have covered the majority of the points. If I have not, and I will look through the record, I will write to the noble Lords concerned. I believe that the orders we are considering tonight are important. They add a great deal to our ability to govern the sea properly and to ensure the minimum pollution possible. I commend the orders to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

International Sea-Bed Authority (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1995
7.56 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) (Law of the Sea Convention) Order 1995
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.58 to 8.15 p.m.]

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 19 [Interpretation of Part 1 etc.]:
[Amendment No. 163B not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 10, line 12, at end insert—
(""mediation" means family mediation conducted by a person accredited as a mediator in family mediation to an organisation which is concerned with such mediation and which is approved for the purposes of this Part by the Lord Chancellor;").
The noble Baroness said: On the groupings list, Amendments Nos. 164 and 169 are down as having been dealt with. Unless I was fast asleep I did not deal with them and I therefore deal with them now. I will take Amendment No. 164 together with Amendment No. 171.
Both the National Family Mediation and the Family Mediators Association are currently regulated by their own joint code of practice, and we discussed the question of codes of practice earlier. The mediation organisations consider it important that, in addition to a code of practice, there should be a structure of accountability to ensure that the public can be certain that the standards of mediation are high and will remain high. That is in line with what my noble and learned friend has set out in paragraph 6 of the White Paper Looking to the Future.
There are two amendments because Part I of the Bill deals with the introduction of mediation into the divorce process and Part II deals with the legal aid funding of mediation through the Legal Aid Board. In Part I it is important that every couple referred to mediation should know that the mediator will be an accredited mediator. In Part II it is important that public money—legal aid funds—should go only to accredited mediators. One of the organisations which may be referred to in these amendments is the newly-formed United Kingdom College of Family Mediators. However, it is a new body and it is not at present clear whether it will regulate all the mediation carried out in the United Kingdom. Possibly other regulatory bodies will come into being.
That is the reason for the rather convoluted language of the amendments, which is drawn from the Civil Evidence (Family Mediation) (Scotland) Act 1995 which was taken so ably through your Lordships' House last year by my noble friend the Baroness Carnegy of Lour. We should not presume necessarily to lift legislative language from the Scots, but where they have succeeded we might well follow. I am sure my noble and learned friend will agree.
If my noble and learned friend agrees with me that something similar to these amendments should appear in the Bill, one amendment to cover both Parts I and II, perhaps with rather shorter wording, would be welcome.
As to mediation itself, I regret that there seems to be some misunderstanding of what is involved. It is true that mediation begins when couples have come to the conclusion that their marriage has ended, but it is not true that the mediation process is insensitive or unprofessional, as some have felt it necessary to imply.
Always at the outset of mediation, the mediator will explore with the couple, either separately or together, whether they are really convinced that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. If there is any indication that that may not be the case, the couple will be referred for
1190
marriage guidance if they are willing. If the marriage has indeed broken down, infinite pains are taken with the couple to work out arrangements for the children with the best interests of the latter forming the basis of these often very painful discussions.
The mediators carrying out such work are all carefully selected according to strict criteria. They receive both broad training in core skills and specialist training in particular areas, such as consultation with children and screening for domestic violence, as well as the technicalities of financial and other practical matters. After training, they are supervised for a considerable period before being accredited; but they are not accredited if they do not reach the standards required. The current training methods and requirements for standards are similar to those adopted in the United States of America and the rest of Europe, as well as being in line with the approach taken in the United Kingdom. Mediation in this country is carried out to very high standards. The amendments would ensure that those standards are maintained and that the public would know that the standards are high. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I fully understand what my noble friend wishes to achieve. I believe that it will be clear that public money will not go to any body or profession, except in so far as they are satisfactory to the Legal Aid Board which will be working on the Lord Chancellor's behalf in that connection. As I said earlier—and I believe that this is right—it would be a good idea for the Lord Chancellor to have power under the Bill to make a code of practice which might well be along the lines of that which the professional bodies will issue. Nevertheless, it would be quite good for the Lord Chancellor to have such a power. In my view, it would be right for the Legal Aid Board to be confined to those services which acted in accordance with, and adopted, the code. As with legal services, we would wish to have arrangements under which the quality would be of a proper kind.
The first part of the Bill is a little more difficult to regulate. Outside people who want to start up a service could offer such services to people; indeed, they may have different ways of doing so. The public would be able to know which bodies were approved by the Lord Chancellor and the Legal Aid Board for the purposes of legal aid. Therefore, they would have confidence in contacting them. However, I feel somewhat reluctant to attempt to regulate the whole profession. I say that because it is a developing profession and, just as is the case with the legal profession, it would be quite wrong to regulate it at government level. I do not believe that the Government should be in the position of, so to speak, dictating to the profession precisely how it should go about matters.
On the other hand, where public money is being used for the purpose of purchasing particular services, it is clear that the Government need to be satisfied on behalf of the public purse that that is an appropriate position. Therefore, I intend to make it clear that the legal aid money—that is, in the second part of the Bill—is regulated in that way. Nevertheless, in the light of what I have said in relation to the first part, I hope that my

1191
noble friend will feel that it would be right to allow that to develop and give people the indication that there will be services which are provided for legal aid which would also be available for other people and which would, therefore, have a stamp of quality upon them. That might be a reasonable guarantee to people that the services were of the appropriate standard.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank my noble and learned friend for that explanation. I agree with him as regards the second part, but, as for the first part, I think that it is most important, even at the beginning of the service, that the public should have complete confidence in the mediators. It is also important that the professional people working in the field should have complete confidence and that the mediators are well trained and accredited.
I understand that my noble and learned friend feels that such a task should not be undertaken by his or any other government department. I shall, therefore, give thought to the matter and discuss with the mediation service how the public could be helped to understand that it is a professional service; as, indeed, it is. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 165 to 167 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Connected proceedings]:
[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 169 not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
Clause 21 [Legal Aid for mediation in family matters]:
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 169A:
Page 11, line 15, after ("to") insert ("reconciliation or").
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 169B to 169D, 171A to 171E, 172A and 175A to 175E. I grouped the amendments together because there is a link which runs through all of them and it is quite just that they should be dealt with as a group. The aim of the amendments is to promote the possibility of reconciliation right up until the time of divorce. I first mooted the question of reconciliation at Second Reading. Since then I have received shoals of correspondence. That carried on right up until the Committee stage and the very first amendment. From the correspondence that I have received from organisations and individuals, I am convinced that there is an overwhelming desire for reconciliation to form part of the Bill.
Therefore, my amendments want to take the matter to the last stage. In promoting reconciliation, I want to provide legal aid for such services. I want to encourage reconciliation during the first six months after one or both of the spouses have made a statement of marriage breakdown. My amendments would provide for the funding of reconciliation on the same basis as applies for mediation. If a person's financial circumstances
1192
qualify him for legal aid in mediation, then he would automatically qualify for legal aid for reconciliation purposes. In Amendment No. 171D, I am restricting the legal aid funding for mediation during the first six months of the one-year waiting period.
Amendment No. 171E makes it clear that reconciliation is voluntary. Both parties and the counsellor must consent before legal aid funding can be used. I know that I do not have to go into a long and lengthy speech about the need for reconciliation, as I have already made two or three such speeches which, I believe, attracted some support even from the Opposition Front Bench. Indeed, on the first day of Committee I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg say that the Bill did not promote reconciliation and that he felt it ought to do so. Of course, he is quite right. I welcome his support.
The amendments would guarantee funding for reconciliation as of right to every person who is also qualified for mediation funding. Funding for reconciliation services is vital. People who qualify for legal aid will be able to use the conciliation or mediation service.
There was a lengthy discussion on mediation in relation to Amendment No. 162. We heard the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Reconciliation is not dealt with adequately in that amendment because it deals with organisations. I agree that organisations concerned with reconciliation should be funded, whether or not they are affiliated to the Church. Amendment No. 162 does not give any guarantees to individuals that they will be assisted in the process of reconciliation. It is essential that individuals are consulted and given the opportunity to seek reconciliation and that they can obtain legal aid for that process. The amendments deal specifically with the needs of individuals and their entitlements.
The right reverend Prelate supported Amendment No. 162. We have been critical of some statements that have been made by the right reverend Prelates, but some of us are worried about what they have not said and that they have not been taking any lead in saving marriages. That is the concern, how to save marriages.
It has been stated that the first marriage failed because children did not listen to parents, and that the second marriage was a far better marriage. My experience is not dissimilar. I have discovered that first marriages often break up because children did not listen to their parents' advice and the second marriage was a success because they realised that they should have listened to parents in the first place. That is a slightly different slant to the matter, but there are as many cases of that as for other reasons.
From my research I have found that the state spends over £3 billion per year on the consequences of divorce. If the amendments are carried, they will save marriages and save money. Income support and social security benefits, for example, will be saved, so saving marriages is more economic for the Government than financing the consequences of divorce.
I ask that the amendments be given serious consideration. They can be included in the Bill as they are because they are very simple and self-explanatory. We have debated the need for reconciliation. Amendment No. 175E puts legal aid funding for reconciliation on the same basis as mediation, and I do not think there can be any argument about that.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will accept the amendments; if not, I shall be grateful if he can give reasons as to why they cannot be accepted. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I am a patron of the National Mediation Service together with the noble Lord, Lord Habgood. I have spent some time with the officers of that service and I understand that the purpose of mediation is to help people to come to terms amicably with what will happen to the assets, the children, living arrangements et cetera. That is quite different from the specific reconciliation that is done by the voluntary organisations mentioned in Amendment No. 162.
Mediation has a different goal from that of reconciliation. I understand that a proportion of those involved in mediation withdraw when they know what is involved in mediation and divorce. Therefore, by a strange quirk there is an element of reconciliation, but that is not the goal of mediation.
Baroness Young: I support the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, on these very important amendments. They are in line with amendments that I moved at an earlier stage in Committee. Many noble Lords are concerned that the Bill does not find a place for reconciliation in the timetable that is set out in the process of divorce. My noble friend Lady Faithfull has pointed out that mediation is not the same as reconciliation but it is concerned with the division of assets. It may be possible to divide them up in a more amicable way than in a court but, nevertheless, that is its purpose.
As I understand the matter, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor hopes that at some stage in the mediation process something will happen and the mediator can stop the process and say, you should go to reconciliation because all is well. Noble Lords should be very pleased that a proportion of couples attending mediation withdraw. One of the more encouraging statistics that we have heard is that between 20,000 and 30,000 couples per year contemplate divorce, stop and return to their marriages.
Reconciliation, which is a different process, is not included in the Bill. The amendments address this point and ask for reconciliation and that it should be funded from legal aid. Noble Lords know the costs involved in divorce and the figure will probably rise as a result of the Bill. Relatively small sums are spent in supporting marriage, which would be a more useful exercise. Therefore, if we are going to take the matter seriously it should be given support. Can the noble and learned Lord look at the amendments in relation to Amendment No. 162 which concerns support for marriage services?
1194
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made an extremely important point about the tax system in relation to Amendment No. 162. If we are really serious about wanting to do something to reverse divorce we should first have a complete overhaul of the tax and benefits system. One is constantly sent papers which indicate that married couples are in many ways greatly disadvantaged by the tax and benefits system and that married couples are paying for other cohabiting couples or single parents. This is not the time to go into that aspect and I do not intend to. However, I leave the matter with my noble and learned friend because I believe that we should consider this matter very seriously indeed if we want to do something about it.
Not only should we state that we believe in marriage, we believe in supporting marriage. We do not believe in making divorce easier—as I think the Bill does—and we should have a tax and benefits system which supports marriage. We should make that point absolutely clear. I am happy to support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. We must probe with an open mind into the causes of the breakdown of marriage. There must be no holds barred. The issue is far more important than some of those we have debated in this House. I very much support what has been said. I am glad to do so because I am sorry when Christian people disagree over a matter such as the Bill.
I hope that the word "reconciliation" can appear somewhere in the Bill. However, the point about mediation is that it encourages people to enter into it with perhaps an open mind. If the word "reconciliation" is used from the start, people feel that the issue has been prejudged and they will not begin to consider the consequences. When they do consider those consequences, with the terrible uprooting for them and the children, and the investment that they have put into their marriage over 15 or 20 years, then they often seek reconciliation. But the word "mediation" is used because it has an attractive appeal to those who wish to enter into it, to begin with, with an open mind.
At Second Reading, I cited that research indicated that 50 per cent. of men and 30 per cent. of women regretted that they went for divorce. People are divorcing in haste and repenting at leisure. Mediation is an endeavour to prevent that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I listened carefully and with great interest to the intervention by the right reverend Prelate. However, I have to disagree with him. My noble friend Lord Stallard is seeking to put the horse before the cart. In other words, he seeks to say that before the irreconcilable breakdown of marriage—we have been told that mediation means arranging the consequences of the breakdown of the marriage—we want to try to reconcile the differences between the husband and wife in order that they do not have to reach the mediation stage. We believe that that is the way to save marriages. Once one has gone to the mediation stage one has accepted that reconciliation may not be possible.

1195
I am sorry to disagree with the right reverend Prelate. I have said a few unkind words about the Church during the course of debates. However, the reason is that I believe that too many institutions, as we have heard so often in debates, say, "We have to take things as they are". That is an abrogation of leadership. If the Church is not about leadership, politics is not about leadership, the House of Commons is not about leadership, the Prime Minister is not about leadership, and the Lord Chancellor is not about leadership, what are we here for?
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I quite agree on leadership. But if a colonel says to the troops, "Over the top, lads" and turns round to find that they have not come with him, is that leadership?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: You do not lead by following. That is precisely what so many institutions have been doing. Instead of leading they have been following. Instead of pointing to the right road, they have allowed people to take the wrong road without correction. I believe that that is the fundamental flaw about this Bill.
My noble friend's amendments make some attempt to say, "Isn't there something you can do to save this marriage?" As I said, he is trying to put the horse before the cart; and I believe, as always, that that is the proper place for the horse to be.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Elles: I support the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. The wording is difficult. The right reverend Prelate said that reconciliation already implies that the marriage has broken down. But how many couples do we know who say that they would like to speak to some independent person, perhaps not connected with "marriage guidance", or using the word "reconciliation", but providing the work of reconciliation?
Lord Stallard: The noble Baroness seems to say that reconciliation means that the marriage has broken down. It is the opposite. Mediation starts when the marriage has broken down. According to the Bill, the White Paper and elsewhere, when one person says that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, mediation starts then. They start to discuss property, money, access and so on. Reconciliation is in the opposite direction. It starts before the breakdown point is reached to see whether the issue can be resolved before the marriage breaks down.
Baroness Elles: I do not think that the noble Lord quite heard what I said. I said that the right reverend Prelate had said that reconciliation was the stage at which the marriage was breaking down. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, I believe that reconciliation should come long before that stage is reached. It is the nomenclature of organisations available for so many young people who wish to be able to turn to a third party for advice. I support the amendments.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may ask a brief question arising from the amendment. I believe that the noble and
1196
learned Lord is anxious that no one should be unable to go for conciliation through lack of money. Under Amendment No. 162, when the Lord Chancellor obtains his money from the Treasury will it be allocated in such a way that people who really cannot afford to pay for reconciliation will be able to obtain it free? It is an important point. We do not want anyone excluded from reconciliation through inability to pay.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I, too, support the amendment. The more our discussions proceed, the more apparent it is that these terms need to be statutorily defined.
Mediation was described accurately by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. It is a preparation for, or, better still, a substitute for litigation. Mediation helps parties to narrow and, if possible, to resolve the issues between them. In so far as it does not succeed completely, the matter has to go for adjudication.
Reconciliation is quite different. It is designed to bring together the parties whose marriage is in crisis so that their life together can be reconstituted. I agree that it is particularly necessary at the earliest stage of crisis. It is also very necessary at the last stage, when the parties see what divorce might involve for them. It should also be available throughout. I draw particular attention to what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, told us on the last occasion—that in Scotland the reconciliatory agent and the mediator occupy the same office. Thus at any moment there is a chance of reconciliation.
However, mediation is quite different and, as I see it, a substitute for adjudication, helping the parties to resolve their differences. If they succeed, it is likely to be much more successful than anything that is imposed by the court. That was always my experience as regards children. Practically anything that the parties agreed was better for the children than anything one imposed on them.
Mediation goes beyond children. It is particularly relevant to the property and financial differences involved in the fall-out from a divorce. To my mind, what the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, suggested is entirely salutary, except that it points to the necessity for definition of the terms.
The Lord Chancellor: Reconciliation is highly desirable. It is a misunderstanding to suggest that there is not already reference to it in the Bill. It underlies the statement in the heading about the period for reflection and consideration,
"to reflect on whether the marriage can be saved".
In the plainest words that I can find, it makes it clear that there must be an attempt to reconcile. If it does not, if that is not what it means, then I do not understand English.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Will my noble and learned friend agree that the difference between mediation and reconciliation is that there is an outside agent which

1197
helps? Whether the marriage can be saved is left to the parties themselves, but they can be helped. That is the difference.
The Lord Chancellor: I believe that reconciliation is an outcome; namely, that the difficult differences between the parties have been resolved. That is what reconciliation is. It is not a process but a result. I would happily pay for it if I could be sure that that was always the result, but sadly it is not the situation. The purpose is to reflect on whether the marriage can be saved. I have explained or sought to explain that the purpose of the information session is to draw people's attention to the services that are available to help them in that connection. It will include outside help with reflecting on whether the marriage can be saved.
As regards mediation, as my noble and learned friend and others said, it is a process under which people consider—in substitution for litigation—what the future has for them if they should go forward to divorce. As I have often said and as has been agreed by a number of speakers, that may well be the best way of effecting reconciliation late in the day.
The point about reconciliation is that it may be helped by services such as marriage counselling or other types of counselling. I gave some examples earlier and will not repeat them because it is desirable to make progress, if we can. As regards marriage guidance, it is quite wrong to think of it as applying only after a statement has been lodged that the marriage has broken down. The best hope for marriage guidance and help is before one comes to that stage, when people are in crisis. Therefore, to give special funding to marriage guidance, which is resorted to at the end, is to invite people to go to the end in order to obtain the funding.
A great variety of services are needed in this connection. For example, I mentioned bereavement counselling in some situations. Those services are better provided by voluntary organisations funded by grants. As I said earlier in the debate, many provide people with services for nothing, sometimes there is a donation, sometimes charging is in accordance with a sliding scale, depending on people's needs. Many people who find themselves in this situation could well afford to secure the services themselves. So I do not think it right to use the mechanism of legal aid for the purposes of helping to pay for marriage guidance or counselling. That is better done by funding a voluntary body. I shall take good care that the voluntary bodies which are funded to provide such services receive the funding on the basis that they attempt to get into the situation as early as possible and do not wait until the process of divorce has been begun.
Although I understand well the spirit behind the amendments, I do not believe that they are appropriate in the circumstances of this case, because I believe that help coming early is best. Therefore, to put a premium on later marriage guidance is not suitable. What is suitable is that organisations which provide the kind of support I have described should be given grants and left to make their own decision as to how the priorities in respect of providing their services should be determined.
1198
As my noble and learned friend Lord Simon said, referring to something which my noble friend Lady Faithful] said earlier, I too believe that it is a good idea to treat marriage counselling and mediation as complementary. There are combined services in Scotland as well as a combined counselling and mediation service in Northern Ireland. There are six combined services in England and Wales, with others being developed. So there is a degree of complementary development taking place.
I strongly support the idea that the parties should try to be reconciled. My train of thought was slightly broken, I referred earlier to Clause 7 and said that at the very start of the process there was a period in which to reflect on whether the marriage can be saved. Then I provide for breaking the period off, stopping it if parties require time to attempt reconciliation. The word "reconciliation" is in the Bill in terms. I believe that it comes twice in the provisions. So it is referred to and I intend to refer to it again in relation to the code that I hope to have for mediation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I have been reflecting on what he said about reflection while he was speaking. I cannot reconcile reflection with reconciliation. The noble and learned Lord has not convinced me that they mean the same thing. If they do, would he have any objection to re-heading Clause 7 "reconciliation"? Would that meet his point?
The Lord Chancellor: No, the two are quite different. The purpose of reflecting is so that the marriage can be saved. Let us suppose that a marriage is in difficulty and then the marriage is saved. I do not know how the noble Lord would describe that, but for my part I am perfectly prepared to describe it as reconciliation. If a marriage has broken down and then that marriage is saved, that has resulted in reconciliation. That is precisely what Clause 7(1)(a) is about. As my noble and learned friend Lord Simon said, people may need help to become reconciled; they may need help with reflection; they may need help in a number of ways. That help is marriage counselling or a marriage support service of some kind.
9 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can assist the Committee on this point. He indicated earlier that a reason for withholding legal aid for attempting reconciliation was that the reconciliation might not succeed. Legal aid will be available for mediation which may not succeed. Why, therefore, should it not be available for attempted reconciliation which may not succeed? What is the rationale of making legal aid available for mediation but then, if the mediation has to stop because the mediator learns from the parties that they would like to attempt a reconciliation, continuing to make public money available for the ongoing process

1199
of mediation but not available to assist them in attempting a reconciliation when they have indicated that they desire to make that attempt?
The Lord Chancellor: I do not believe I said the reason was that it might not succeed. If I did, I certainly cannot think of a context in which I would say that. No doubt Hansard will tell me. Obviously, I am not reading from a piece of paper.
The rationale is this. Mediation is at the stage where people are considering, the marriage having broken down, what arrangements should be made for the future. That is a substitute for litigation. Therefore, it is appropriate that legal aid should be available. But attempts at reconciliation and the services that assist in that are available not only at that stage but much earlier. People often meet with crises in their marriage before there is any thought of divorce. That is the best time for them to use the service and get help. Therefore, there should be no distinction between the treatment given for reconciliation attempts and the assistance available for that at whichever time in the history of the marriage it comes along. Consequently, I believe that it is right to provide the same system for help in reconciliation at whatever stage in the marriage that help may be required.
To provide help at the expense of the state only at the late stage is to invert the priorities, when the more successful attempts at reconciliation are more likely to be at earlier stages in the crisis. Those are the reasons why the situation in regard to reconciliation is quite different from the question of providing mediation, which is in effect a substitute for the legal process because the issues that are the subject matter of mediation are themselves justiciable.
Lord Stallard: I thank all who participated in this short debate and offered support. The whole matter is becoming more and more confused as the two words are bandied about as though they were interchangeable. They are not. I do not even accept that reconciliation is the end of the process. The end of the process of reconciliation is that the couple are reconciled. That is the difference. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that reconciliation was the end of the process. It is not. It is the beginning of a period of discussion to see whether the marriage can be saved. If the period that I call reconciliation is successful and if, at the end, the parties are reconciled, there is no need for mediation. That process of reconciliation should be funded and encouraged if we are really serious about saving marriages. If we are concerned only with speeding up divorce, or making it tidier and easier for divorce to take place, reconciliation will not be needed. But if we are serious about saving marriages, there has to be a period during which people can attempt reconciliation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 169B to 171 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Provision and availability of mediation]:
[Amendments Nos. 171A to 171E not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 12, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert ("and the parties suitable to the dispute having regard to all the circumstances of the case").
The noble and learned Lord said: Once again the Committee is confronted with a grouping for which the kindest adjective that springs to mind is "eccentric". The Committee may, however, wish to discuss with this amendment Amendments Nos. 173 to 175, 176 and 178. Amendment No. 177, in the name of my noble friend Lord Irvine will he spoken to by him separately when its turn is reached on the Marshalled List.
I think the most helpful way in which I can introduce this debate is to speak specifically to the two amendments standing in my name. I do not think there is any way in which one can give a preface, as it were, to the whole of this debate. Other Members of the Committee will then speak to amendments standing in their names.
Amendment No. 172 may appear to be a drafting amendment. It is proposed in order to emphasise what I hope is the intention of the clause. First, the intention, I hope, is that mediation is not to proceed unless it appears appropriate not only to the mediator but also the parties. Secondly, and separately, I hope that the intention is to bring into prominence the requirement that deciding whether it is appropriate depends on the circumstances.
I hesitate to say for the hundredth time that we are discussing mediation and not conciliation. I hope that there is not a danger1 that, like so many other admirable remedies mediation may become the automatic answer to every problem, even after the proceedings have begun. There is a danger that one has a Pavlovian reaction whenever confronted with the question of what to do next.
National Family Mediation points out that some situations do not admit of mediation. It says that it is possible to categorise a number of types of situation in which, from the outset, one can say that it is not appropriate.
First, it says that the dispute may be incapable of being negotiated because, for example, the parties are not agreed on the facts. Someone may have to agree with one of the parties and simply adjudicate on what are the facts. Secondly, there may be irreversible imbalances of power; for example, where there is domestic violence or where a woman from a minority ethnic group may find culturally that she is not in a position to be able to bargain with her husband. Thirdly, one of the parties may suffer from some mental or other impairment, with the result that he or she cannot meaningfully negotiate. Fourthly, one of the parties may feel coerced if he or she had to attend any kind of mediation process. Fifthly, there may be criminal child protection issues.
There one can categorise the situations. One simply looks at the situation and says that mediation is not appropriate in that case. But, of course, there are other

1201
situations which depend on the attitude of the parties. Even when the case does not fall into one of those categories, National Family Mediation emphasises that the case may not be suitable for mediation if one partner, even after agreeing to participate, demonstrates a lack of commitment by failing to keep appointments, to produce the necessary information or to abide by any agreements which have been made. I doubt whether any of that is controversial. I do not believe that we need a vote on whether there are situations which do not readily admit of mediation. But there has been some anxiety expressed in the country that the Government are anxious to make mediation a blanket remedy to the exclusion of such other remedies as legal advice.
I know that that is not the intention. The noble and learned Lord has said very helpfully on more than one occasion that one looks to see what is appropriate. I hope that he can assist by saying that today, and that he can assure the Committee that, if he pursues his suggestion—I believe that it was his own suggestion—to issue a code of conduct for mediators, he will include a specific direction to mediators to direct their minds to those questions at the outset.
May I make one other suggestion which may not fall squarely within the intent of this amendment. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could include in the code a requirement that the mediator "shall make known" to the parties the availability of legal advice where that is appropriate and advise them to go down that path. That deals with Amendment No. 172.
Amendment No. 173 is directed to a very different question, although it relates to mediation. I suppose that that is why it has been included within this suggested grouping. It is intended to suggest a better mechanism than is found in the Bill for the collection of whatever contribution is assessed from the legally assisted party when legal aid is granted for mediation. The Bill proposes that it should be paid directly to the mediator. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are more familiar with this matter than I am, but as I understand it, when legal aid is granted for legal advice and assistance from a solicitor, any contribution that is levied is paid not to the solicitor but to the Legal Aid Board which, in due course, pays the solicitor his or her proper costs and fees.
That has two fairly obvious advantages. First, the Legal Aid Board is likely to have a more cost effective mechanism for collecting what is due. Collecting money, as we all know in a number of contexts, requires letters and accountancy processes and reminders. All that costs money. So there is a cost element in the process of collecting. If the contribution is a small one, the cost of collecting it may be in danger of becoming disproportionate to the amount to be collected. Is it not better, I ask rhetorically, to use machinery which is already in place and to take advantage of the experience of the Legal Aid Board? That is the first reason behind the amendment.
Secondly, and even more importantly, if the recipient of legal aid and advice is in arrear with the contribution instalments, the solicitor who is doing the work for the assisted person may be required to cease doing any
1202
further work or incurring any further costs. It is the Legal Aid Board which notifies the solicitor and then takes whatever other action is necessary to see whether it is possible to recover the contribution. If the solicitor had to collect the contributions and then remind his or her own client that he or she was in arrear and that if those contributions were not paid further services would cease, it might create an undesirable conflict of interest for the solicitor. I assume that that is one reason why collection is carried out by the Legal Aid Board.
So a question naturally occurs and it is this: is there any distinction for that purpose between the position of the solicitor and the mediator? May the mediator, too, not be faced with that kind of conflict of interest? These were the considerations which were common both to National Family Mediation and the Law Society when they made representations on this issue.
From National Family Mediation there comes one further consideration, which is this. If the mediator can look forward to a block payment from the Legal Aid Board for a whole sector of work, then it can be sure of a cash flow and can plan its workload, investment in training and staffing. Therefore, for all these reasons it appears better that payment from clients should be received and processed by the Legal Aid Board.
I have added my name to Amendment No. 174, but it stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I think it would be more sensible if I were to leave its introduction to her, reserving the right to say that I agree with her, if that arises. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, has acted as the straight man for my amendment. I agree with what he has said as regards Amendments Nos. 172 and 173. He may have different reasons for promoting Amendment No. 174 as regards the statutory charge which applies when someone gains or retains property in dispute as a result of services provided by the Legal Aid Board, with the board having a charge on that property so that it can claw back its payment in respect of the services.
In the information guide published by the Lord Chancellor's Department on this Bill the comment is made that:
"The statutory charge will not apply to mediation costs from the outset of the new system because the application of the charge is complicated and the Government and the Legal Aid Board will want to monitor how mediation works in practice before deciding how best to implement the statutory charge for mediation costs".
I read that paragraph because it seems to me that it is not quite what Clause 23(4) provides. It states "Regulations may provide" for the statutory charge. If the noble and learned Lord's view was that the statutory charge should apply but that the mechanism by which it should be implemented was to be considered, that is something rather different.
If there is no statutory charge, there is a danger of penalising those who cannot pay rather than those who will not pay. Clearly there are those for whom mediation is unsuitable—that has been agreed during the course of the debate—such as victims of domestic violence.

1203
Certain people for whom mediation may not be suitable may, through no fault of their own, be liable to repay their costs whereas others will not.
It is worth considering whether those in receipt of legal aid should have a financial stake in the outcome of the matter in order to encourage a cost-effective approach to mediation in the same way as one must consider a cost-effective approach to litigation. I recognise that I am treading on sensitive ground in making that statement, but it is certainly a matter worth considering.
Also, if the statutory charge were not to apply, it might be regarded as being a financial incentive to mediate, or rather not to negotiate or litigate. I am concerned that mediation through the back-door, as it were, may come to be regarded as compulsory when it is agreed that, though desirable, it should not be compulsory. For those reasons and also in order to discover whether the intention is that there should he a statutory charge, with the implementation as a matter to be considered, or whether this is still an open matter, I have put down this amendment.
Lord Meston: In fully supporting every remark made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, may I also speak to my amendments in this group, beginning with the second, No. 176, which is designed to moderate in some way the provisions of Clause 24. Clause 24 provides that legal aid for representation will generally riot be granted because mediation is considered more appropriate than taking proceedings, except in classes of proceedings or other circumstances to be prescribed. That means that a party of modest means will not have a straight choice between mediation and legal representation, and it is really part of the pressure for mediation which was referred to earlier in our debate in relation to Clauses 12 and 13. It overlooks the fact that lawyers are often the best mediators, particularly in financial disputes. I would readily accept that mediation has an increasing respectability, but I suggest that the presumption in favour of mediation should be modified until the workings of this Bill are tried and tested in practice. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred, quite properly, to the increasing confidence in mediation. She is right, but it is not yet universal.
It is also unclear as to what is to he the extent of legally aided advice short of representation. If legal advice short of representation is available throughout the mediation process, so much the better; but one must not lose sight of the fact that the mediators, in financial situations particularly, will be trying to mediate within the existing framework of statutory law governing financial provision and property adjustment. It is not clear, to me at any rate, what are to be the exceptions under Clause 24. We must remember that it is not just in cases where there is a lot of money around that there is complexity. People should have the ability to have recourse to law rather than to mediation. They should certainly have the ability quickly to go to court in the circumstances to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, referred, where there is obstructive behaviour or non-co-operation or indeed where there may he dissipation of assets to frustrate the mediation
1204
so that an injunction is necessary. Without the fall-back of recourse to law with proper legal representation, the vulnerability of the weaker party to accept a less-than-perfect mediated settlement may be very hard to resist.
The other amendment I wish to speak to is No. 175. Clause 23(6) says that for the purposes of subsection (4) the nature of the property and where it is situated are immaterial. That, as I understand it, is not stated in the existing provisions of the Legal Aid Act. It has never been thought necessary by the Legal Aid Board or its predecessor, the Law Society, in administering the Legal Aid Fund. As I have always understood it, a common-sense view has been taken of what realistically the statutory charge can be enforced against.
Although in theory the statutory charge may be applicable to many of the assets, many practitioners have to argue about including the family budgerigar in its cage or the picture in the smallest room of the house. In practice, the Legal Aid Board takes a practical view. But I wonder what is the utility of subsection (6) of Clause 23. Presumably it is not envisaged that washing machines in Timbuktu will be subject to the statutory charge and we seem to have managed pretty well without that provision so far.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Perhaps I can delay the Committee for one further moment for two purposes. First, I wish to express my agreement with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, particularly in relation to what he said about the danger that a vulnerable party may be coerced into accepting a mediated settlement. This has been described as a "rogue's charter". For example, a husband may say to his wife, "You will accept the settlement which I am now proposing or you will have to go by way of legal proceedings and you will suffer the clawback".
The other point I want to make is that I agree, as I anticipated I would, with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Perhaps I can add one further reason to the reasons she listed. I believe that there is general agreement that when the parties choose mediation in preference to legal advice, that should be for good reasons; because it is the more appropriate course of action. It would be disastrous if they chose it not for reasons relating to merit, but because there is a financial incentive for doing so.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: I heartily agree with what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, in relation to the choosing of mediation because it is the most appropriate course and not because it is the cheapest. However, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he agrees that to impose the statutory charge on property that has been recovered or preserved, fits with the process of mediation—because mediation is not a matter of competitive "win or lose". It is a matter of helping to allocate property suitably so that resources are for the benefit of the children. For that reason it is a good argument for exempting couples who mediate from the imposition of the statutory charge. That is what the Bill allows as it stands, making it possible but not

1205
mandatory for regulations to require such a charge to be made. I therefore prefer the Bill to remain as it is.
I am aware that some may argue that that may persuade some people into mediation who are not suited to it, which is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, was saying. They may seek mediation only in order to avoid repaying moneys to the Legal Aid Board. That is not an objection which can be upheld. I am sure that mediators always assure themselves that those entering mediation are suited to it; that they would not be able to mediate for those who are not prepared to take a constructive part. Therefore, mediation would not continue where an aggressive spouse was involved who was making demands and bullying the other spouse. Indeed, that is confirmed in Clause 22 of the Bill which inserts a new Section 13B into the 1988 Act. Subsection (3) of the Clause states:
"A person is not to be granted mediation in relation to any dispute unless mediation appears to the mediator suitable to the dispute and the parties and all the circumstances".
I hope that your Lordships will agree that the amendment may not be helpful. I look forward to hearing what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has to say on the matter.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may say a brief word about the relevance of legal aid, legal advice and legal representation to the processes with which the Committee is concerned. In mediation, legal advice may well be needed. I would hope that the mediator would indicate to the parties where he thinks that legal advice would help them. In my view, legal representation is entirely alien to the mediatory process. If the matter cannot be entirely mediated and some issue has to go to adjudication, it is at that stage that, for the first time, legal representation becomes necessary or at any rate appropriate in many cases. However, legal representation is an alien influence which cannot help the ordinary mediatory process. The Scottish procedures would be helpful in this respect because I believe that in Scotland there is official recognition of mediation. One would like to know how far Scotland has at all invoked or admitted legal representation or legal advice.
The Lord Chancellor: I think that I should try to take the amendments more or less in the order in which they appear on the Marshalled List. Therefore, I turn first to Amendment No. 172. I am not sure that I fully understand the distinction that this amendment brings into the clause as drafted compared to what we have already. It is intended that the situation should appear to the mediator as suitable to the dispute, the parties and the circumstances. Obviously, if there is to be legal aid for the mediation, somebody has to apply for it. It is intended that that should be the party. The result is that mediation would not be granted unless it appeared to the mediator that it was suitable to the dispute, the parties and the circumstances.
In so far as I understand the amendment, it would provide for joint decision-making. I should have thought that the decision should take account of whether it
1206
would be suitable for those parties to engage in mediation. There might be many problems about a particular party that would make it unsuitable for that party to be involved in mediation. The potential mediator would probably be the best judge of that. Therefore, I am not sure that the amendment improves matters.
Turning to the other points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, when speaking to his amendment, I have taken the power in Clause 24 to exempt from the principles set out "prescribed descriptions of proceedings" or "prescribed circumstances". I have in mind the kind of circumstances that the noble and learned Lord mentioned, where it is plain that mediation would not be suitable. He mentioned a number and, so far as I recall them, all those he mentioned would be circumstances where it may well be right to make regulations to exempt the application of the principle.
Amendment No. 173 is an entirely different matter; namely, whether the payment should be to the mediator or the Legal Aid Board. When this was in preparation, we had discussions about it with the mediation organisations and the Legal Aid Board. It may be a matter that should be left fairly flexible. I thought that it might well be convenient for the person who is going to mediation to pay at that time. I can see that certain problems might arise in some circumstances in relation to that.
So far as concerns the legal aid matter, at present I think I am right in saying that where legal aid is given for advice and assistance—for example, ABWOR—the contribution is paid to the solicitor, but where contributions are payable in relation to civil legal aid they are payable to the Legal Aid Board. I believe that the size of the contributions has something to do with that distinction in practice. I am content to consider this matter further in the light of the present attitude of the mediation organisations. It is an important issue, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for raising it.
We come to Amendment No. 174. In a way I am slightly surprised to find the noble Baroness seeking to force me to apply the statutory charge to mediation. She obviously has a concern for Her Majesty's Treasury, which is interesting, but I should have thought it wise to leave that as a discretionary power, because I want to see how the whole thing works. Apart from anything else, mediation will apply to children's disputes where there is no question of the statutory charge applying, because no property is recovered or retained. There are pressures to apply the charge. Obviously the public purse might be interested in that. On the other hand, I am anxious to see how the mediation works in practice before deciding what should happen in relation to the statutory charge, and how it should apply if it is decided to apply it in respect of mediation costs.
Apart from anything else, the statutory charge, if it goes on, involves a degree of cost of enforcement, and so on. It is not a straightforward matter. Costs are involved in relation to the statutory charge. Depending upon the level of the mediation charges and costs, we may need to be careful.

1207
I was asked about the provision of legal advice in relation to mediation. As my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said, there can be no question of representation covering the same area as mediation. That would not be appropriate. On the other hand, legal advice may he required in relation to mediation; for example, on the question of whether or not a mediated settlement is a reasonable one having regard to all the circumstances. I hope that I may be able to develop a standard way of handling that by having a standard fee for the sort of legal advice that might be required on average. There may be exceptional cases, but it may be possible to deal with them. All that is covered under the present Legal Aid Act. We are extending that to mediation but all the machineries of the Legal Aid Act continue to apply.
In Amendment No. 175 the noble Lord, Lord Meston, took us to Hong Kong and to the washing machine. My understanding is that Section 16 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 does the same in respect of the charge for legal aid and I have slavishly followed that provision. If one were to impose a statutory charge in respect of mediation, as his noble friend would wish and oblige me to do, it would seem right to apply the same kind of conditions as apply to legal aid.
I do not believe that Amendment No. 176 adds a great deal. The idea of Clause 24 is to suggest that proceedings relating to family matters are more appropriate for mediation than for litigation. That is the general principle, but obviously it would yield to particular circumstances. That is what the insertion of the word "usually" is intended to do, but I believe that it is implicit in the present situation.
I do not believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned Amendment No. 178. Perhaps I may say for brevity that the circumstance mentioned there would be covered by the regulations which would proscribe descriptions of proceedings. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, mentioned that circumstance as one of his examples, most of which it would be perfectly appropriate to cover in the regulations. I believe that I have dealt with most of the amendments.
As I am dealing with mediation and what that involves, it may be worth while to put on the record a note which was issued earlier today by the Family Mediators Association and the National Family Mediation. They stated:
"It is the current practice of family mediators to establish with the couple at the outset of mediation whether they each believe that the marriage has broken down. If there is any indication that they are not agreed, or that they are not certain, then the mediator will explore this and refer them if they are willing for marriage counselling. Throughout the mediation process the possibility of reconciliation is kept under review by the mediator and if any uncertainty emerges about whether the marriage is over or not, he or she will explore this with the couple".
That puts more eloquently what I was trying to say about the process of mediation.
I believe that in respect of Clause 24 there are good reasons in principle why mediation is to be preferred in the interests of all the parties. However, it is right to allow certain types of proceedings to be taken out. That is best done by a regulation-making power because
1208
experience might suggest some new type of circumstance emerging. Rather than trying to achieve everything in primary legislation, that seems appropriate. I believe that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee had no adverse comment to make on this aspect of the Bill.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Unless the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, or the noble Lord, Lord Meston, wish to reply in relation to their amendments, perhaps I may say that I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his replies in relation to Amendments Nos. 172 and 173.
He expressed some puzzlement as to the distinction between the text in the Bill and the amendment. The distinction is as to who applies the judgment. Under the Bill it is the judgment of the mediator; it must appear to the mediator that mediation is the appropriate procedure. He makes the decision, taking into account the parties and the circumstances. The amendment transfers the party from the position of being the object of the consideration to being the subject, if I may put it in that slightly obscure way. The mediators and the parties together apply the judgment, and they apply it to the situation. It is a slightly different arrangement of the same three words. It transforms the judgment of the mediator alone into a joint judgment of the mediator and the parties.
As the noble and learned Lord has said, it is unlikely that mediation will go ahead unless the parties can be persuaded that it is the most appropriate course. I understand that. The real purpose of the amendment was so that the noble and learned Lord could say what, in effect, he did say.
I was particularly grateful in relation to the regulations under Clause 24 that the noble and learned Lord said that he was minded to set out the categories I cited. That will put a number of minds at rest. But, having taken out those categories, there still remain the other cases where someone still has to supply a judgment. If that is recognised, people will he quite happy about the situation.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not sure that I made an important point clear to the noble and learned Lord. The provision in the Bill includes a decision by the mediator as to whether mediation is suitable having regard to the parties. It is possible that the mediator will give a judgment on the parties which would preclude mediation. One can think of possible examples. I do not think the noble and learned Lord's amendment would permit that; I am not certain about that.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for pointing that out. As I said in introducing the amendment, sometimes the parties are not appropriate. For example, the mediator may take the view that a party has demonstrated a lack of commitment to the process of mediation. I think we are very much ad idem on that. I am happy to reconsider whether any doubt has been cast on that by the form of the amendment. It is something which we can each reconsider before Report stage.

1209
As to Amendment No. 173, I was a little puzzled when the noble and learned Lord said that he wanted to leave this flexible. I am not sure how to whom the contribution must he paid or who is responsible for collecting it can be left flexible. One has to make a decision one way or the other. I appreciate that there are arguments as to who should be landed with the duty of collection, but a decision has to be taken at some stage. However, I am perfectly content that we do not take it tonight.
Baroness Hamwee: On that last point, I think it was the flexibility of the charge to which the noble and learned Lord replied. I understood that he would consider further the question of collection, as to whether it should be the mediator or the Legal Aid Board.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: If I misunderstood what the noble and learned Lord said, it is because I am unusually somnolent at this hour of the evening.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble and learned Lord is not somnolent at all. I did say I would consider this matter. It may be that it should be left open, but I certainly want to consider it. Some of the views of those I have consulted may have changed a little—I am not unfamiliar with that happening—so it may be that we should make a change.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful for that. It is a pleasure doing business with the noble and learned Lord.
I was not sure whether the noble and learned Lord was leaving flexible what was going to be the final form of the Bill, or whether it might be his intention that in the final form of the Bill the matter should be left flexible. That would be undesirable. As we have resolved that confusion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 172A not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Payment for mediation]:
[Amendments Nos. 173 to 175D not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Mediation and civil legal aid]:
[Amendments Nos. 175E and 176 not moved.]
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 14, line 12, after ("matters,") insert ("except where either party to the proceedings does not agree under section 12 to take part in any mediation").
The noble Lord said: Clause 24 adds the following provision to the Legal Aid Act:
"(3F) For the purposes of determining whether to grant representation for the purpose of any proceedings, recourse to mediation is to be considered, to the extent that the proceedings relate to family matters, as more appropriate than taking proceedings except—

(a) in relation to prescribed descriptions of proceedings; or

(b) in prescribed circumstances".

1210
I emphasis the words, "is to be considered" as more appropriate than "taking proceedings". The effect of the provision is to place upon the Legal Aid Board in divorce cases the duty in the generality of case to refuse legal aid representation in favour of mediation. The clause means that the Legal Aid Board must—not may—refuse legal aid representation in family proceedings on the ground that mediation is to he considered as more appropriate than taking proceedings. That is the basic principle. The Bill states that it will be subject to exceptions, but they are not defined in the Bill. We invite the noble and learned Lord to tell us, broadly, what those exceptions are to be. We made the same invitation to the noble and learned Lord on Second Reading, but he did not find it appropriate then to respond. We hope that he will do so on this occasion.
In Committee on Tuesday last, when replying to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell who had moved Amendment No. 82, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
"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".
The noble and learned Lord then added:
"What I seek to do is to extend the scope of it to include the funding of mediation, with the principle in favour of mediation where that is appropriate".—[Official Report, 23/1/96; col. 1001].
However, Clause 24 does not enunciate a principle in favour of mediation where that is appropriate. It is a direction to the Legal Aid Board to consider mediation in family proceedings as more appropriate than taking court proceedings. The clause says in plain terms that, in considering the decision of whether to grant representation for the purposes of proceedings relating to family matters, mediation "is to be considered"—not may be considered—
"as more appropriate than taking proceedings".
Therefore, that is the position that the Legal Aid Board must—not may—adopt. That is emphatically not a presumption. In the generality of case, the Legal Aid Board must regard mediation as more appropriate. If an exception applies, then mediation need not be regarded as more appropriate. But we do not, as yet, have the least idea what the exceptions will be. The point is that, in the generality of case where no exception applies, mediation is to be regarded as more appropriate than taking court proceedings. That is not a presumption. It is an invariable direction to the Legal Aid Board in the generality of case to which no exception applies.
Clause 24 will bite on cases where parties under the existing rules would be eligible for legal aid for representation in proceedings relating to family matters; for example, disputes about periodical payments, division of family assets or, more importantly, children. The Legal Aid Board is to be required to say: "We know that you do not agree to mediation; nonetheless, we are obliged to regard mediation as more appropriate, whatever you may think, so there will be no legal aid for court representation but we will support you in

1211
mediation". If that is to be stated, at the same time as it is asserted that mediation is voluntary, most people would think that the assertion was a hollow one.
The purpose of the amendment is to qualify the direction to the Legal Aid Board that is contained in Clause 24 by a provision that mediation is not to be considered as more appropriate than taking proceedings where either party to the proceedings does not agree under Clause 12 to take part in any mediation. Unless the amendment is agreed to, mediation will not truly be voluntary, because the Legal Aid Board will have to say to applicants who are asking for legal representation in proceedings relating to family matters: "It is up to you whether you agree to mediation, but legal aid is available only for mediation and, if you do not agree to it, there will be no legal aid for representation in court".
We look forward to the noble and learned Lord's response to the amendment. Noble Lords will recognise that it in no way increases public expenditure. Its object is to preserve the present position where legal aid is available for legal representation in cases where a party does not agree to take part in mediation. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: In reply to the last amendment the noble and learned Lord stated that the inclusion of the word "usually" by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was not necessary. I thought that he was disagreeing in advance with the statement that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has just made. However, at the time I realised that that could not be correct and that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, is right. Assuming that he is correct, what will happen when one party is willing to mediate and the other party is forced to go to court? I presume that one or both of the parties would be entitled to legal aid.
Having said that, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, is mistaken about Clause 12 because it does not impose on any party a liability to mediate. It enables the court to send parties away, once they have started to litigate, to be told the advantages of mediation. At the end of that process the person who gives that explanation has to produce to the court a report stating that they have done so and stating whether or not the parties have complied with the direction and, if they have, whether they have agreed to take part in any mediation. The clause does not contain any threat, inducement, incentive or compulsion on the parties to mediate. The final part of the clause is merely for the purposes of giving information to the court which would want to know the situation when the parties went away to be told about mediation.
Baroness Hamwee: I should like to support the noble Lord in his amendment, which goes to my decision to put down a Motion that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. It may be possible to debate the two together. I hope that we receive a sympathetic hearing by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
I should like the provision to make clear that either party can withdraw the agreement to mediation at any time and then the legal aid for representation kicks in.
1212
I, too, had marked the passage in Hansard which has been quoted and a passage at Second Reading. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said at col. 704 of the Official Report of 30th November 1995:
"I am not intending that mediation should become compulsory—compulsory mediation quite simply does not work, and is a contradiction in terms".
One cannot begin to argue with that. He also stated:
"Legal representation will be available for eligible parties when mediation is not suitable for the parties or appropriate for the circumstances of the case".
On re-reading that passage, I realised that the noble and learned Lord was suggesting that legal representation and mediation were being described as alternatives. That is where I become concerned.
I shall not take up the time of the Committee by repeating the arguments so powerfully made by the noble and learned Lord. I believe that the prescribed circumstances are of such importance that we should look at the detail at this stage if we are to consider the clause without the proposed amendment. The amendment is fundamental to our acceptance of the clause. It would be entirely wrong to introduce what might become a two tier system—proper legal advice and representation for those who can pay for it and compulsory mediation for those who do not have the funds.
We are all concerned about the size of the fund available. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor shares that concern. I referred earlier to the explanatory and financial information which commented that the Bill was designed to be cost neutral. As we were reminded earlier, that was with regard to the Bill as presented; that is, direct legal aid. Therefore, it is suggested that no additional legal aid funds will be available in total. Legal aid is rationed now, but if it has to be rationed also with regard to mediation and legal advice, the point should be made that in general men will buy advice and women will not receive it. There is a discrepancy between the assets of men and women and as regards eligibility between men and women.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he was surprised at my amendment on the statutory charge, and wondered about my concern for the public purse. I do have a concern; that the public purse is adequate for its purpose and its size is a material consideration.
It used to be advantageous for tax reasons to get married at a specific point in the financial year. If those contesting for legal aid funds have to take account of the fact that the fund may run out at some particular point they may have to consider getting divorced at a specific point in the financial year before the available funds have run out. I support the amendment.
10 p.m.
Earl Russell: Not having spoken for nearly five hours I hope that I may be forgiven for taking enough of the Committee's time to congratulate the noble and learned Lord on his stamina, which is truly formidable. I should like to thank him for proving me right in not taking the

1213
time to speak to my Amendment No. 178. I am entirely reassured by what he said about it and I am most grateful.
However, on this amendment I share a number of the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. The noble and learned Lord may remember, although it is a long time, about two years ago, kindly giving me a meeting on the subject, before the White Paper. He was extremely helpful then and I was concerned to know how far mediation would be voluntary. He gave me the assurance that it would be and if I remember rightly he used the phrase that "You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink". That is clear. However, to be truly voluntary it must be such that you can refuse to undertake it without suffering any evil consequences. That is where I am worried by the wording of Clause 24. On 10th January the noble and learned Lord kindly sent me a long and extremely helpful letter which I have read many times. He wrote:
"The effective clause is not intended to be that the Legal Aid Board is under a duty to refuse legal aid representation in favour of mediation".
I shall be interested in the resolution of the technical conflict between him and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, on that point. If the wording is ambiguous, then it needs clarifying.
The noble and learned Lord's letter continued:
"Clause 24 is intended to be read as a presumption in favour of mediation which may not apply in certain types of cases or may he rebutted in certain circumstances. The effect is intended to be that, all things being equal, mediation should be considered more appropriate than representation".
I understand his point that exceptions are to be made to that by regulation. I appreciate what he said about the content of the regulation, but what worries me is that, with those people for whom there is a presumption in favour of mediation, if they do not wish to accept that presumption and go into mediation, exactly what happens to them? The noble and learned Lord is quite right that you cannot have effective mediation between unwilling parties. The right reverend Prelate mentioned the danger of people with financial difficulties being pushed unwillingly into mediation because it is cheaper. For unwilling people, mediation can be an extremely intrusive process and may create a sense of impertinence which will not help with making progress. If possible, I shall want clear assurances that, if people decide that mediation is not appropriate for them, they may do without mediation without suffering for what they do. It is only with that assurance that I would truly be convinced that mediation is voluntary.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, quoted from my letter written some time ago. It explained the position as I understand it. First, Members of the Committee must read Clause 24 in the light of Clause 22, particularly the part which was the subject of Amendment No. 172 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. It states that:
"A person is not to be granted mediation in relation to any dispute unless mediation appears to the mediator suitable to the dispute and the parties and all the circumstances".
1214
That is our condition which is to be taken into account before one comes to Clause 24. I understand by Clause 24 that the Legal Aid Board has to have in mind that,
"recourse to mediation is to be considered, to the extent that the proceedings relate to family matters, as more appropriate than taking proceedings except … in relation to prescribed descriptions of proceedings or … in prescribed circumstances".
Certainly it is clear that, where either party to the proceedings is not prepared to take part in mediation, mediation is not suitable to the dispute, the parties and all the circumstances. I cannot see that a mediator could possibly regard mediation as suitable for a dispute where either party was not prepared to take part in it. That seems to me to dispose of that particular matter. I certainly intend that Clause 24 should apply, subject to that clause. That is what is intended. In other words, it is intended that in relation to family matters mediation is more appropriate than taking proceedings. It would be more appropriate only in cases to which Clause 22 applied. I have been kindly handed a copy of the letter, but I think I remember what the circumstances were.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said that I have not given any indication of the circumstances to which this would apply. I tried to do so in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, who kindly provided me, as a good start, with a list of circumstances of his own. Very many of the circumstances are pretty obvious. Certainly in situations where the parties are apt to be violent towards one another it might be all right for a court, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said earlier, but I do not believe a mediator would have quite the same position in relation to that situation as would a judge.
My main point in regard to mediation is that for it to work people have to be willing to speak, to communicate. Mediation relates effectively to communication. It is difficult to mediate in a communication if neither party, or one of the parties, is not prepared to speak at all. That is my basic approach.
My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale believes that it is possible to have compulsory mediation. I do not find it easy to disagree with him on many points, but I do find it necessary to disagree with him in this respect, for the reason I just sought to explain.
This amendment, as was pointed out, is inappropriate in its reference to Clause 12. I think that would probably be accepted. So far as I am concerned it is inappropriate in the light of Clause 22. If the noble Lord is not satisfied with my explanation so far, I can certainly readily deal with the matter by undertaking that it would be one of the clauses of the excepting regulations just to put the matter beyond all doubt. That is one of the reasons why it is quite good to have a flexible power in this connection. Other circumstances might appear in which that would be so. That is why I say it is a matter of principle, and then the exceptions are provided under the regulation-making power.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: That is a helpful response from the noble and learned Lord. His substantive reply was to refer me to Clause 22(3) which provides that,

1215
"A person is not to be granted mediation in relation to any dispute unless mediation appears to the mediator suitable to the dispute and the parties and all the circumstances".
He then says that it is inconceivable that any mediator would regard mediation as suitable if one party did not want to play. He then moves from that proposition to the proposition that in those circumstances the Legal Aid Board, despite the language of Clause 24, could not possibly consider mediation as more appropriate than taking proceedings. I would hope that that would be so. With respect, I agree with the noble and learned Lord and welcome his undertaking that these matters should not be left, as it were, to a process of reasoning, but should be made clear. I therefore welcome his assurance that one of the prescribed circumstances when we come to the regulations will be where one of the parties does not agree to mediation.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he said, but it fell short of the assurances for which I was asking in two crucial points.
First, the noble and learned Lord drew our attention to Clause 22(3). But there we are dealing with cases where mediation does not appear to the mediator to be suitable to the dispute. I was interested in the situation where mediation does not appear to the party to be suitable to the dispute. I entirely take his point that, where one person is not willing to take part in the mediation, the mediator may—not will—decide that mediation is not appropriate. I say "may" because all of us are capable of error, all of us are capable of impatience and all of us are capable of the mistaken belief that the party is simply being obstructive and may be persuaded otherwise.
I still want to know, in a case which appears to the mediator to be suitable for mediation but does not so appear to the party, what will in fact happen to the party who will not go into mediation. The answer to that question is, to me, absolutely crucial. I should be very grateful if it could be spelt out exactly.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble and learned Lord responds to my noble friend, perhaps I may ask him to comment on how Clauses 24 and new Section 13B(4) (as introduced in Clause 22) interrelate. I think it is part of the same issue. New Section 13B(4) provides for withdrawal or revocation of a grant of mediation. On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, I queried the position in which one of the parties changed his or her view during the process and, having started on a course of mediation, felt that it was no longer appropriate to continue. I asked whether one could then move on, with the benefit of legal aid, into proceedings. That is perhaps another slant on my noble friend's question.
The Lord Chancellor: It may depend somewhat on the circumstances. The tests for the grant of legal aid generally include the merits test in respect of which the Legal Aid Board would have to make a judgment. I can readily foresee circumstances—I refer principally at the moment to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—in which difficulties arise in the mediation;
1216
for example, if it is not clear that a full disclosure has been made of all the assets. Then the mediation would have to stop and an application be made to the court in order to obtain full disclosure. In my view, it is right that in that situation legal aid would be available in appropriate circumstances for those proceedings.
In situations in which the person suddenly decides that he or she has had enough and wants to stop, the circumstances might vary. The person who so decided might be the person who had legal aid. If he (or she) decided without good reason just to stop, the Legal Aid Board might wish to revoke the certificate for mediation. The noble Earl shakes his head, but I cannot see any option to that. If the person who wanted to mediate decided that he did not want to go any further, and that is the person who has legal aid for that, then the legal aid certificate would have to be withdrawn in respect of mediation.
What would happen then would depend on the situation in which that person was, and the application to the circumstances of the tests that presently exist under the Legal Aid Act. That is the answer that I have to give to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The mediation is certainly not compulsory. But that is not the same as saying that unnecessary expense should be incurred by the taxpayer at the whim of unreasonable litigants. The whole underlying basis on which legal aid is granted is that the conduct of the litigant and the litigation should be reasonable and that unnecessary expense would not be put on the public purse. In my view those circumstances also would be relevant to the question. That does not mean that mediation would be compulsory, but that the public purse might not fund it if the situation came out of an unreasonable attitude on the part of the party seeking legal aid.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am not entirely happy with that answer. It is a point of detail raised by the noble and learned Lord in developing his answer that concerns me. I do not see how mediation can truly be described as voluntary unless the initial and continued participation of the parties to it is voluntary. I got the whiff of a suggestion from the noble and learned Lord that if someone had legal aid for mediation and half-way through it decided that he or she did not wish to continue to participate in mediation, that could, as it were, be a black mark against that individual which the Legal Aid Board could take into account as a ground for refusing legal aid for court representation. If that is what the noble and learned Lord was saying, I suggest that he is seriously trenching on the proposition that mediation is voluntary.
However, I shall leave that point of detail to one side. As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord has given me an assurance that he will state, as one of the prescribed circumstances constituting an exception in the regulations, where a party does not wish from the outset to participate in mediation. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No 178 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Before moving the next group of six amendments, I believe that it will be

1217
convenient if I move that the House do now resume, in order to give the Government business managers the opportunity of letting us know what their plans are. In asking that question I venture to remind them of the importance of the issues which are now to be discussed: the importance of the Bill; the assurances that were given to the House at the time we discussed the Rippon Report on the hours of sitting and, finally, the practice of your Lordships' House in allowing the Government to get their business through which is reciprocal to the Government conceding adequate and proper time for it to be discussed. The hours between 10.30 p.m. and midnight are, I venture to say, quite improper times. In the meantime, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, that the House do now resume.—(Lord Simon of Glaisdale.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The situation, as I see it—and indeed as the usual channels see it too—is that we are attempting to get to a point where we can leave the business tonight and have sufficient business left to ensure that we can have a reasonable stab at concluding it at some other time to be determined next week. It is of little use for those who have not sat in the Chamber—of course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has—for eight hours today to feel that it is reasonable to look to the rest of the groupings and feel that they can be accommodated in a reasonable time. They cannot, and the Motion should be resisted.
There are two factors which one has to be brutally frank about. There is the convenience not only of the Members but also of the staff, and there are certain matters which hang on the time at which we conclude our business. It is felt that if in fact we deal with Amendment No. 179 and the other amendments they may very well take us to between 10.30 and 11 p.m., in which case that may be a sensible time to conclude the business. Of course it may even be that we would deal with the other amendment, No. 182. The conclusion that the usual channels have come to is that it is not unreasonable to proceed perhaps from now for 30 minutes and then conclude the business for today, leaving the rest to be determined at another time.
Lord Lucas: I am very happy to confirm from this side of the House that the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip has expressed with his usual clarity the agreement that the usual channels have come to. We must make progress with this Bill, and if we do not do more tonight we shall merely find ourselves sitting at an unreasonable hour on some other night.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I must just say this. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has on several occasions referred to the sort of message we are sending out about marriage, but by sitting these sorts of hours on this sort of Bill we should consider also what sort of message we are sending out about parliamentary government and your Lordships' place in the Constitution. Having said that, with as much indignation as I can muster, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 179:
Before Clause 25 insert the following new Clause—
(" . Schedule (Matrimonial Homes (Co-ownership)), which makes provision for statutory co-ownership of matrimonial homes and other provision as to the rights of husbands and wives (whether during the marriage or after its termination), and to extend to engaged couples certain rules applying to married couples, shall have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I am moving Amendment No. 179 and with it speaking to Amendments Nos. 180 and 181. They introduce three new schedules. I am speaking also to Amendment No. 207 at pages 16 to 24 of the Marshalled List, which deals with co-ownership of the matrimonial home. Amendment No. 208, pages 34 to 39, deals with co-ownership of the matrimonial goods and Amendment No. 209, page 40, deals with other matters relating to matrimonial property.
All three schedules reproduce Bills which were recommended and drafted by the Law Commission. I would have preferred to insert them in the Bill as separate parts, Parts IV, V and VI. But I was advised by the Public Bill Office that the only way to introduce them—they fall within the scope of this Bill—was by making them schedules.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, for adding his name, though he cannot be here, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. My noble and learned friend, who also, under most unhappy circumstances, cannot be here, has written to support me.
I propose to deal with these matters more shortly than the Committee is entitled to expect in view of the importance, length and complexity of the first two schedules. But it is very late at night and I shall not go into the details of any of them. I hope the Committee will excuse that course; it is not to be taken as any slight to the Law Commission or to minimise the importance of these, its recommendations.
I must say a word about the background of the schedules and the Bills that were drafted. In 1979 the Law Commission made a third report on matrimonial property and annexed to it three draft Bills; the first related to the co-ownership of the matrimonial home, which is now Amendment No. 207; the second to assuring rights of occupation in the matrimonial home, which really completed the work of the late Lady Summerskill and was subsequently enacted as part of our law of matrimonial property after divorce. The third Bill related to co-ownership of matrimonial goods; in other words, Amendment No. 208.
In July 1979 I introduced a debate in your Lordships' Chamber on that report and therefore on the Bill. There was strong support for the home co-ownership Bill and considerable support for the goods co-ownership Bill, though less unanimous and less unreserved than that relating to the home. But in view of that debate, I introduced a home co-ownership Bill early in the following year. In the meantime, or perhaps a little before, there had been a survey

1219
commissioned by the Law Commission which showed that more than 90 per cent. of all married men canvassed and more than 90 per cent. of all married women canvassed approved of the principle of co-ownership.
The Second Reading was in February 1980 and again there was strong support for that Bill on home co-ownership. The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, was the Labour spokesman and on behalf of his party he strongly supported the Bill. I hope that that will be echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. Perhaps I should point out that there are some electoral lollipops in this because in February 1976 a general election in New Zealand was won on the basis of the co-ownership of homes and goods. I say that merely to encourage the noble Lord.
Apart from the noble Lord, Lord Boston, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—I am glad to see that she is still in her place—supported the Bill strongly on behalf of her party, and a great many noble Lords in all parts of the House, including my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman, also supported the principle.
There were two reservations. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, on behalf of the Historic Houses Association was worried about the effect on historic houses. My view was that the Bill took care of that, but in any case I negotiated an amendment with the association's legal adviser. It is not in the schedule because nobody could find the correspondence until after I had tabled the schedule, but its provisions could be introduced at a later stage if necessary.
The other reservation came from the then Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, who in view of the strong support—indeed, it was unanimous support, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton—felt it necessary to act on that occasion as, as he described it, "devil's advocate".
The subsequent history was this: my noble and learned friend asked me later in the Session whether I would withdraw the Bill so that it could be considered further by the Law Commission in the light of a case in your Lordships' House involving Williams & Glynn Bank which dealt with the highly technical matter of overriding interest. I did not think that any amendment was necessary, but naturally I agreed with my noble and learned friend and withdrew the Bill.
I had an additional reason. As your Lordships can see from Amendment No. 207, that Bill was highly technical property legislation and was by no means within my sphere of experience and I thought myself inadequate to carry it through without assistance. If I felt inadequate when I was 70, your Lordships can imagine what I now feel 15 years later. However, I thought it right to lay it before your Lordships.
Why is that desirable? It has been common ground in our debates that the law can affirm and strengthen the institution of marriage. In the debate on the Queen's Speech I suggested two fiscal ways in which that could he done: the married couple's allowance and a differential succession duty in place of inheritance duty. I mentioned also these two outstanding Bills. There is also the attraction of the Scottish law of succession
1220
which takes much more notice of family relations than ours, but I was advised that that was outside the scope of the Bill.
Secondly, co-ownership reflects the concept of marriage as a partnership of two equals. Thirdly, the matrimonial home is essentially the sphere of a married woman. Fourthly, and arising out of that, as the Law Commission pointed out, in order to enjoy legal rights in her sphere (the matrimonial home) the married woman would have to become either a widow or a divorcee. Obviously the law cannot decently be left in that condition, hence these amendments. Divorce by unilateral repudiation has made this reform more than ever necessary.
I must say a brief word about the third new schedule (Amendment No. 209). That is a recent provision drafted by the Law Commission in its report of 1988. In a still more recent Written Answer in reply to a planted Question in each House, the Government do not accept that Law Commission proposal. They assign no reason for saying that. I have added that schedule so that my noble and learned friend can explain why that has been rejected, and whether he accepts reform in this branch of the law, because, after all, the proper priority would seem to be measures to affirm marriage rather than measures facilitating—to put it at its lowest—dissolution of marriage.
What course should be taken in regard to the Bills which are now Amendments Nos. 207 and 208? The most satisfactory course would be for my noble and learned friend to accept the amendments, to assume responsibility for them, taking them out of my grateful hands and probably referring them to a Jellicoe Committee. Next to that would be for my noble and learned friend to say that he will, at an early opportunity, bring in a Bill, at any rate in relation to the matrimonial home, and also, desirably, in relation to matrimonial goods. I have skirted over this matter. I hope that at this hour the Committee will excuse that. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: I shall make the shortest speech on record. I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
10.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for raising these matters. The amendments bring forward the results of three reports by the Law Commission relating to the matrimonial home and matrimonial property. The situation as I see it is that at present in England and Wales we have a system of separate ownership of property during marriage. There is no regime whereby spouses automatically become co-owners of the home by virtue of marriage. However, on the whole, spouses are free to decide for themselves how they wish to hold property during marriage. The ordinary rules of property apply. There are few exceptions; for example, the presumption of advancement can mean that a husband who transfers property to his wife is presumed to have intended the transfer to be a gift.

1221
The main advantage of our current system is that spouses have complete freedom of choice as to how they should own property during marriage and also freedom as to the timing of when they should make decisions regarding such matters. There is nothing to stop spouses deciding to be joint legal owners of the matrimonial home or to agree that certain chattels should belong to one party or the other.
Although spouses have no automatic right of ownership of either's property during marriage that does not mean that they have no rights in respect of that property at all. If, for example, the husband is the legal owner of the home and the wife has no interest in it she does have automatic occupation rights under the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983, which is re-enacted in Part III of the Bill. Such rights are referred to in this Bill as matrimonial home rights. These rights of occupation give the wife, among other things, the right to apply for an order ousting her husband from the home. Once the rights are registered no prudent purchaser of the home will proceed to completion until such time as the rights are released. If a spouse has an interest in the home which is registered land, she will have a measure of protection for her interest, even though it is not registered, so long as she is in actual occupation of the property. If the husband should fail to make reasonable provision for the wife on his death she can make an application for such provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Does she not need to be a widow to do that?
The Lord Chancellor: I believe that it depends whether she is a dependant. The way in which I put it implies that she would be a widow because I said that, if the husband should fail to make reasonable financial provision for his wife on his death, she can make an application for such provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. A provision for the wife on the husband's death would seem to imply—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: That was exactly the point that the Law Commission made. She must either be a widow or a divorcee to acquire rights to the matrimonial home.
The Lord Chancellor: By virtue of inheritance she can obtain occupation rights as a wife in occupation, as I said.
As regards the matrimonial home, the Law Commission, in its report on matrimonial property in 1988, questioned whether further statutory intervention was needed. The reasons for doubting whether further intervention was required were threefold. First, there is the automatic protection given to a spouse who has an interest in registered land if she is in actual occupation of the home, to which I have referred. Secondly, a substantial number of matrimonial homes were at that time and still are purchased in joint names. Thirdly,
1222
spouses are more likely to receive legal advice when purchasing a home than when purchasing other property.
That position means that under our present system husbands and wives are free to agree the way in which any property in which either of them has an interest is held as between them. As my noble and learned friend knows, the exemptions in relation to the capital taxes allow transfers as between husband and wife to he free from such taxation in respect of these transfers. So there is a complete freedom during marriage for parties to arrange property rights between them.
I understand well the considerations which led the Law Commission to make these proposals. I intended in the Bill to deal with the divorce process and the other matters connected with the support of marriage which have now been dealt with, and the extension of legal aid to mediation in relation to matrimonial disputes. I did not intend to deal with the detailed provisions in respect of the family property at this stage.
There are arguments, as my noble and learned friend has said, for considering this matter further. The present situation, if it were to be changed in the way the Law Commission suggest, would involve quite a degree of transitional difficulty for fairly long-term consequences. I intend that the Law Commission should review the whole of this area and bring these matters up to date. The first two of the reports referred to are now quite elderly.
In that situation, I hope that my noble and learned friend will feel that he has served an important purpose by bringing these matters again fully to our attention. I am glad that the 15 years which my noble and learned friend referred to, at least from my perspective, does not seem to have produced any diminution in his powers of advocacy or analysis.
It would be unwise to embark in this Bill on a detailed review or a detailed change of this area without a more modern consultation upon it than we have as yet.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Will my noble and learned friend deal with why the Government rejected the 1988 proposal? He will correct me if I have misunderstood, but he implied that it was because he had asked the Law Commission for a fresh appraisal of the whole situation. Perhaps he will clear that matter up.
The Lord Chancellor: I think the reason we had in mind was what I have indicated—that the Law Commission itself in 1988 questioned whether further statutory intervention was needed in respect of the matrimonial home, which, in a way, is the central part of these proposals. It is not the only part but it is the central part, for the reasons that I indicated, and I believe that those were quite good reasons.
However, an additional factor which I mentioned in the course of my submission to the Committee was that a change of this magnitude in property rights as between spouses would involve a good deal of transitional difficulty and possibly litigation and we were not, at that stage at any rate, assured that the difficulties would be

1223
ultimately, as it were, repaid by the benefits to be reaped after some considerable time before this new regime would settle down.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for replying to the debate. I am sorry that we did not have a contribution from either of the Opposition Front Benches. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, modestly felt that he could not improve on the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham—a commitment of his party. Moreover, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was too modest to repeat what she said so effectively when I introduced the Bill.
My noble and learned friend said that the parties are entirely free at present to make what arrangements they may wish to make as to ownership of the matrimonial home. That is absolutely true. The Law Commission, both in its Bill and in its report, expressly left open the right to any couple to make their own arrangements. The Bill was only intended for use in default. The situation is that the law does not really exist for those who do not need it—that is, those who live in amity and make their proper arrangements as to the matrimonial home. The law exists primarily to deal with social, pathological situations; indeed, the sort of situations where the married woman is left without any right in her matrimonial home.
I gather that my noble and learned friend—no doubt he will correct me if I misheard him—is prepared to ask, or has asked, the Law Commission to re-examine the whole situation. We have now waited 15 years—indeed, married women have waited 15 years—for elementary justice. There is no reason why they should be kept waiting much longer. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 180 and 181 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Rights concerning matrimonial home where one spouse has no estate etc.]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 15, line 17, leave out ("(6)") and insert ("(5)").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 183, 186, 187 and 210. The amendments arc grouped together because they are all of a technical nature and are being made to correct drafting matters arising out of the putting together of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill from the former Session.
Of course, when Parts I and II of this Bill were drafted, I intended to present them separately from Part III which I had hoped might have achieved Royal Assent by that time. However, Members of the Committee know well that, due to an unforseen circumstance, my expectation was not realised. As I said, the amendments are of a technical nature. Obviously, I am in a position to explain them further to anyone who may wish me to do so. But, in the absence of such a request, I beg leave to move the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 15, line 21, leave out ("the spouses in question") and insert ("theirs").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 26 to 29 agreed to.
Lord Lucas I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Committee on the Reserve Forces Bill [H.L.]
(On Recruitment, first day)
Thursday, 25th January 1996.
The Committee met in the Moses Room at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Amptill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): The Question is that the Title be postponed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the Question is put, perhaps I may comment on the procedure to be adopted. As the Lord Chairman quite rightly said at our previous meeting, there will be no Divisions. That was agreed. I would only say that all our amendments and, as far as I know, all other noble Lords' amendments are probing amendments in the spirit of the rules which were outlined. I hope very much, however, that we will avoid the procedure of negativing. In other words, if an amendment is withdrawn or leave is asked for amendment to be withdrawn, I hope that no noble Lord will stop the amendment being withdrawn; otherwise the Question will have to be put and the decision taken.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): I hope that I can deal with that point speedily. I readily agree to the noble Lord's proposal. I do not believe that it would be in the spirit of the proceedings in this part of your Lordships' House that the procedure of negativing should apply. I am quite happy to accede to that.
On Question, Title postponed.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Membership of the reserve forces]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 17, after ("officers") insert ("who may be of either sex").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, which stands in my name and that of my noble friends Lady Turner and Lord Judd, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 2.
The Bill as drafted makes a number of references to "men". It also does not, if I may say so, recognise the existence of women. I recognise that this may be a fact of legal drafting. Nevertheless, since we have found out in the course of discussions about the Bill that there have been certain matters which are the result of what I would regard as out-dated legislation which have been simply reproduced in the current Bill, I believe that it would be appropriate for the Committee to recognise
CWH 44
that women are a serious and effective part of the reserve forces. I would hope very much that in some way—and I cannot say more than "in some way"—the existence of women can be introduced into the Bill so that we can go forward with the principle that in the reserve forces—this of course will carry through into the Armed Forces Bill when we come to deal with that—the existence of women and indeed the enhanced role of women in the past few years is recognised.
After all, women are no longer just people who serve in munitions factories or as nurses or whatever. Women are now pilots of aircraft, they are in the front line, and almost every other country that I can think of, including the United States, which is our NATO ally, recognises the important part that women play in equality with men. There are certain areas where that is not true. Nevertheless, I believe that we in this country ought to bring our attitudes up to date, and the bringing of our attitudes up to date should, in my view, be reflected in the legislation. How this is to be done, and in the context of the Bill that we have before us in this Committee, is not really for me to say. I put down this amendment simply in order to make the point that I very much hope that, when we come to future debates about the armed forces and reserve forces, and indeed when we discuss possibly even at this early stage in this Bill the contribution of women to our reserve forces, and indeed to the armed forces generally, that could be recognised in the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: In the earlier stage of this Bill my noble friend will remember that I picked up this very point on a particular amendment and he referred me to a part of the Bill which says that wherever it refers to men it means women too. I strongly agree with the principles which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has advanced and I suspect that it is a matter which has been dealt with in the past. In modern times when women are very much treated as being as equal as possible under all circumstances in the armed forces it would be sensible to introduce an amendment to ensure that this matter is not just dealt with by a subsection of a clause which states, "for 'men' read 'women' as well". That is really rather diminishing. I think the principle of what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is saying would be well worth my noble friend taking up. It may mean quite substantial amendments but the Ministry is very experienced in the matter of producing substantial amendments at a late stage. Perhaps it can do so again.
Lord Redesdale: At this point I have to say that I did not speak on Second Reading and I should like to declare an interest. I have been a serving member of the Territorial Army for eight years and at the moment I am a serving officer with 103 Battalion Royal Electrical Mechanical Engineers.
I should just like to say that although I support the idea behind this amendment I do not support the amendment as it stands because I feel that it would do precisely the opposite of what was intended. I believe that the Territorial Army has a good record as regards the number of women who have taken roles within it. If one puts forward the idea of distinguishing between men and women that creates a bar where at present one does not

CWH 45
exist. Although it is unfortunate that men and women are classed as men, equal opportunities should exist in the Territorial Army. I believe that they do at present.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: Whilst supporting my noble friend Lord Williams on his amendment in principle, I really feel that we are going down the wrong road as regards the reserve forces. There are excellent organisations within the Territorial Army, Navy and the Air Force which regulate for this kind of thing. I would draw the Committee's attention to the fact that if one is sitting in an armoured vehicle with a woman between one's legs, that is rather inhibiting. This matter should be left to the discretion of the powers that run these forces and should not be on the face of the Bill.
Earl Howe: I fully understand the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to ensure that our legislation is not in any way sexist in content. However, I have difficulty with the line that he proposes in the first amendment. The point that I should like to make here is that the word "officer", both in ordinary language and in service terminology, already applies to both sexes. It is a gender-free term. So, not only is the proposed definition unnecessary, it might create doubt that references to officers in current legislation do not include women. That would be unfortunate.
The use of the word "man" in this Bill is more difficult. We thought long and hard to find another term without gender implications to cover male and female members of the reserve naval, marine, land and air forces. We have not succeeded in finding a better term. I should say that the word "man" is well known and understood within the services as applying to both males and females. Although my noble friend Lord Mottistone has already referred to it, the definition in subsection (4) of Clause 2 makes it clear that "man" means a person of either sex who is a member of a reserve force of or below the rank of warrant officer.
It may be appropriate for me to mention here that the Bill rectifies discriminatory provisions in the current legislation. The Reserve Forces Act 1980 provides that, in so far as it deals with the Royal Fleet Reserve and the Royal Marines Reserve, and with former soldiers under the age of 45 liable to recall, it does not apply to women. This Bill makes no such distinction. As I have explained, every reference in it applies equally to males and to females.
I would also say this. In the services generally, very few roles now remain closed to women. The armed forces policy is that in future they will only be excluded from those posts where their presence would impair combat effectiveness. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will appreciate that. We have made great strides in recent years, and it is after all the practice that is important.
I hope that in the light of what I have said, and particularly in the light of what I would call the definitional difficulty that we faced, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment at this stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply, and indeed to those noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I am particularly grateful, if I may say so, to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who raised this point at an earlier stage. I do believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that it is time, however it is done, that we recognised that "man" as defined, as the noble Lord said, is rather derogatory to woman.
I shall not press this amendment but I would hope very much that in future legislation, or indeed in the Government's thinking, we might move away from what I regard as this antiquarian expression, however tight it is in legal terms.
Having said that, I understand entirely the noble Earl's argument. Of course I will not press the amendment today and I will not press it at a future stage. I simply want to put down a marker that, in spite of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, we think that equality of the sexes in the armed forces and reserve forces should be enshrined in some way and that we should get out of the tunnel thinking we have had for a long time that fighting people are men and men only. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Control of numbers in the reserve forces]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) Authorization by Parliament shall be by resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3 it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 16.
In the Bill as drafted we have what I regard as a rather curious expression—"Parliament". As I mentioned yesterday, I have dealt with many Bills on the Floor of the House involving parliamentary approval—approval by one House or another House—depending on international considerations or non-financial considerations. I understand that "Parliament" as such is something which appears normally in Bills to do with the armed forces. In that context, it seems to me—no doubt the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong—that it would be appropriate for the Committee to consider the possibility of how Parliament, in terms of the Bill—I am almost quoting from Clause 3—authorises. What is the mechanism? What is the instrument? Is it to be, as I suggest in my amendment, by resolution of both Houses of Parliament? Is it to be the affirmative procedure? Is it to be the negative procedure? Is it in some way built into the Defence Estimates which are passed by both Houses? What is the method by which Parliament authorises the numbers of the reserve forces? I have done some research. I find—subject to correction from the noble Earl—no expression of "Parliament" other than in the armed forces Act or the various Acts which derive from armed forces legislation. This dates, I understand, from the Civil War when Parliament arrogated to itself the right

CWH 47
to decide what armed forces and therefore, by extension, what reserve forces there might be. As with the naval reserve, which we debated briefly the other day, I am inclined to believe we should move beyond the years of the Civil War and the 17th century and adopt a more modern procedure. It would seem to me right that if Parliament is to decide the numbers of the different reserve forces we should spell that out on the face of the Bill. There may be good legal arguments for not doing so. I shall be glad to hear them. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: If we are going back to the Civil War, does that mean that the Queen has nothing to do with her armed forces and regiments of which she and her family are in many cases colonel in chief. It seems to me very unsuitable to carry on the traditions of Oliver Cromwell—if that is the origin—at this late date. I have never met another Bill which talks about Parliament and the authority of both Houses in quite such terms. I believe there is a case for amendment, although perhaps not in the short run.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, because that is precisely the point I am making. I believe that the expression "Parliament" does derive from some Bill or other put forward by the Lord Protector for whom I have a high regard in history but whose legacy we perhaps need now, in the 20th century—indeed, coming up to the 21st—to look at again. If there is something called Parliament, personally I would like to see an expression of how Parliament authorises these things and have the position brought into line with other legislation so that we get away from the legacy of the Lord Protector, however much I admire him.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams for airing the issue. It has been an extremely interesting debate. I do, however, have a major difficulty with the amendments, which I will explain. Control of the maximum numbers of the reserve forces is inextricably bound up with the voting of sums of money for the maintenance of the armed forces. The statutory authority for the numbers of the reserve forces and expenditure on them is the Appropriation Act, a supply measure which, by convention, is not debated in your Lordships' House.
Lord Williams of Elvel: If I may interrupt the noble Earl, if that is the case I am perfectly happy with authorisation by the House of Commons. If it is a supply matter, a matter of money, then I am perfectly happy that the House of Lords, this House, understands that it is the House of Commons that deals with supply. Nevertheless, the Bill here, as drafted, refers to "Parliament" and, as I understand it, that means the Parliament of the two Houses.
Earl Howe: The term "Parliament" is defined in this context by "the laying of documents before Parliament (Interpretation) Act 1948" as meaning both Houses. The amendment, and Amendment No. 33 which alludes to this question as well, would lead to confusion over the meaning of the term when used elsewhere in the Bill and indeed in other legislation. The central point is that the Appropriation Act is a supply measure which, by
CWH 48
convention, is not debated in your Lordships' House. This amendment, if it were accepted, would effect a major constitutional change and I suggest that this Bill would not be an appropriate vehicle for that.
If I may just clarify a point that was raised by my noble friend, the armed forces are governed by a mixture of the Royal prerogative and statute, and that is the exercise of the authority of both Crown and Parliament. It is not a question of living in the age of the Lord Protector. We have brought the law up to date and I believe that it is fairly reflected in the procedures that are now adopted.
Lord Shaughnessy: Will the Minister explain why in Clause 3(1) Parliament is the operative word, and then in Clause 4(1) it is Her Majesty's name that appears? Is there some distinction between these two clauses?
Earl Howe: The noble Lord's question refers directly to the point that I have just made. It directly reflects the mixture of authorities that apply to the armed forces, namely, the Royal prerogative and statute. That is the reason for the difference.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I still have not had an explanation from the noble Earl about how Parliament fixes these numbers. The noble Earl says that it is a matter of supply and therefore it is a matter for the House of Commons, but Parliament is more than just the House of Commons—it is the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Indeed, every year we have a debate on the Defence Estimates and there is a Motion to approve the Defence Estimates. Presumably that is not a supply Motion which is being approved or disapproved as the case may be. The White Paper is produced by the Ministry of Defence, by the Secretary of State, and I cannot see why the numbers of the reserved forces should not be incorporated into such a Motion.
It is not a question of supply, in my view, but if it is a question of supply then I do not see why we should not have a slightly different procedure in either House of Parliament. All I am doing is raising the question, which I hope the noble Earl will take seriously, that I do not believe that Clause 3 of this important Bill, which begins "Parliament", without any definition of how Parliament arrives at the definition, is a very satisfactory position for us to be in.
Earl Howe: I accept that the Appropriation Act is enacted with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal. The actual mechanics of setting the numbers of the armed forces is this: there is a Motion under Standing Order 52 in another place with the Spring Supplementary Estimates—that is how it is done.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation. I believe that it is something that we will have to take up at a different stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Orders and regulations concerning the reserve forces]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, leave out line 20.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, standing in my name and that of my noble friends. I have also put down a Motion to oppose Clause 4 stand part, but I think it is appropriate that it should be grouped with the amendment that I am now putting forward, because essentially, the point is: does Clause 4, as drafted, override any of the provisions of Clause 3? The noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, quite rightly pointed out in the previous discussion that Parliament does something and then Her Majesty in Clause 4 does something else, obviously under the hand of the Secretary of State. Furthermore, Her Majesty may, under the hand of the Secretary of State, make orders with respect to,
"(b) all other matters and things relating to that force".
In other words, as I read the Bill, whatever Parliament may decide about the numbers and this, that and the other, there may be an order by Her Majesty, signified under the hand of the Secretary of State, changing all that—which gets back to the Royal prorogative about which the noble Earl spoke so eloquently earlier.
I just ask myself, and I ask the Committee: is this really a sensible way to proceed? I recognise that I am trespassing perhaps on territory that is more properly dealt with in the Armed Forces Bill than in the Reserve Forces Bill which is before this Committee. Nevertheless, there seems to me a conflict here between the Royal prerogative and Parliament. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could explain to me exactly how that conflict should be resolved. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: The short answer to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is that the Bill has to be read as a whole. The effect of this amendment would be to narrow the scope of the power set out in Clause 4. That power, as expressed in the Bill, is necessarily wide. It is not possible to anticipate and specifically provide for all the circumstances in which the power will be needed. Were one to go down the route that he has suggested through the amendment, the clause would be left as far too narrow to permit orders and regulations to be made under some of the other provisions in the Bill which rely on Clause 4.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Will the noble Earl explain why it should not be made more narrow? Why should it be so broad?
Earl Howe: I am trying to do that and, with great respect to the noble Lord, I hope that he will allow me to do so. An example of this is the form of declaration of employment status in Clauses 29 and 30. But it is worth noting that the power in Clause 4 is not totally unfettered. It is limited by its context as indicated by paragraph (a) of subsection (1). The most important rights of reserves, such as the right to early discharge under Clause 16, are set out on the face of the Bill and they could not be altered by regulations. For what it is worth—and I anticipate the noble Lord's response—the powers in Clause 4 are well precedented and we should bear in mind that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee accepted in its report of 13th December that
CWH 50
the delegation of powers in Clause 4 is not inappropriate. That in itself should be sufficient assurance for the noble Lord to be content with the Bill as drafted, but I am sorry if he is not. I come back to the point that I made at the beginning: the Bill has to be read as a whole. It is not a question of one part competing against another. One has to see the broad context in which each part is written.
4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl as far as he goes. I find the whole construction of the Bill to be somewhat flawed in terms of the modern day society and in terms of the constitutional monarchy and relations with Parliament that we have today. The noble Earl anticipated my response. The fact that this is precedented in previous legislation and hallowed in history does not seem to me to be a good reason why the Committee should not scrutinise it with the accuracy which your Lordships normally do.
To be honest, I find that explanation somewhat odd. Nevertheless, I accept that the noble Earl has looked very carefully at the matter because these were points which we discussed some time ago. I do not want to use the nautical expression "rock the boat" too much. I am prepared to accept that the Government may have a point, but nevertheless I hope that into the thinking of the Government machine may be fed the thought that perhaps we ought to bring this kind of legislation up to date with modern circumstances, rather than just simply rely on precedent.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Of course I sympathise completely with the sentiment that he has just expressed. I believe that legislation should be brought up to date to reflect modern circumstances wherever possible. The position as reflected in the Bill could be expressed in this way, that the Sovereign acts within a statutory framework because the armed forces are statutory forces. They are the armed forces of the Crown. It would be quite wrong to sever that link. A good example of that is that His Majesty King George V needed the authority of the Air Force Constitution Act 1917 to create the Royal Air Force in 1918.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am again grateful to the noble Earl. This debate has been very useful to clarify the situation and to put on record the points of view of various noble Lords, including ourselves. I have no inclination at all to derogate from the position that the armed forces have had. My only concern is that the structure of the Bill tends, in my view, to override some of the structures elsewhere. I am satisfied with the noble Earl's explanation and I will not pursue the matter at a later stage because I do not want to stir the pot on this. But I believe that sooner or later we will have to have a more coherent view of who does what, where and with whom in the reserve forces and possibly the armed forces as well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 5:

CWH 51
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("after being") and insert ("as soon as").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendment No. 47. There is an oddity here. The expression in the Bill at the end of Clause 4(5) is "after being made". In other words, an order or regulation under Clause 4:
"shall be laid before Parliament after being made".
"After being made" has no time limit. "After being made" can be one year, two years, six years, 10 years, 20 years, whatever it might be. Again I do not want to raise the argument that I adduced as regards the last amendment that I moved, but it seems to me appropriate that an order under this clause, which will become a section of the Act, should be laid before Parliament as soon as it is made. It does not seem to me to be an unreasonable request looking at it from the point of view of parliamentarians. The same applies to Amendment No. 47, which, in a slightly different context, has the same effect. I therefore very much hope that the Government will agree to this because it seems to me an important principle that orders made under Clause 4 of the Bill, which will become an Act, should be laid before Parliament as soon as they are made. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I always like to be helpful to the noble Lord whenever I can, but I am afraid I find it difficult to see any scope for change here. The proposed parliamentary procedure for orders and regulations maintains the previous practice. I cannot recall any difficulties having arisen in the past. In practice, there is very little delay between making and laying orders. It may be of interest to the Committee to know that the Territorial Army Regulations 1978, which the minutes of proceedings record as having been laid before the House on Tuesday 23rd January, were made only on 18th January. That is a very topical instance of timely tabling and we would certainly aim to continue the practice of laying such orders promptly.
I might also add that no objection to the proposed procedure was raised by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee in its report of 13th December last. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will not feel obliged to push me further. The amendment as expressed would impose an unnecessarily onerous obligation and, given that the practice works well already—I am not aware of any default in that regard—I hope that the problem he has identified is more apparent than real.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I find it very difficult to see how it can impose an onerous burden on the Government to lay an order as soon as it is made. The order is drafted, printed and so on. All that has to be done in laying an order is for some person or persons unknown to march it to the Ministry of Defence down Whitehall and lay the order in Parliament. It does not seem to me to be an onerous burden at all. I accept that this has happened in practice. However, as I have said on previous occasions, just because it has worked well In practice in the past does not mean that we should not necessarily try to improve matters.
CWH 52
If the Minister is saying to the Committee that in his judgment and in the view of the Government any order under what will become Section 4 of the Act will be laid at the earliest convenient moment, if he is saying that as a ministerial statement, then of course I shall accept it. If not, then I think we have to review the matter.
Earl Howe: I am delighted to give the noble Lord that assurance. All such orders are laid at the earliest convenient moment. I was seeking to make the point that the phrase in the amendment "as soon as made" means in legal terms instantaneously. That is to say, the moment that the order is made—in other words, signed by the members of the Defence Council or by Her Majesty the Queen—it has to be laid. That is why I said that it was an onerous requirement. I hope the noble Lord will see that in fact what we have at the moment is a reasonable system that works very well and that the intention is to maintain timely laying of all orders as soon as is convenient.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am again grateful to the noble Earl. However, I do not understand why this is an onerous requirement and how, if the order is signed by Her Majesty the Queen, it cannot be produced immediately in this House. But if the ministerial statement that the noble Earl has made to the Committee is accepted by the Committee, then I am happy with that. I would prefer to have on the face of the Bill "as soon as conveniently possible". But under the circumstances I am perfectly happy with the assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 36, at end insert ("and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we once again come to the question of what parliamentary control there might be regarding any order relating to the reserve forces. I am bound to say that I am a little concerned—and I would invite the Minister's comments on this—that, as I understand it, Parliament has no power under the Bill as drafted—I may be wrong and I am open to correction—even to pray against such an order, bearing in mind that there are very wide powers under Clause 4. While not wishing in any way—and I emphasised this on Second Reading and I have emphasised it throughout—to affect the efficiency of our reserve forces, I believe that there is a principle about parliamentary control which should be observed. If the noble Earl can give me the same kind of assurance as he gave me as regards the last amendment, I would be perfectly happy.
Earl Howe: I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord has just said. I believe, nevertheless, that it would be inappropriate to subject the making of orders and regulations governing the day-to-day running of the reserve forces to parliamentary proceedings.
Just as an example of that, the regulations of the Territorial Army are in an A5 volume that is 30mm thick. The provisions need to be flexible, they need to be capable of being changed through simple, quick procedures and

CWH 53
that is not just the Government's view, because I refer again to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee report of last December. It stated that making these orders or regulations subject to parliamentary proceedings would:
"burden Parliament with a mass of detailed provisions which it would be difficult to scrutinise effectively".
I believe that speaks for itself. It is a view that we should not lightly cast aside.
I can say, however, that orders of Her Majesty and regulations by the Defence Council are very carefully considered before they are made. I do not believe I need to say that, but noble Lords will understand why I stress it. I hope, on the basis of what I have said, that the noble Lord will not think it right to pursue this amendment on simple grounds of practicality.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Again, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his response, which is rather what I expected in the light of the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of this House. It is of course open— and I hope will be open—to any member of this House, or indeed another place, to put down any form of Motion relative to any of these orders. I do not believe that would be a procedure which would be ruled out of order by the Table in either House. On the understanding that that is the case—and I will take advice on the matter before we come to another stage—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5, 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Pensions]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 32, at end insert ("provided that the pensions of those in civilian life are fully safeguarded").
The noble Baroness said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 7 standing in the names of my noble friends, Lord Williams of Elvel, Lord Judd and myself. This is a very simple amendment intended to protect the position of those who become members of the reserve forces but will return after service to civilian life. It is surely necessary that such individuals, who voluntarily give their services in defence of their country, should not be disadvantaged in later years. Many such people will be members in civilian life of occupational pension schemes. The ultimate entitlement will depend upon the contributions made by the employer and the employee during the latter's working life.
For a number of reasons, public attention has been very much concentrated on pension provision. Lately, there have, as we know, been some scandals resulting in apparent loss of entitlement. Those who volunteer for service within the terms of the Bill should be able to rely on their occupational pension cover, if they have it, not to be worsened as a result of that service. It may well be that the Minister will say this is already taken care of in this particular clause but I do not think it does so effectively.
CWH 54
This amendment seeks to ensure that an individual's rights are fully safeguarded, and that would mean ensuring that during his or her absence on service the contributions due to the occupational scheme arc fully paid. Unless this is done the continuity is breached and the individual will receive far less pension than he or she would have done had there been no service. I hope therefore that the Minister will agree to accept this amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: I wish to give my support to this amendment because I believe that the success of this Bill rests on how it is perceived by those who were going to sign up. If they believe they will be financially worse off, or there is a doubt about their pensions, they obviously will not sign up and that would make the Bill unworkable.
Earl Attlee: I also would like briefly to support this amendment. I have an interest to declare because I am also a serving officer in the Territorial Army and I serve in the same battalion as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. It will be of great concern to people who are called up that their pension contributions are continued, particularly if they do not survive and a widow is left unsupported. She could end up with less provision than she would have received under her occupational pension. I should be interested to hear what the noble Earl has to say on the matter.
Earl Howe: I entirely understand the concerns that have been expressed by the noble Baroness, and indeed by both the noble Lords who have spoken. Let me say that there is an express power in Clause 82 of the Bill to make regulations providing for payments to be made in relation to any description of financial loss, and towards the provision of pensions, allowances or gratuities. Those regulations are subject to the negative resolution procedure and there must he consultation of representatives of interested parties before the regulations are made. We have not begun to settle the scheme details. Indeed, we have not begun to consult on them. It is early days yet to be discussing this question because there is a limited amount I can say beyond pointing to the part of the Bill which specifically provides for such payments. It might be more appropriate to discuss the question further, on safeguarding civilian pensions of reservists, once we come to consider Part VIII of the Bill, and in particular Clause 82. I would obviously be happy to do so, but for the time being I hope I have said enough to persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Earl will, I am sure, recognise that the matters in this Bill have been under consideration for a very long time. It comes rather hard to those of us who have received this Bill in whatever form it now is to find the noble Earl yet again saying that it is early days and these things have not been considered. Could the noble Earl give us an assurance that at least by the time this Bill goes to another place the questions raised by my noble friend Lady Turner will be answered by the Government?
Earl Howe: The point to be made is that we can hardly begin to draw up regulations when the Bill itself has not even been considered by Parliament. It would he inappropriate and wrong to do so. That is the point.
Lord Williams of Elvel: But at least the Government must have some idea of what they are playing at.
Earl Howe: That is why we have included Clause 82 in the Bill as a general provision for the type of payment that the noble Baroness is concerned about, and I readily acknowledge her concerns. I shall gladly revert to this matter, as I have indicated, at a later stage but I come back to the fact that it would be quite wrong for us to consult publicly on a matter which Parliament has not ratified.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Again, I come back to the noble Earl. This happens the whole time. The Government consult on matters which Parliament has riot ratified almost every day. I have done so many Bills in this House where we have had chairmen of nationalised industries appointed before your Lordships have had a chance to read a Bill. What I say to the noble Earl is that unless there is some response to the principle I can assure him that even if there is no response in your Lordships' House, in another place there will be a lot of bother about this.
Earl Bathurst: Do I understand that the noble Earl is not accepting the amendment of the noble Baroness? Supposing the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was called up, possibly to go to Bosnia or anywhere in the world, and was injured and incapacitated to such an extent that he was unable to carry on a civilian job, for which he had made pension contributions. Does that mean he would not qualify for the pension to which he had been paying considerable contributions? If so, this must be unfair.
Lord Mottistone: My noble friend, the Minister, has said that this subject is taken care of by Clause 82 of the Bill and that he is only too happy to discuss the matter when the Motion that Clause 82 stands part comes before the Committee. There is an amendment to Clause 82 and therefore it seems to me that that would he the point at which this matter should be discussed and that there is no need to tackle it in this part of the Bill. I do not see why we should not follow what my noble friend was suggesting—after all, he is the Minister in charge of the Bill and it will get us through this business more quickly if we follow what the Minister is saying rather than trying to press the point now which would be better discussed elsewhere in the Bill.
It could well be that we will find at the Report stage that the noble Lords opposite, if they have not been satisfied today, w ill come forward with another amendment casting their eyes at Clause 82 rather than at this part of the Bill. That would seem to be sensible, and we could then get on with the Bill more quickly.
Baroness Turner of Camden: From what has been said on all sides of the Committee in regard to this amendment, it seems to me that there is a general acceptance that something should be done. Even the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, clearly thinks that.
CWH 56
Looking at Clause 82, that seems to me simply to be what one might call the regulation making power, setting out that the regulations shall say this, that and the other.
My point in tabling the amendment as regards this particular clause of the Bill was to try to state up-front on the face of the Bill what the principle would he. The principle would essentially be that people would not be worse off from a pension point of view because they had served in the reserve forces. That is why I tabled it at that point in the Bill—I wanted to make the principle quite clear. It may very well be that, later on, when we come to the regulations under Clause 82, we may want to strengthen that or do something else. But inserting it at this point says quite clearly on the face of the Bill that this is the intention and this is the principle.
I shall not press the matter this afternoon, but clearly we shall have to think about it and come back at Report stage if we feel that we really do need to have the principle stated early in the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Enlistment of men in the reserve forces]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, leave out lines 10 and 11.
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 8 standing in the names of my noble friend, Lord Williams of Elvel, my noble friend, Lady Turner, and myself.
In our view, to enlist is a serious matter. A man or woman is making a commitment to serve Queen and country, to put his or her life at risk in the cause of the nation. It seems to us that the point of enlistment is a very serious moment in the individual's life and in service life. From that standpoint we are a little perturbed by the provision in this clause; namely, that it is envisaged that,
"any other person authorised for the purpose of enlisting recruits by or in accordance with orders or regulations under section 4"
should be able to undertake this onerous responsibility. It seems to us to demean the occasion and the significance of it. We should therefore like to suggest that the dignity of the service, and the respect for the individuals who make up the service, would be better preserved if this paragraph were deleted. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Perhaps I could say a few words about enlisting. Generally speaking the chap who enlists a soldier is the attesting officer. Only certain officers in the unit are authorised to attest the new recruit. As for re-enlisting, generally speaking any officer would be involved in the re-enlisting procedure. I support the noble Lord and I suggest that only a commissioned officer should be involved in enlisting a soldier.
Earl Howe: The intention of this clause was to bring the practice for the enlistment of reservists broadly into line with the procedure provided in Section I of the Army and Air Force Acts 1955, but in a simplified form.

CWH 57
Those Acts allow for recruits to be enlisted by three groups of people. The first is any officer authorised under regulations of the Defence Council. The second applies only in a colony and comprises any person authorised by the Governor of the colony. The third group applies only outside the United Kingdom and colonies and comprises any British consul. These latter provisions were presumably included to cater for overseas enlistment in a possible crisis. It is almost invariably the current practice that recruits to the reserve forces are enlisted by regular or reserve officers.
We should not wish to rule out the possibility of enlisting recruits to the reserve overseas in a time of crisis. However, Clause 9(2)(c) has perhaps emerged in a form which is broader than it need be to meet that requirement. In the light of the cogent points which both noble Lords have made, I shall undertake to re-consider the wording of this paragraph further before the next stage of the Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment this afternoon.
Lord Judd: I should like to thank the noble Earl for that positive and encouraging response. In the light of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
ANNUAL REPORT ON PERFORMANCE
(". A commanding officer shall ensure that each man in his command is given an annual confidential report on his performance.").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to Amendment No. 9 it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. In fact this matter should be properly covered by TA regulations; it concerns confidential reports. My objective is that there should be an annual appraisal of every soldier. This process is perfectly normal in industry. The reason this is necessary is that those in junior ranks in the TA are young and inexperienced. They are unsure of their progress and they do not see a promotion ladder leading to the position of the senior NCOs. They do not realise that the senior NCOs were themselves privates once. Sometimes a private or a lance corporal cannot understand why he is not being promoted to the next step. Good officers already produce confidential reports annually but that is not a requirement. There may be other higher priorities such as recruitment and organising exercises and it is easy to leave out confidential reports.
I am proposing a very simple report: just one sheet a day with a simple matrix to lay out the soldier's personal qualities and then a pen picture and something to say what his personal characteristics are. I would suggest that a confidential report would encourage and motivate the soldier and enable him to improve his performance where the confidential report says that there is room for
CWH 58
improvement. I feel that it would improve retention of soldiers. Retention is a big problem in the Territorial Army—we are looking at a 30 per cent. loss rate in many units—so any improvement to retention by keeping soldiers, by telling them what they need to do, will help.
It will also be a very objective tool for promotion. It will avoid the risk of over-promoting and also of overlooking soldiers who ought to be promoted. It will also address the problem of poor attenders because the confidential report would suggest that the soldier should attend more. Finally, it should not be a surprise for a soldier if the unit decides that his services are no longer required because a confidential report would say words to the effect that "You're not doing enough".
I turn now to Amendment No. 10. Again this should be properly covered by the TA regulations and not on the face of the Bill. The problem concerns that of unsatisfactory soldiers. You can improve a unit by instigating better training, more interesting exercises, better personnel management, and that can result in high attendance and high retention. The problem is that if you do that you can quickly end up in a situation where you have no vacancies for further good soldiers who want to get into your unit. The solution to the problem is to remove some of the dead wood—soldiers who are not really attending enough or soldiers who are bounty hunters. All they do is turn up for the minimum amount of time in order to get their bounty. You may also have soldiers who were good performers at one point but their performance has tailed off somewhat.
We should be able to review our soldiers as to whether we really want them any more and, if we do not because they do not meet our requirements, we should be able easily to let them go. Therefore I am proposing that if at the time of re-enlistment we do not want them we should be able to say "Thank you very much for your service but we no longer require your services".
The Regular Army does not have this problem because soldiers are frequently moved around units. They are discharged if they are too old for the rank and they are promoted out of the unit if their performance is good.
The Minister may tell me that this amendment is not required. If it is not required, why do we need to keep re-enlisting soldiers? It involves us in a great deal of administration. Sometimes soldiers run out on their engagement without our realising and then the soldiers cannot be paid. If this is not an appropriate mechanism and not necessary, why do we bother with re-enlisting? Why do we not simply have a notice engagement that once you have done your first two years you just carry on until you no longer wish to serve in the TA? I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Mottistone: What the noble Earl has just said makes a lot of good sense but I do not think that what he proposes is suitable for primary legislation. As he himself said, it is the sort of thing which is much better catered for in Territorial Army Regulations. That is where it should be. I hope that the Ministry of Defence

CWH 59
will read what the noble Earl has said and act on it. I do not think it is suitable for this sort of legislation.
Lord Vivian: I very much support what Lord Mottistone has just said.
Lord Craig of Radley: I should also like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has said. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has raised a number of very cogent and interesting points but I do not see them as necessarily suitable for the face of the Bill. After all, there may be differences in treatment of reports—whether or not they are confidential, annual and available to the individual—as between the three services. It would be over-complicated to try to do this on the Bill.
Earl Attlee: I fully accept that it should not be on the face of the Bill. That was the first point I made in moving my amendment.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Earl and I listened with great interest to the points that he made. I am sure he will know from his experience that there is a requirement in the regulations of the volunteer reserve forces for annual confidential reports on all officers. That is in line with the practice in regular forces. There is no requirement in the regulations for such formal reports on warrant officers and below in the reserve forces.
However, it is the practice for warrant officers and below in the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the RAF Volunteer Reserve to be the subject of annual reports. In the Royal Marines Reserve they go one better, and report every six months. There are also annual reports on warrant officers and below in certain corps within the Territorial Army.
The noble Earl has raised an interesting suggestion. However, if it were desired to introduce a formal requirement for such reports, I believe it would be appropriate to do so through the regulations rather than have such a requirement on the face of the Bill. In that light, I will therefore undertake to draw the noble Earl's views to the attention of the Service authorities. I hope he will feel more comfortable in withdrawing the amendment on that basis.
Turning to the noble Earl's second amendment, Amendment No. 10, he is quite correct to say that only those men whose services are required should be re-engaged. However, I do not believe his amendment is necessary. What Clause 11 does is create the possibility of re-engagement. It does not create an absolute right for the individual to be re-engaged. In fact, the regulations for the reserve forces impose the condition that the noble Earl mentions, and it will also indeed add other important ones. For example, paragraph 5.142 of the Territorial Army Regulations says that applications for re-engagement are to be subject to the individual's efficiency, his medical standard, his age and a recommendation by his commanding officer. Again, it would not be appropriate to put all those detailed requirements in the Bill, as the noble Earl readily acknowledges. We would not wish to promote one requirement above the others by putting it in primary legislation. That is the other danger.
CWH 60
Perhaps I may advert to a concern expressed by the noble Earl on the question of re-engagement. Clause 19 creates the possibility of notice engagements, so that probably meets his point. I am not sure whether the noble Earl spoke to his final amendment. I may have missed the detailed remarks on that but I would he delighted to respond if he wished to speak to it.
Earl Attlee: I am most grateful for that reply. As for Clause 11, I do not believe I covered it properly but I am sure we can move on. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Re-engagement for service]:
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Judd: On behalf of my noble friends and myself, I hope the Committee will forgive me if I just suggest that we ought to look a little at the significance of this clause before we endorse it.
It seems to us that there are two interesting principles at stake here. On the one hand, of course, in the whole concept and ethos of the volunteer services, one is wanting to capitalise on the sense of commitment, keenness and the identification of the individual with the part of the forces in which he or she is serving. That is obviously a very rich asset. But on the other, we are recognising—I believe we are all realistic about this and I am sure the reserve forces take great heart from it—that the reserve forces are becoming increasingly more significant in the total defence effort.
Therefore we wonder just how realistic this clause is. It would be extremely helpful at this stage to hear a little from the noble Earl about the thinking and rationale behind it. Let me just underline the point that I am trying to make.
The clause refers to the right of a man in the Territorial Army, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, the Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve to be enlisted for the service "as he may select". That is good in the sense of the whole issue of morale and identification and a sense of trust, but at a time of acute need, with tremendous pressures on the nation and on the reserve forces, how practical will this always be in terms of the priorities that may be emerging in a particular situation? We would appreciate some enlightenment from the noble Earl on this point. The clause also goes on to say, and in the context of what I have just been saying it is perhaps a little more significant, that a man of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, the Army Reserve or the 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."
Again, on the one hand, of course it is ideal to have an individual doing something he really wants to do and believes in doing, but in the context and reality of a hot situation, a complicated, demanding situation, will this

CWH 61
always be possible? Therefore, while we raise this question, we are looking at the balance between the two principles. We are also anxious that people contemplating service in these contexts, should not in any way be misled. I am sure, therefore, that the noble Earl will realise that we raise the matter not in any sense of hostility to what this Bill is intending to do at all. As the noble Earl will know, we are very much behind the general thrust of the Bill. If I may put it very candidly, we have a sense of anxiety about the implications of the clause and it would be very helpful if the noble Earl could put us more fully in the picture at this stage.
Lord Redesdale: I would like to speak against the proposal that the clause do not stand part because I believe that many members of the Territorial Army are very keen to join one particular arm of the Territorial Army. Indeed, one of the points that must be raised is that we have an increasingly sophisticated army and it takes rather a long time to train members of the Territorial Army to fulfil adequately the function for which they are training. I believe this clause is quite necessary.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for setting out his concerns and it may be helpful to the Committee if I explain the purpose of this clause. It allows men of the Territorial Army and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force the right on enlistment to choose the corps, unit or body in which they wish to serve.
A similar right also extends to men of the Army Reserve or Air Force Reserve who may choose which military or air force body they wish to join when they enlist in those forces.
There is no equivalent provision for the reserve naval and marine forces because they are not divided in the same way as the reserve land and air forces.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned service ethos.
There is one point that I would stress in this context which is that the choice of corps or unit is an essential part of the volunteer ethos. Allowing an individual a choice of unit or corps with which he can identify is an important aid to maintaining morale.
As the noble Lords will be aware, many units have a strong local identity and recruiting base. This helps to develop and strengthen their links with the local community. They also have in many cases long, honourable and illustrious histories. This really is a powerful factor in encouraging people to join the volunteer reserves. Allowing an individual to choose to join the local unit of his or her choice is an essential part of that.
I believe it is an important reassurance to volunteers that, having chosen their unit, they may not be posted or transferred away from it without their consent. Subsections (3), (4) and (5) provide for this. The prospect of enforced posting is likely in our view to damage recruitment or damage retention or both.
To complete the picture, and in response to a point that the noble Lord, Lord Judd made, I should perhaps mention that subsection (6) provides that the right that I have referred to is suspended while individuals are in
CWH 62
permanent service. That deals with the point about hot demand. Clause 20 explains this in more detail and provides that at the end of a period of permanent service a man is entitled to return to his original unit.
I hope that that is of some assistance and, having heard what I have said, the noble Lord will feel content to let the clause stand part.
Lord Judd: I would like to thank the noble Earl for what he said and I certainly do not want in any way to make a fundamental stand on this clause. But I would like to make the observation that, while I completely take the point he has made about hot situations and subsection (6), which I think is a very valid response by the noble Earl, I am still concerned—as I think it is fair to say are my noble friends—about the importance of not inadvertently selling a false prospectus. One can envisage situations developing in which—however much one would wish it and sees the strength of the principle—it would not be rational or reasonable to put, above all else, the first wish of the individual concerned. In the end, the armed services in any form must be about the defence of the realm and it must be what is necessary for the defence of the realm that takes priority.
In that context, I quite accept the point that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made about not wanting to discourage recruits. But I think it is important that anyone contemplating service should always bear in mind, as an individual, that it is not just about doing something nice with friends in a good social setting. It is a serious commitment for the defence of the realm and, therefore, there must be a readiness to do whatever is demanded at any particular time.
Having made those observations, I suspect that I am underlining that we are not totally assured. However, I do not want to delay the proceedings and, therefore, we are quite content to see the clause go forward.
Earl Howe: Before indicating our assent or otherwise to this clause, perhaps I could come back on one point that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has made. There may be some factors which inevitably limit the choice available to a potential reservist and that may be the case, for example, where there is some specialism, experience or age range that is a prerequisite for entry into particular units, bodies or corps. Orders or regulations under Clause 4 will have the power to impose such entry restrictions. But, those restrictions are made known to potential recruits through the appropriate advertising literature, so that there is no difficulty about that. They are made known at the time when they inquire about enlistment. I do not believe that there is any question of selling the reserve forces, as it were, on a false prospectus.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15: [Discharge by commanding officer]:
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16: [Entitlement to discharge]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, leave out line 24.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 12 stands in my name and those of my noble friends. Clause 16 deals 'with entitlement to discharge. The Committee will be aware that we have had a number of clause stand part debates which is always rather irritating in a sense for the Committee—which we try to avoid—but nevertheless as we are in a position where all these are probing amendments or probing debates I hope the noble Earl will be patient with us. Indeed these are two amendments—if I may speak to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 together——which are essentially probing and essentially clause stand part-type amendments, if I may use that expression.
I should be grateful if the noble Earl could say a few words, on Amendment No. 12, as regards what other circumstances would enable somebody to be entitled to be discharged. It is a broad provision in the Bill. I am perfectly happy that it should be quite broad, but I should be grateful if the noble Earl could give us some indication of what the Government have in mind in including this provision other than a blanket clause just allowing somebody, or the Defence Council, or commanding officer, to specify whatever he thinks is appropriate. Will there, for instance, be some sort of continuity of relationship between the different services and the different voluntary organisations? Will there be any mechanism for ensuring that entitlement to discharge in one service is similar to entitlement to discharge in another? Will there be precedents? Will those precedents rate at all? There are all sorts of questions that arise out of this particular expression
"in such other circumstances as may be prescribed".
If I may speak for a minute to Amendment No. 13, again I do not wish to leave out subsection (4); this is purely a probing amendment. But the question of whether the man—or presumably woman—concerned should deliver up,
"in good order, fair wear and tear excepted, all arms, clothing and other public property issued to him"
is something which strikes a rather odd chord here. If somebody—and it may be a member of the volunteer services—for some reason or other gets into difficulty, illness or whatever it might be, the idea that he should hand in all his kit and all the rest of it as a sort of pre-condition to entitlement to discharge seems to us slightly odd. It depends entirely, as I read the clause, on the whim of the commanding officer as to whether these matters should apply. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could clarify these matters a bit, in the light of the fact that we do not care what government statements are made about the amendments that we move. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out the background to these amendments, and I am glad of course to clarify what is meant by the section of the text to which he has directed the Committee's attention. The last paragraph of Clause 16 gives valuable flexibility for regulations to create additional rights to early discharge, which we would not wish to lose. An example of the application of the power is that the regulations for the Royal Naval Reserve provide a right of discharge to a man who is to join the Merchant Navy.
CWH 64
Subsection (4) forms part of the right to be discharged before the end of the term of service, which is created by subsection 2(a). That right is an important part of maintaining the volunteer spirit. Indeed, without it, many potential recruits might well not join at all. They are reassured to know that, if their personal circumstances or their employment circumstances change, or simply if they find that the reserve life does not suit them, they can leave without difficulty.
However, we think that that right should he subject to conditions. The notice period of not more than three months serves to prevent individuals resigning, perhaps under pressure from their families or something like that, when call-out seems likely. The requirement to return clothing and equipment safeguards the public purse, which is quite right and proper. Subsection (4) permits those conditions to be waived by the commanding officer if he thinks that the reasons for discharge are of sufficient urgency or weight. That, again, is a useful flexibility. In normal circumstances the requirement for notice is quite often waived, because there is little point in keeping someone on the books who is unwilling. If someone is ill, the normal practice would be for the unit to collect the man's kit.
The noble Lord asked whether there would he identical regulations within each of the services. The answer is that there will be a general similarity but perhaps differences of detail between each service. But the principles will be exactly the same.
I hope that that background is of assistance and that the noble Lord will feel comfortable in withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Can the noble Earl tell the Committee whether these arrangements are already in force under existing legislation and, if so, how in practice they have worked out? Have they worked out well?
Earl Howe: They are in force at the moment and in general they do work very well, so the Bill does no more than lay out current practice.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Orders and regulations as to enlistment etc.]:
Lord Williams of Elvel: Clause 19 brings us back to the question of what I would call over-ride—that is, whether regulations made under Clause 4 are so wide in scope that they over-ride almost everything else, or many things, in the Bill. In particular, we are talking about enlistment, re-engagement and the discharge of men from the reserve forces.
As I read Clause 19—I hope that the noble Earl will be able to help me on this—regulations under Clause 4 over-ride all the matters that we have previously

CWH 65
discussed in Committee with respect to the matters which I have read out. I have no doubt that, under certain circumstances, that may be desirable, but it does seem to be a slightly odd feature of the Bill as I read it. No doubt the noble Earl will be able to help me if I have got it wrong. Under Clause 19, anything that has come before can be amended by regulations as specified in Clause 19(1). That is the basic problem I have with Clause 19, the only exceptions being subsection (3) and (4) which have some limitation under these powers. Other than that, the question is really very wide indeed. I wonder whether the Government can explain exactly why these powers in their wide ambit are required.
5 p.m.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Lord. This clause enables orders or regulations to be made to deal with the details of service and the details of enlistment and re-engagement, sometimes referred to as terms of service regulations. It is modelled on Section 2 of the Armed Forces Act 1966, which provides an equivalent power to make the terms of service regulations for the regular forces.
One reason for the change is to allow for the same flexibility over engagements in the reserves as the Armed Forces Act 1966 allows in the case of the regular forces. The Reserve Forces Act 1980 stipulates fixed engagements of between one and five years for various forces in different circumstances. That can be inflexible. It may be worth reminding the Committee of the point I made to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, a little earlier that the flexibility created by this clause is valuable. In particular, if it were ever thought appropriate, the approach adopted in the clause would allow for a change to engagements for a longer period with provision for a formal period of notice to end the engagement. That would of course be additional to the general right to give notice in writing to leave before the end of the engagement under Clause 16(2). Such a system would offer the advantage of avoiding the need for individuals to re-engage periodically, sometimes as often as every year. That causes an administrative burden and occasionally results in reservists deciding not to re-engage at this point, even though they might otherwise stay on. Therefore I believe that a change of this kind could assist retention.
Clause 19(2) also makes engagements for home or local service possible, thus allowing for greater flexibility in the future. That would offer the chance to serve in the reserve forces to those who have a contribution to make in the reserves but feel that they could not easily assume the fuller burdens of the normal liability to serve anywhere in the world.
The remaining subsections (3) and (4) safeguard the rights of an individual. They ensure that no greater obligation can be imposed on him without his consent than he is under during his current period of service. His rights would be unaffected by any subsequent change to the provisions of the orders or regulations.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, the regulations obviously have to operate within the statutory framework. It would be
CWH 66
quite inappropriate, indeed ultra vires, if they ever sought to override the statute. I felt that I should make that point.
Lord Williams of Elvel: When the noble Earl says that they deal with the details, there is nothing in Clause 19 that I see which refers to details. I do not have to read out to the Committee Clause 19(1) which says in effect that orders or regulations under Clause 4 may make provision for anything in Part II, which deals with enlistment and conditions of service. I do not see anything in there, subject to the restrictions placed in subsections (3) and (4) of the clause, which stops an order under Clause 4 of the Bill changing anything in Clauses 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 or 18. Am I wrong in that?
Earl Howe: The short answer to that is "Yes".
Lord Williams of Elvel: In what manner?
Earl Howe: The noble Lord may have misheard me. I said that the clause enables orders or regulations to be made to deal with the details of service. The clause itself does not purport to deal with the details. What it does is to enable orders to be made to deal with those details.
Lord Williams of Elvel: There is no mention of details in the clause. This may be a drafting point, and I may be following something rather stupid, but I must read out to the Committee Clause 19(1):
"Orders or regulations under section 4"—
which is in the first part of the Bill
"may make provision with respect to the enlistment and re-engagement of men in, and the discharge of men from, the reserve forces and generally for carrying this Part into effect".
Lord Mottistone: What is wrong with that?
Earl Howe: The point here is that the clause is implicitly subject to the details set out in Clauses 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and so on. The Bill, as I said earlier, has to be read as a whole. It cannot be read piecemeal.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that. That is a statement of the position of the Bill which I am sure the courts will take into account, should it ever come to that.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Judd: I should like to endorse what my noble friend Lord Williams said about the number of clause stand part debates that we are having, but it seems to me that one of the advantages of the procedure that we are following is that in some ways it gives a better opportunity to probe the thinking and rationale behind particular clauses than may always he the case in the more usual procedures which we pursue in the Chamber itself. I do not feel apologetic about it, because it seems to me to be a very enlightened way to approach legislation.

CWH 67
It is in that spirit that we raise again our doubts on Clause 21. It is not that we want to oppose it; we do not fully understand it. That is the problem and I am sure that the noble Earl, in his very courteous and helpful way, will remove any doubts that we have.
At first sight, it seems to us—and it may just be that we are misreading what is intended—a little strange that if someone is serving in a particular force, he should he designated in any way that is unfamiliar to those with whom he is serving. It seems to me that for the time he is in that particular force, it makes much more sense to acquire the titles and designations which apply in that force so that everybody understands the situation and there are no complications. This may well be cleared up by the noble Earl in a moment or two. We should like to hear his observations on this.
Earl Howe: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I am happy to clarify the provisions of Clause 21 for the benefit of the Committee.
The purpose of this clause is to make it clear that former marines in the Royal Fleet Reserve are treated as marines and not as naval ratings when in permanent service, performing duties or undergoing training. It avoids two problems. First, men of the Royal Fleet Reserve come under the Naval Discipline Act when called out or being trained or exercised. Those who are former Royal Marines come under the Naval Discipline Act when on ship or on the books of a naval establishment, and are also subject to military law under the Army Act. This reflects the position of regular Royal Marines. This clause, in conjunction with the relevant service discipline Acts, recognises it.
Secondly, it clarifies which sets of orders, regulations and other powers apply to former marines in the Royal Fleet Reserve when called out or training. It is a fairly abstruse area, but that is the explanation. I hope that the noble Lord will find it of assistance.
Lord Mottistone: Having served with Marines both ashore and afloat, I can slightly help the noble Lords opposite. The Royal Marine, when he serves at sea, as was explained by my noble friend, comes under the Naval Discipline Act. When he serves ashore, on the whole he comes under the Army Act for disciplinary purposes. This kind of thing has to be taken care of and it has to be covered for reserves in a special way, particularly in relation to when they are in permanent service. It is an obscure area as my noble friend says, and I really feel that it would be helpful to the noble Lords opposite to have a lengthy lecture from a distinguished Royal Marine and, if necessary, I could try and arrange that for them if they really want to know the answer to this. But I can assure them that what is here makes a great deal of sense to me.
Lord Judd: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for what he has just said. I find it very helpful. I would just like to suggest that, in view of the helpful explanation, there might be a case for the Government looking again at this clause and seeing
CWH 68
whether it could not more self-evidently and clearly state what the noble Earl has explained to the Committee. I am not claiming any particular intellectual status for those of us on this side of the Committee, but if we were slightly bewildered by the intention of the clause it might be that others contemplating service or reading the Act, without the benefit of the background and experience, might also be a little bewildered. It seems to us that it is better if legislation states clearly what is intended as distinct from stating in a rather obscure way what is intended and only enabling people to discover the full meaning if they have the opportunity of questioning the responsible Minister. I would be glad if the noble Earl would take the main purport of what we have been saying and at least indicate that he is prepared to look at the matter before the Bill is finalised.
Earl Howe: I will gladly look at it again. The key point is that former regular soldiers joined the Army Reserve, former regular naval ratings joined the Royal Fleet Reserve hut so do former regular Royal Marines. The point of the clause is to keep those two bodies of men separate. That is the essence of it.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Again, these are fairly small points. I am sure that all Members of the Committee would wish to preserve the principle that members of the reserve forces should be properly trained. Otherwise they will be no good when they are called out into service, and it is appropriate that there should be obligatory training as specified in Clause 22. The problem—if there is a problem—comes in exemptions to obligatory training. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could give an assurance that exemptions will be carefully monitored, limited to the smallest possible extent, and not given without due consideration. Will exemption under subsection (3)(b) "in the case of the unit or group" be carefully considered by senior officers?
Earl Howe: As the noble Lord indicated, the clause relates to the power to make exemptions from the training obligation under Clause 22, or to relax that obligation. Subsections (1) and (2) permit the appropriate orders or regulations to be made. It may be helpful to the Committee if I explain what lies behind the proposal. The power will be used, for example, to exempt officers who are in the Territorial Army or the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve solely for the purpose of service with the cadet forces from their training liability.
Subsection (3) enables the Defence Council to delegate to an "authorised officer" the power to exempt particular units or other groups from their full training obligations. Those obligations may also be relaxed as an alternative to straight exemption. For example, it may be that some unusual circumstance leads to cancellation of a unit's annual camp. If there were insufficient time to arrange another in the training year, it would be

CWH 69
necessary to exempt the unit from its liability. The "authorised officer" will be an officer somewhere in the chain of command between the Defence Council and the commanding officer of a unit. He might be, in the case of the Territorial Army, a Brigade Commander or Divisional Commander.
A commanding officer will have the power to exempt or relax the training obligations of individuals under his command. This might be because the individual already has the necessary qualification or skill or, indeed, to take account of personal commitments.
It is in our view sensible that decisions of this kind are taken by the people best placed to know the personal circumstances of the individuals concerned. I can assure noble Lords that all such decisions are very carefully taken and considered. I hope that is of help to the noble Lord and that the Committee will agree that this delegation of the power is appropriate and indeed can only work to the benefit of the individual.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Commitments to a period of full-time service]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 10, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) A person who, in any training year, has been in continuous full-time service for a period exceeding one month shall—

(a) have that period of service count towards the period of service required to qualify for a Territorial Decoration or Territorial Efficiency Medal;

(b) be certified efficient and qualify for any annual training or liability bounty notwithstanding that he may not have passed all the relevant tests.").

The noble Earl said: I start by declaring a special interest. I already have my Territorial Efficiency Medal and I aspire to my Territorial Decoration. The Territorial Efficiency Medal is for soldiers; the Territorial Decoration is for officers. The position of my OC is the same, and several other officers within my unit are in the same position. They already have the TEM and they aspire to the TD.
There was a problem during the Gulf War where TA soldiers and officers were invited to take on an S-type engagement or a short service voluntary commission. The problem came at the end of the training year when it transpired that they had not carried out all their training commitments. Perhaps they had not done a camp, perhaps they had not passed annual personal weapons test—for some reason they had not met their training liability.
There was also another problem. The time they served in the Regular Army on the S-type engagement or the short service voluntary commission did not accrue towards either their Territorial Efficiency Medal or their Territorial Decoration. I hope the Bill covers this problem and I look forward to listening to what the noble Earl, the Minister, has to say on that.
At one point there was a study on the two TA long service medals. Does the Minister know where we are with that? If he does, can he advise us? If he does not
CWH 70
know, can I ask him not to interfere? I have never heard a complaint about the two medals and they should be left exactly as they are. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and speak to my amendment, Amendment No. 25. I realise that this is a probing amendment and I doubt that it will make the face of the Bill. However, I would like to question the Minister on what are two of the most useful tools of the Territorial Army in keeping both our soldiers for a long period of time and also making sure that they fulfil their commitment and training. Obviously the S-type engagement which has been discussed has raised questions in many people's minds and it is not a matter which is taken lightly. Both the TEM and the TD are regarded extremely highly and the people who are aspiring to these medals have to serve 12 years to get them. If they fail one year to fulfil their engagement, they have to complete a further year.
I believe that both the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and I are intimately acquainted with the problems that can he associated with this as we both commanded the same LAD and we have both had to deal with the paperwork involved when a craftsman, a recovery mechanic, had lost one payslip and was therefore discounted from getting his TEM. It caused a great deal of uproar within the unit.
I realise that it may not get on the face of the Bill, but I hope the noble Earl can give us some assurance that these matters will be taken seriously.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to both the noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, raised two points in his amendment which I know are of concern in the Territorial Army. I must say that I find myself in sympathy with much of it.
He is proposing, in essence, that time spent performing full-time service under a commitment as provided in Clause 24 of the Bill should count towards the time required to earn entitlement to the Territorial Decoration and the Territorial Efficiency Medal.
At present the time required to earn the Territorial Decoration and the Territorial Efficiency Medal must generally be spent continuously in the Territorial Army. We have not yet fully considered the rules which might apply to service under a Clause 24 agreement. I understand, however, that TA personnel joining the Regular Army on short service volunteer commissions and special S-type engagements may count that service towards their Territorial decoration or efficiency medal. I see no reason why the same should not apply to service under Clause 24, although, as I say, no decision has yet been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made a similar point in connection with the eligibility for such awards of those serving on special agreements under Part IV. The same remarks apply there. I should add for the benefit of the Committee that eligibility for medals and awards is governed entirely by prerogative, and is therefore not an appropriate matter for the Bill. But I will take away the views of the Committee, with which I find myself in sympathy.

CWH 71
The way in which full-time service under Clause 24 will affect entitlement to bounty has not yet been decided. We envisage that some types of full-time service would qualify for full regular rates of pay. It might be seen as unfair to regulars for such service to earn bounty as well. I can assure the noble Earl that I am very much aware of the strength of feeling that surrounds the issue of bounty in the Territorial Army and I believe that the concerns on this point should be drawn to the attention of the appropriate service authorities. I shall certainly do that. However, the details of such matters are properly matters for the various reserve forces regulations rather than this Bill.
I hope that, having heard those remarks, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Attlee: I thank the noble Earl the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Additional duties commitments]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 11, line 4, after ("duties,") insert ("including participation in operations,").
The noble Earl said: This amendment inserts the words "including participation in operations". It is a probing amendment to see how far the clause goes. Can the Minister confirm that there is absolutely no limit on what a TA soldier can be doing under this clause?
Earl Howe: Let me say immediately that the sense of the noble Earl's amendment is quite correct. We do wish reservists serving under Clause 25 to be able to undertake operational duties. However, the same is true of those serving under full-time commitment in Clause 24. We intend that reservists undertaking voluntary duties under Clause 27(1)(b) could take part in disaster relief operations.
The effect of the amendment would be to imply that the word "duties", when used elsewhere in the Bill, did not include operational duties. That would severely constrain the flexibility that the Bill would bring to the reserve forces. I hope that those remarks have clarified the position for the noble Earl.
Earl Attlee: I thank the noble Earl. Can we therefore understand that the word "duties" includes operations?
Earl Howe: The word "duties" is not defined in the Bill. It is understood to mean any activity which the individual may lawfully be required to carry out as a member of a force.
Earl Attlee: I thank the noble Earl for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Parliamentary control of commitments]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Clause 27 deals with voluntary training and other duties. I wonder if the noble Earl could help me on what are relatively little matters. It is perfectly clear that the general thrust of the clause is right and acceptable but certain questions do arise. For instance, what happens if somebody wishes to undertake voluntary training? Who pays for that? Who meets the bill? Who meets the transport cost and the training cost? Is there any arrangement in force to ensure that the volunteer is not penalised? How will this all work in practice both financially and in terms of people's employment? I should be most grateful if the noble Earl could give us the Government's view on how this will work in the future.
Earl Howe: This clause formalises the existing arrangements under which members of the reserve forces carry out more than their statutory obligations. It explicitly allows them to carry out duties as well as training. The reserve forces can only function because so many of their members volunteer to carry out duties and training well beyond their minimum obligations. This clause simply gives a clear legal basis for this, and provides that an individual carrying out extra training or duties is subject to service law, which is what one would expect.
Under this clause members of the reserve forces could take advantage of any opportunities for training or duty which became available at short notice. It would also allow for those who were available to perform ad hoc tasks such as providing additional manpower in times of disruption caused by severe weather or something of that kind.
The noble Lord asked about the financial arrangements in connection with voluntary duties. Obviously the key point is that an individual performs his statutory requirement, his statutory duty, before the voluntary element comes into play. There are arrangements for unpaid training set out in TA regulations; that training is either like normal training but personnel voluntarily agree to forego the pay that they would have received, or it is training of limited value and whilst on duty the individual concerned does not incur a cost to the MoD. My explanation has reached its conclusion. I shall gladly take advice on the precise financial arrangements which apply and, if necessary, we can return to this at a later stage and I shall be delighted to elucidate the Committee further.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I should be quite happy to receive a letter from him—which perhaps he might send to other Members of the Committee—on the precise details that, perhaps purely because of my limited comprehension, have not managed to get through to me.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Special agreements]:
5.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 17:

CWH 73
Page 12, line 38, leave out ("in qualifying employment").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 17 stands in my name and those of my noble friends. Of course it is not the intention to leave out the expression "in qualifying employment" because that is an important expression in Part IV. Nevertheless, I should be grateful if the noble Earl could give us a definition, quite apart from the definition in the explanatory Clause 37, of qualifying employment. Is someone who is self-employed, a partner in a business, who may have, "a contract of service which normally involves employment for 14 hours" excluded? It could be a variable contract or it could be shift work. I am bound to say that I am a little confused about what "qualifying employment" really means and whether self-employed people and partners in businesses are excluded under this definition of "qualifying employment". I should be most grateful if the noble Earl could help me on the matter. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this amendment. Provisions for employers' consent have been influenced to no small degree by the consultation process that we carried out. We need to safeguard the legitimate interests of employers without excessive administration, while maintaining as far as possible the assured availability of the individuals for call out. What we wanted to allow for in the Bill was the fact that a proportion of reservists would not be in traditional, full-time employment. We wanted to protect the interests of the employer for whom a reservist works for, say, half the week but without giving a veto over the special agreement to, say, the landlord for whom the reservist serves drinks on one evening a week. That is why we introduced the concept of "qualifying employment". We have set the threshold at 14 hours a week, which is just less than two normal working days or their equivalent. There is provision in Clause 37(4) for that figure to be reduced if it seems appropriate to do so in future years. For the moment, however, we believe 14 hours to be right.
The noble Lord asked me about partnerships and the self-employed. The clause does not apply to either and in fact it would be difficult to legislate effectively to intervene in a business relationship of the kind that a partnership embodies. Indeed, legally speaking, neither the self-employed nor partners are employed people.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl as far as that goes. But does he then mean to say that Part IV as a whole will not apply to partners or self-employed people or people on casual employment, or is there some arrangement in another part of the Bill which will allow that to work?
Earl Howe: I would do well to draw the noble Lord's and the Committee's attention to Clause 29(2)(a), which refers specifically to those not in qualifying employment. If someone is not in qualifying employment, clearly he does not need the employer's consent.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Short-term contracts are becoming an increasing feature of the industrial scene nowadays. People have a contract for perhaps two years, and they may or may not have another contract at the end of the two years. Would that be qualifying employment or not?
Earl Howe: It is quite difficult to see how individuals on short-term contracts or temporary contracts could meet the terms of the special agreement. The nature of such employment would mean that many individuals would be completely unable to predict with any certainty what their future employment circumstances were going to be. It is also likely that their employer would not be prepared to give his consent. So I believe there are major difficulties there.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sure the noble Earl will understand that this is quite an important point. This is a fairly new concept and we wish to explore it, if I may say so, at some length. The noble Earl replied to my noble friend that anyone on a short-term contract would have difficulty in complying with the arrangements.
As my noble friend pointed out, this is increasing not only in the national services but also in the manufacturing service in the sense that employers, looking to specialised firms to take on a workforce, contract that to what was formerly an employerW—in other words, there is a contracting out of labour. That is very common not only in manufacturing industries, but also in national services and it will become more important as we go on. Without wishing to trespass on other matters, it allows employers more flexibility in the terms and conditions under which they can contract for a labour force. That is a reality in today's life.
Secondly, the noble Earl said that, in terms of self-employed and partners, quite rightly under Clause 29(2) they did not require a certificate from their employer; that is self-evident. Nevertheless, if you have a partnership in an accounting firm or a solicitor's firm, clearly a solicitor or an accountant would wish to sign a special agreement. How would he get the agreement of his partners either in a solicitor's firm or not? He does not have to have a certificate from his employer because he is not employed. How would all this work? I hope the noble Earl does not feel that I am raising points that are not of important principle and I should be grateful if he could help us further.
Earl Howe: I fully understand the points that the noble Lord has made and, of course, we live in an age when contracting out is very much a reality of life. I should draw a distinction between the type of contractor who has a permanent workforce which may be employed by somebody else to perform some task or other—in other words, there is a firm with permanent employees on its books and that firm is contracted to do a job—and the situation to which the noble Baroness referred, which I think is one of short-term work by individuals on contract, very often self-employed.
Baroness Turner of Camden: It is not unusual, however, for people to be on short-term contracts for a very long time. They have a contract for two years. At the end of the two years there will be a renewal of the contract and so on. This has been a feature of certain kinds of work for a long while. I refer in particular, to people who work on, say, university projects for which there is a certain amount of money available. They will have two years and at the end of the two years there is still more money and they can be given another two years and another two years. It is not uncommon for people to go on for 14 or 15 years like that.
Earl Howe: The noble Baroness is perfectly right but I come back to the point that I made earlier. There has to be certainty on both sides. If the individual cannot predict with certainty what he or she might be doing, then it is very difficult either for him or her, or the employer, to give consent and I think that there is a real practical difficulty in those circumstances.
The noble Lord asked me about partnerships. I think the problem with partnerships is that it would be difficult to legislate effectively to intervene in a business relationship of that nature. Partners are not employed by each other and it is a relationship of the utmost good faith in legal terms. In that light, a reservist would, in view of his duty of good faith to his fellow partners, discuss his intentions with them presumably before making a special agreement. It would be perfectly possible for him to do so—the Bill does not preclude it—but there is a different type of arrangement. We fully recognise that the pool of people with the necessary skills, whose personal and employment circumstances permit them to be available for operations at relatively short notice, may be quite small. It is better to find that out in advance than at a time of crisis. The short answer to the noble Lord is that it is, at the moment, too early to say how great a problem there might be. I believe that the Bill takes us a step forward from the arrangements that now apply. We shall, of course, do our best to make the concept a success.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I know that he recognises the difficulty. I agree entirely that the pool of people available to sign the special agreements specified in Part IV may be a problem. It is not only a question of short-term contracts by employers; it is also a question of short-term contracts by firms providing workforces on contract to people who are entrepreneurs. They could be banks; they could be anything. Clearly, a partnership is something that could be overcome; nevertheless a partnership agreement may be required which a party should sign. I am trying to help the Government to increase the pool of people available. There may well be ways of restructuring to allow for that. There may well be ways of making self-employed people available in a way we cannot yet predict. My concern, as I mentioned on Second Reading, is that we have to wait and see how the proposal works, but we need to understand the difficulties that may accrue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 18:
CWH 76
Page 13, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) No person, other than a person with a medical qualification. shall enter into a special agreement unless he has, on the date on which he enters into that agreement, been under training for three years as a member of the reserve forces or as a member of the regular army.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is two-fold. First, to set a minimum time commitment for service and training before one can enter into a special agreement means that the soldiers entering that commitment will be properly trained. Secondly, there will be a small group of people who are specially trained in services the Army want. I talk about services that are available outside the Army. However, there are also specialities and skills that will only be acquired through training. I refer, for instance, to recovery mechanics serving with REME; there are very few outside. In the Signals regiments, there are those trained in specialist types of equipment. It takes a good deal of time to acquire all these skills. Although three years seems a prohibitive amount of time before someone can take part in a special agreement, the actual nature of training within the Territorial Army has to be appreciated to see why that period is necessary. The first year will he spent in basic training. There are only 35 man-training days a year in which to learn how to use a rifle, how to carry out basic first-aid, acquire nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare skills and to attend camp. That leaves two further years in which to learn a specialised skill. In the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, vehicle electricians have to acquire such skills working on vehicles which are not usually in operation outside the Army. To acquire such specialised skills means attending courses within the Army. That will take up the training commitment for that year and although sometimes you can extend your man-training days you are limited to learning certain skills and you have to go on the next year to enhance your skills. Obviously the time commitment of three years seems more realistic although it is quite harsh.
The other point I wish to raise is that the most difficult time as regards employers is when employees first join the TA. One often finds that when people have been in the Territorial Army for a number of years their employer understands more about the Territorial Army. Perhaps he visits the Territorial unit and understands what it does and is therefore more sympathetic to the needs of the Territorial Army. In the amendment I exclude those with medical qualifications because doctors and the like will not need the same amount of military training as others. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Attlee: I rise briefly to support this amendment. It is right that people with insufficient military experience should not be undertaking such a commitment. I believe there is a slight drafting error with the amendment in that it does not acknowledge previous Regular Army service or service in another force, but in principle it is right that we should restrict service in the high readiness reserve to people with sufficient experience.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has raised an important point. I agree with him that those

CWH 77
who take on the obligation of becoming a member of the high readiness reserve should be properly trained. Indeed that applies equally to those liable to be deployed on operations under other parts of the Bill, although I remember the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, explaining to us at Second Reading how such considerations were set aside in his case in 1939.
I can say that when we sought volunteers for deployment to Bosnia in December, minimum training qualifications were set for each post to be filled. The nub of the amendment is therefore well taken by the service authorities. There are difficulties —some of them fairly obvious—with setting out a provision like this which has universal applicability. The amendment mentions doctors as a special case, but what about engineers, say, or linguists? Quite often in the volunteer reserve forces one keen individual may make more progress in one year's service than another who can manage only the minimum attendance, would make in three years.
A provision taking account of all those points would be far too detailed for the Bill, and would still not allow the flexibility needed to deal with special cases. I have to say that it will be better to leave it to the service authorities to set their own rules and procedures. Those rules and procedures are fully in accord with the thrust of the amendment. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will be content to withdraw the amendment in the light of what I have said.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, although he says that certain skills are needed such as engineering or linguistic skills, certain requirements should not be overlooked. Just because someone turns up who can speak a Slavic language it does not mean that he should immediately go to Bosnia. He might never have seen a rifle let alone laid hands on one and there are still certain training commitments he should undertake such as training in the nuclear, biological or chemical fields. However, I take the point the Minister has made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 28 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Attlee: Clause 28 is the paving clause for the high readiness reserve. It is clearly a very important and key part of the Bill. I have a little difficulty with it in that when I speak to the powers that be they seem somewhat unsure of exactly what sort of specialisations they are looking for. Are they looking for so many drivers, infantrymen or mechanics, or are they looking for chest surgeons, cartographers or other specialities?
It will cause a problem with recruiting in that many employers will think that members of the TA are likely to go off at short notice when in fact it has been acknowledged that the numbers involved in a high readiness reserve are really quite low. But it needs to be remembered that employment decisions and promotion decisions within commercial organisations are made at quite low levels by relatively unsophisticated people. Therefore, they can easily get the wrong end of the stick.
CWH 78
I also wonder whether it is strictly necessary. There is a concept within the new reserve forces structure of the ready reserve list, a list of volunteers who are prepared to go at short notice. The ready reserve list does not appear on the face of the Bill because it does not need primary legislation; it is basically an internal arrangement in the units. So I wonder whether the arrangement for high readiness reserves would be better made by the ready reserve list. I also wonder whether we are missing a great untapped wealth of skills throughout the TA for this reason. You can have an infantry unit with some very fine vehicle mechanics within that unit, when there is not a REME unit nearby. Therefore they will join the nearest unit which happens to be infantry. If we had a decent database we could do a trawl for the specialist skills we wanted and extract them from whatever unit they happened to be in.
My chief point is this. Exactly what does the Minister want out of the high readiness reserves in terms of the skills he is looking for? I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for setting out his concerns with his usual clarity. This clause, as he has indicated, provides that a reservist may enter into a special agreement making him liable to be called out for up to nine months' permanent service anywhere in the world.
As I said earlier, it is not anticipated that the numbers of special agreement reservists will be great—perhaps 3,000 to 5,000 at most under current plans. The nine-month time limit, incidentally, is something of a compromise between call out for as long as the particular operation is in progress and the reality that the reservist in question has a civilian job to fulfil. It is generally considered that nine months will cover most foreseeable cases, either in their entirety or will give the regular forces sufficient time to identify a further reservist replacement at the end of that time. Furthermore, it is provided that the reservist's employer must be notified that his employee is proposing to take on this extra liability and he must give his consent to it.
This giving of consent does not preclude the employer, or indeed the reservist himself, from applying to have the reservist exempted from call out or to have that call out deferred under Part VIII of the Bill. In the nature of things I fully accept that the call out of such a reservist may arise at times which are extremely difficult for his employer and when that employer needs to have the reservist at his place of civilian employment. We would expect this to reduce the number of such applications in the first place.
The intention is that the approval of all employers to whom the employee provides significant service should be obtained. A reservist may have more than one employer for these purposes, but it is our clear view that it should not be necessary for a reservist to have to seek the consent of every person who employs him, no matter for how long. I have referred to that distinction earlier this afternoon. A reservist who has a part-time job working behind a bar for a few hours a week will not therefore need to get the consent of the publican. The clause introduces the concept of qualifying employment

CWH 79
which provides that to require the employer's consent the reservist must work at the job in question for over a threshold of 14 hours per week.
The high readiness reserve is designed to attract skills which are in short supply. The basis for that is that it is not sensible to rely on seeking volunteers possessing such skills at a time of crisis. One cannot at the moment be specific as to all the skills which would be needed, but they are likely to include linguists, intelligence staff, medical staff, and air movement support staff. The skills required may well change over time. As we have said, it is too early to say how great a problem there might he in finding such people. Positive promotion to reservists and employers will be necessary; and recruitment to the reserves might be targeted on those with the appropriate civilian skills.
I hope that those remarks will have served to clarify the Government's thinking in bringing forward these proposals and that the Committee will be content to let the Clause stand part.
Earl Attlee: I thank the noble Earl for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Consent of new employer]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 14, line 9, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend. I am not terribly happy about these subsections because I am not quite certain why they are necessary. It seems to me that, as they stand, they give a fair amount of power to the so-called authorised person and the employer, but not so much to the individual directly involved. Under these two subsections the authorised person gives a certificate on a prescribed form that the employer has given his consent, but it then goes on to say that the certificate is to be conclusive evidence that the employer has consented to the continuation in force of the special agreement, even when the special agreement would otherwise have been terminated under Clause 31(2).
It seems to me that there could well be a situation in which the individual concerned believes that a special agreement has terminated and that he therefore no longer has any obligations under it, whereas this may not be the case at all, and the employer could perhaps use it as a way of getting rid of someone he did not particularly like. This does not seem to me to be a very good idea. There is no hint in either of these two subsections that the individual concerned should be approached—it is simply a deal between the authorised person and the employer. I may have misunderstood these two subsections but I would appreciate hearing what the Minister has to say about what I have indicated in moving the amendment.
Earl Howe: Part of the point of requiring an authorised officer to certify the employer's consent is that it will protect the interests of the employer, but it also protects the interests of the employee too. Indeed, it is the individual who takes the initiative in the first place to enter into a special agreement of this kind.
It may help the Committee if I explain a little about the procedure. The most straightforward procedure would be for the services to accept a note conveying the employer's consent and accept that note at face value. A provision in the Bill allows the authorised officer to consider and investigate whether the consent is valid. It is not inconceivable that an over-zealous reservist might produce a note showing an employer's consent without actually having troubled his boss. Once the authorised person has concluded that the consent is valid, we then return to the position we would have been in anyway, which is that the consent is taken to be effective. If it later transpired that the consent was in fact not properly given, the employer would be able to apply for the agreement to be terminated under Clause 31(1)(c) and 31(2). Cases would be considered on their merits, but I can say it would be with a presumption that termination would be granted unless there were good reasons not to do so.
I hope that what I have said addresses the noble Baroness's main concern—certainly I have tried to do that. I would be happy to reflect further on what she has said between now and Report stage.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that response. We shall certainly look at it when we have Hansard to see whether we need to do something at Report stage. I am very grateful for his assurance that he will look at what has been said to see whether anything needs to be done to strengthen the rights of the individual. That is what I am concerned about—the rights of the individual employee. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Call-out notices]:
6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 15, leave out lines 9 to 11.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 28 and 45. Call-out notices are served which require somebody of high readiness—I am reading from the text of the Bill as drafted,
"to remain at that place until he is either accepted into service of informed that he is not to be accepted into service in pursuance of the notice".
We have discussed the possibility that the pool of those available is perhaps rather more limited than we think. I wonder whether the noble Earl can help me on this matter? It does seem to me to be rather curious, to say the least, to expect somebody even in high readiness, having signed an agreement and having received a call-out notice, not to know whether he is going to be

CWH 81
accepted for service. By remaining at that place, which could be for an indeterminate period of time, he could lose whatever preferment he had in his employment. He could be simply, as it were, sitting around and not moving house or whatever it might be. Am I right in interpreting it in that way, and, if so, is that really what the Government seek to achieve? I beg to move.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has expressed concern that the placing of a legal requirement to remain at the place to which he is due to report may be somewhat onerous. I do not accept that. The clause and the corresponding clauses in Part V—Clause 43—Part VI—Clause 58—and Part VII—Clause 70—all make clear what has always been implicit in a call-out or recall notice. It is only commonsense that where an individual is required to present himself for service, he should be expected to remain there until the necessary administrative processes that enable him to be accepted into service can be completed, and he is told that he is or is not accepted. Having said that, the services will always endeavour to process personnel as quickly as possible. If there is a serious delay, it will be possible under Clause 32(5) for them to be told to come back at a later date. So I do not believe in practical terms there need be a difficulty here. I quite understand the general concern that the noble Lord has expressed but in practice I do not believe that this will be a problem. I hope in the light of what I have said the noble Lord will feel a little less anxious.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Let me take the position of an accountant. We have discussed the possibility of partners under a partnership agreement or whatever it is. Let me take the case of an accountant in one of the Big Six accounting firms. He has signed up because there is a requirement for accountants, let us say, at a particular point and we do not know what that requirement might be. He then is served with a call-out notice. You are required to come to wherever it is in, say, Chelmsford, when he works in London but lives in Chelmsford, and you are required, according to the words of the Bill, to remain at that place for an unspecified period of time until the bureaucracy of the armed forces, if I may put it like that, has decided whether or not you are accepted for service. In the meantime this chap, who is earning larger sums of money than either the noble Earl or I earn, is just sitting around doing nothing.
That is an extreme example and I accept that. All I am trying to get from the Minister is an understanding that within the pool of people who are liable to sign up for high readiness reserve, there may be some very experienced people earning large sums of money, who would be disadvantaged unless the procedure of acceptance or non-acceptance is accelerated beyond what is apparent in the Bill.
Earl Howe: As I have said, the services will always endeavour to process the flow of personnel as quickly as they possibly can. The call-out process inevitably involves a medical check and examination, completion of documentation and so on, and one would expect that
CWH 82
process to be completed in a matter of hours. Many formalities could be settled in advance for those on special agreements, so there is nothing to preclude that.
I take the noble Lord's point that there may he cases where there is an undue delay. Let us suppose that if between the time a man presents himself for service and the time he is formally accepted into service there is a delay, and in that time he leaves the place concerned because he cannot afford to stay there any longer, technically he would be committing an offence under Clause 95(1)(b). But there is a defence of reasonable excuse to that offence, as there is to all the offences in Clause 95, of "leave lawfully granted or reasonable excuse". "Reasonable excuse" requires the defendant to prove that on the balance of probabilities, which is the lowest standard of proof, what he did was reasonable in the circumstances, so you would have to show that there was a good, overriding reason for him to leave the place he had been ordered to remain in.
I think that is taking the case to an extreme. I only mention it because it is informative to the Committee, but the main point is that I do not believe such considerations are likely to arise in practice.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am very grateful to the noble Earl, and I admire his optimism that such situations are not liable to arise. I myself remember, as I said at Second Reading, the recruitment of the Z reservists at the time of Suez, and the delays involved for people going through exactly the routine that the noble Earl has described—the medical check-ups and filling in the forms. It was not a question of hours—it took weeks. I am worried that someone will put forward the reasonable excuse, "I am earning £100,000 a year with an accounting firm and I cannot go on sitting here just because you do not have a doctor to do my ECG" or whatever it is, "I am really rather worried and I have to go on working". That is not actually a reasonable excuse and I do not believe it would be granted.
I put this point because we have to reflect on this. I do not wish to press it, obviously, but we ought to be fairly realistic about what happens if these high readiness reserves are served with call-out notices—not in the theoretical world but in the real world.
Earl Howe: There is a substantive point that I can add to this, because if a man is kept waiting for a long period and is someone who would otherwise be earning a large salary, there is the opportunity for him to apply there and then for exemption or deferral under Part VIII of the Bill. He could take that course, and one would suppose that in the circumstances I have described there would be every reason for that application to be supported.
Earl Attlee: In a mobilisation call-up situation, my expectation would be that if the volunteer came along he would stay at the appointed place for as long as it was necessary. I would expect that would be probably at least a week. The reason is that there has to be flexibility. The staff will decide how many people they want to call up and we know that they will not get everyone they want. If they want 500 men, they will call up 700 and see how many arrive. Therefore, it is bound to take them a week to find out how many they actually

CWH 83
have who are fit on that particular day and have no valid reason for seeking deferment. I think the Minister is being very optimistic about how long it would take. Furthermore, if someone absented himself from a call-out situation, he would be in very serious trouble indeed. His decision just to leave would have all kinds of repercussions.
Earl Howe: Certainly a decision to leave could have all kinds of repercussions. I would just say that in our recent experience, when we had the call-out to Bosnia, those individuals were processed in a single day. It can be done and it is done.
Earl Attlee: I should like to support what the noble Earl said about that. The people who have been sent to Bosnia were processed very quickly and without any inconvenience.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I think we have pushed this matter far enough. The noble Earl is aware of our concerns. They are purely practical and we are trying to help. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 15, line 42, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee if at the same time I speak to Amendment No. 29.
These amendments cover the same points in both clauses. There seems to have possibly been a small slip-up in all that has been happening on the Bill in the past few clays in that Amendment No. 21 should, I think, have referred to subsection (6) as well as to subsection (7). Amendment No. 29 does, of course, refer to the matters covered in subsections(6) and (7) in Clause 21.
I do not want to make heavy weather of our concern in this area, but I do not think we should let it go by default. We live in an age of increasingly rapid mobility. What if suddenly someone was called away on a professional assignment or to a sick relative or indeed, in the case of younger people, what if somebody was—as is often the situation these days—travelling and arrangements made in good faith to notify their whereabouts, if known, had somehow gone awry? Before action was taken, it might be just as well, it has occurred to us, to have some provision for establishing whether indeed some kind of arrangements had been made in good faith, but which had just not stood the test. This part of the Bill is perhaps a little stark and I would just be reassured if the noble Earl could say how it would actually be applied in the circumstances which I have described, which are not altogether unlikely.
Earl Howe: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I are agreed on one point—it is desirable to be able to serve call-out notices by post. To that end, members of the reserve forces will, as at present, be required to provide information, including their address, in connection with the serving of notices. However, the noble Lord has explained that he is concerned over how a call-out is deemed to be served. He is thinking in particular of protecting those who may be away from their place of residence when a notice is served. I have listened carefully to what he had to say.
CWH 84
A notice can only be deemed to have been served if it is sent by registered post or recorded delivery. The removal of Clause 32(7) does not have the effect that the noble Lord perhaps intended. Subsection (7) provides that
"No steps may be taken against a person in respect of failure to comply with a call-out notice",
unless it has been received, or deemed to have been served by virtue of subsection (6). If it has not been served personally or sent by registered post or recorded delivery these conditions will not have been met and the notice will therefore be deemed not to have been served. Equally, the removal of Clause 43(7) and (8) deletes all provision for the serving of call-out notices, which I am sure the noble Lord will agree was not what he was trying to achieve. However, I understand that he has used this amendment as a probing point. I agree that it is a little unfair to those who are away from their place of residence if a notice arrives in their absence. If the noble Lord is content, I shall undertake to consider this matter before Report stage to see whether any revision of the wording in this part of the Bill is possible. With that I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Judd: The noble Earl is being extremely helpful in our deliberations this evening and I should like to put on record our appreciation of that. I find what he has said reassuring. This was, of course, a probing amendment. Another way we could have raised this matter would have been through another clause stand part debate. However, I was probably getting rather nervous about putting forward another clause stand part debate and therefore I sought to air the matter in some other way. The observations the noble Earl has made are pertinent as regards the precise effect of these amendments, but the discussion has at least enabled us to probe the issue and to hear these helpful reflections of the Minister. We look forward to hearing further thoughts at a later stage. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 33 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Judd: I seek to deal with the same point that was dealt with in Clause 9(2)(c)on which the noble Earl made an extremely helpful observation. I hope that he will repeat that observation in this context.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: Clause 33 deals with acceptance into service. The clause provides that reservists will report in accordance with their call-out notice to the place specified in it. However, the likelihood, particularly in a major crisis where many reservists are reporting, is that some reservists will be unable to report at the time and place specified. It is quite likely that some, on hearing of the crisis, will report to their usual drill hall or training centre, which may not be where the call-out notice specifies, before receiving any notice, or indeed

CWH 85
before any notice is sent at all. The clause therefore separates the process of acceptance into service from the processes of authorising call-out and serving notices.
A reservist should be able to be accepted into service whether he has complied precisely with his call-out notice or not, and indeed even if he has not been served with a call-out notice. This clause provides the required flexibility. If a reservist presents himself for service to the appropriate officer he may be accepted into service by that officer. However, such acceptance does not, by itself, prevent him being punished if he has without reasonable excuse failed to comply with his call-out notice, though it may be powerful mitigation of any penalty.
I hope that that will serve to clarify the purpose and thrust of this clause. I am afraid that the audio system in the Chamber failed us a little bit whilst the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was speaking. If I have not picked up any salient questions, I apologise. I shall be very glad to address them further.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Exercise of functions by officers]:
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Parliamentary control of numbers and reports]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 17, line 34, leave out ("from time to time report") and insert ("report annually").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to Amendment No. 23 I would also like to speak to Amendment No. 30. The Bill refers to "from time to time". I find that very vague. I fear that at some time it might not be politically expedient to make the report. Is this a legal term for when there is something to report? What does it actually mean? Is the Minister aware that Parliament may actually be interested, even if he has not used any powers in a given crisis? I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Earl Howe: As the noble Earl has explained, the effect of the amendment would be to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the exercise of his power to call out persons subject to special agreement. I appreciate the reasons for the noble Earl's amendment but it would be strange, and indeed unnecessary, to impose on the Secretary of State an obligation to report to Parliament even if no persons subject to special agreements had been called out, I believe would be the effect of his amendment.
I am not sure what the noble Earl feels would be gained by having a strict requirement of the kind he proposes. The intention of informing Parliament is one with which I can wholly sympathise, but I would not
CWH 86
want to bind the Secretary of State in a particular year when there had been no relevant activity on which to report.
Earl Attlee: My only point is that it appears to he a very vague term. It is not a matter of great consequence. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause—
INFORMATION
(" . There shall be established within the Adjutant-General Corps an agency whose purpose shall be to explain to each member of a reserve force who enters into a special agreement, whether an employee or self-employed, and, where applicable, to his employer, the financial implications of entering into such an agreement. and any financial compensation for loss of earnings that may be available.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to back up the information supplied to members of the Territorial Army who want to become a member of the high readiness reserve. The Minister, replying to my noble friend Lord Mayhew at Second Reading, gave the example of how a member of the Territorial Army could find out about financial arrangements when he became a member of the high readiness reserve by directing his questions to his commanding officer who would then write to the Ministry of Defence.
The high readiness reserve will need a great deal of promotion—indeed, as the Minister said earlier, positive promotion. The amount of information given out to individual members of the Territorial Army, and also to their employers, is crucial. It will take the agreement of the employer to allow the TA soldier to enter into the agreement. There is a probing amendment to give the Minister an opportunity to discuss how the financial arrangements will be presented to the individual soldier, I have suggested that a special unit be set up within the Adjutant General's Corps. Many members of the Territorial Army will not know what question to ask. They will not have read the Bill, which is perhaps lucky for them but there are a number of areas about which they will be uncertain.
I do not believe that it is the job of the commanding officer or the unit, which is often overstretched and perhaps might not have the relevant information, to try and sort out all the legal and financial complexities that each individual soldier might present. Therefore, it seems justified that there should be certain members of the Regular Army whose job it would be to go round and discuss with the soldier how he should arrange his financial position. considering that he is entering into a rather serious commitment. Also that member of the Adjutant-General's Corps could, if necessary, or if he was asked to, go and talk to the relevant employer, because the relevant employer might not know the financial safeguards, and without those financial safeguards he might be tempted to deny entering into

CWH 87
the agreement. I hope that the Minister can give us some information on how he foresees this information being disbursed. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: I rise briefly to support the noble Lord in his amendment. It is extremely difficult for volunteers to find out any information about financial arrangements. What would happen now if they were injured on an exercise, for example? Perhaps the Adjutant-General's Corps is not the right vehicle. Perhaps the TAVRAs would be more appropriate, because they have good relations with the employers. The problem of communication of the rights and obligations of soldiers needs to be addressed and I would be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say to the noble Lord's amendment.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has made a most interesting suggestion in his amendment. Let me say first that we fully recognise that before he enters into a special agreement under Part IV, the reservist should be made aware of the effects of the agreement and that this should include appropriate information on the schemes of financial assistance provided for in Part VIII of the Bill. He would of course be given up-to-date information on these should he be called out.
We also recognise that the success of this scheme will depend in part on the information available to the employer and this might include information on the schemes of financial assistance. The employer would in all cases need to be given up-to-date information on this subject when the employee was actually called out, or was about to he called out. All reservists who are called out, whether under Part IV or under the general powers in Part VI, have the same rights to financial assistance under Clause 85. Their employers have rights to financial assistance under Clause 86 and this clause specifically provides for financial assistance for the self-employed. The details of the schemes will be in regulations, and the Bill imposes a duty of consultation before they are made.
It would, however, be difficult to detail fully the financial implications of call-out for a reservist or an employer since they will vary from case to case and over time, depending on individual circumstances. While we can provide relevant information, it would ultimately be for the reservist and the employer respectively to decide whether the implications—financial and otherwise—were acceptable.
I cannot agree with the noble Lord about the way to implement his proposal regarding the establishment of a statutory agency within the Adjutant-General's Corps. As far as reservists are concerned, the provision of the relevant information is properly a matter for the chain of command. It would not be in the interests of the services to have individuals entering into this level of commitment who were ill-informed about what it entailed. The detailed information and the arrangements for its provision must remain a matter for the service, and I do not believe it is a matter for the Bill.
As far as employers are concerned, we already pursue an energetic campaign of consulting with and informing employers about the reserve forces through the National
CWH 88
Employers Liaison Committee or NELC and its various regional groups, and we envisage that that will continue. In addition to this general campaign, we recognise the need to ensure that information is available to the employers of reservists who wish to enter into special agreements and that there is prompt provision of relevant information on available financial assistance when his employee is called out under Part IV or any other power.
While I have spent some little time in answering the noble Lord, I hope that it will nevertheless have been helpful, because I believe the practice will recognise the overall concern that he has expressed. In the light of what I have said, I trust that he will feel comfortable in withdrawing the amendment at this stage.
Lord Redesdale: The Minister has raised two points on which I wish to come back. First, although he said it is a responsibility of the chain of command—and I ultimately believe that must be the case to a certain degree—we are talking about a very specialised area. It will not affect a very large number of people and in many units it will not affect anyone at all. In some units it might only affect one or two soldiers. Therefore, with the high turnover inside the Territorial Army, there might not be the expertise or the information might not be understood properly by the chain of command.
I realise that the Adjutant-General's Corps is perhaps not the right vehicle. I mention it only to give an example. Within the chain of command of a Territorial Army unit it is often the case that very few people will be in a position to explain carefully and clearly to many of the soldiers exactly what will be involved in one of these special agreements. Will there be a system by which that soldier can consult a particular individual about the special circumstances he will find himself in? I hope the Minister can give some information on that point.
Earl Howe: We recognise that it is extremely important for full and up-to-date information to be available. On that we are at one. One of the mechanisms by which we will achieve that is to have simple, straightforward leaflets available, setting out the salient facts. Those leaflets will be readily available. A man reading such a leaflet will be able at least to know who to ask if there are other questions that need answering. We will set about this exercise in a way which, I hope, ensures that information is easy to obtain and is up to date.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for that reply. I do not have the same faith in leaflets that he does. I have used other leaflets within the Territorial Army before. However, I do not think I can press him any further at this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 37 agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 38 [Purpose of Part V]:
Earl Attlee: Clause 38 is a paving amendment for the sponsored reserve. I have serious reservations as to the wisdom of this provision. First, no one I have talked to on the staff, apart from possibly the RAF, has any idea about what the requirement for the sponsored reserve is.
Members of the Territorial Army are genuine volunteers. Even soldiers in the Regular Army make a conscious decision to join Her Majesty's armed services. They are not coerced into it. My fear is that people will join the Territorial Army via the sponsored reserve for entirely the wrong reasons. In other words, a chap may be desperate for a job, he then finds a job and the only snag with it is that he has to be in the TA. The employers will say "Don't worry about it, the training requirements are minimum, it's a good wheeze", and so on. Therefore the chap will take the job, and then when he is called out he may not want to serve.
As I mentioned, the training apparently will be elementary. Even the defence industry itself is not sure about the wisdom of the sponsored reserve. Contract difficulties are foreseen in drawing up the necessary arrangements. The management of the sponsored reservist in the TA will cause problems. Where will the individual sponsored reservist train? If he is working for, say, Perkins, will he train at the nearest TA centre? Will he go to a central volunteer headquarters? Where will he be trained? What will be the rank structure? These clearly, we are told, will be for technical specialists, and therefore they must have a certain status within the organisation in which they are working in theatre, so therefore will they be senior NCOs? Will they have power of command over other proper soldiers? What will be the effect on the UK fourth line? I fear there will be a reduction in the surge capacity of industry. I have a number of concerns about the sponsored reserve, and I would be very grateful if the Minister could reassure me. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: It may be helpful to the Committee if I briefly set out the background to the sponsored reserve concept which Clause 38 introduces. Some support provided by regulars for the armed forces requires the application of skills that are predominantly civilian in nature. However, it cannot be provided by civilians because it might have to be delivered under operational circumstances when it could well be crucial to the success of an operation.
The provisions of Part V would allow civilians to undertake support tasks of this type by enabling them to assume suitably tailored liabilities for training, call-out and permanent service. They could then be called out, if that ever became appropriate, to continue operationally the tasks which they had been performing in peace time.
I should say that many elements of the sponsored reserve package are not new in principle. A precedent for civilian jobs requiring the incumbent to have a
CWH 90
liability to continue the task in uniform in a crisis can, even today, be found in the Meteorological Office, the NAAFI and until recently certain Property Services Agency posts in Germany. The principle that the terms and conditions of service of groups of reservists can differ according to the requirements of the task and the circumstances of individuals, is also not new. What is new is that these elements have been drawn together in this part of the Bill and associated with a call-out liability unique to sponsored reservists, specially tailored to the circumstances.
I believe that the sponsored reserve concept has great potential value, for it will permit us to open additional support tasks to market testing. Market testing will discover whether savings can be achieved while maintaining the level of peace time and operational support required. Any savings that can be achieved will allow a greater proportion of our resources to be devoted to more front-line tasks. This is entirely in accordance with the Government's policy—Front Line First.
If the Committee will allow, I will briefly mention two other benefits of the arrangements. First, maintenance of equipment under operational conditions by sponsored reservists, who as civilians are employed by the defence industry, will inevitably lead to industry having a better understanding of the service's requirements. Secondly, the operational involvement of certain contract personnel is likely to reinforce their understanding of the importance of their peace time work to the Armed Forces.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the noble Earl for giving way. Does this mean that for vehicles that are at the moment on a leaseback deal with the Army, the mechanics at Leyland Daf are eligible for sponsored reserve status?
Earl Howe: Potentially civilians who might be brought in to service vehicles in peace time could become sponsored reserves to enable them to change their clothes in time of crisis when they were called out, and they would remain performing the same support tasks. That is the point that I have sought to make. I do not know if that answers the noble Lord, but that is the idea behind the sponsored reserve. As I say, I believe that the scheme has considerable potential. I commend the clause to the Committee.
The noble Earl mentioned one concern which was that some people might volunteer for the reserve service for the wrong reasons. The volunteer nature of entering sponsored reserve service will be stressed both to employers and employees who arc contemplating such an arrangement. I hope that the Committee will recognise that many volunteer members of our reserves have diverse reasons for being members of the reserve and a sense of service, although one might like to think so, is not always the primary reason. But that does not necessarily make for poor reservists. That is the point I would make.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Perhaps he is not in a particularly good position at the moment to advise me on the military aspects of how responsible reserves could work in

CWH 91
theatre. Perhaps he can write to me and tell me how the rank structure and discipline will work in theatre for sponsored reservists once they are called up.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Entry into agreements]:
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Cessation of liability to be called out or to train]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 20, leave out lines 33 and 34.
The noble Earl said: If I wanted to put down a wrecking amendment for the sponsored reservist, this would be it. I refer to the words:
"the termination of his employment with the employer whose consent was required to his entry into the employee agreement".
In other words, the sponsored reservist, on seeing the possibility of hostilities, could resign his civilian employment and therefore he would have no liability to be called up as a sponsored reservist. Is that really the case, or are there some other ways to ensure that he would not be able to wriggle out of his liabilities? Perhaps the Minister can advise on that. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Earl for setting out his concerns, but I think there are some threads to be untangled here.
If the employment of a sponsored reservist with an employer who has an arrangement with the Secretary of State were to end, that person could not in any eventuality be called out. Under the provisions of Clause 43(1) the noble Earl will see that call-out is conditional on an arrangement between a person's employer and the Secretary of State. It is also conditional on the continuing nature of the individual's work in support of the armed forces. If a call-out cannot be effected after a person's employment has ceased, there is no point in the individual continuing to have a liability for it.
We did not think it right to call out as sponsored reserves persons who had ceased to perform their peace-time functions. We would not wish to rely on a person who would go to the lengths of terminating his civilian employment simply to escape his sponsored reserve liability. I hope that goes some way to explaining our thinking and to answering the noble Earl's point.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Attlee: I thank the Minister for that reply which was more or less as I thought it would be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Call out of special members]:
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
CWH 92
Clauses 44, 45 and 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Parliamentary control of numbers and reports]:
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clauses 48 and 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Liability of members of reserve forces under call-out orders]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 26, line 22, after ("Act,") insert ("only").
The noble Earl said: This amendment addresses the problem of deciding whether one needs the services of the volunteer after one has called him up. We have discussed a problem previously in Committee where the volunteer on call-up had to remain at the place of call-up. My concern is that we will call up a volunteer, he will arrive, and then he will he told that his services are not required, but meanwhile he has so arranged his civilian commitments as to enable him to go off for full-time service. This provision would avoid the risk of his being called up again for another three months. I accept that this is not something which should appear on the face of the Bill, and it may not even be a matter for regulation because it will tie the hands of the staff too much. It is nevertheless a matter of concern that people will be called up, told they are not required, then called up again and again told they are not required. How does the Minister intend to address that particular problem?
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Earl for explaining his amendment and I entirely understand his intention in seeking to protect the reservist. As he has indicated, the effect of this amendment would be to introduce a three months' safeguard following a reservist's release from call-out service, during which call-out is not possible. I do not think it is desirable to go down this route. It is necessary for the Ministry of Defence to retain flexibility for call-out. It may be necessary, for example, in a particularly grave emergency to call out a person or persons who have just been released or discharged from permanent called out service. The noble Earl's amendment would remove that flexibility.
I should like to reassure him that I do not envisage such circumstances occurring very frequently, but it is nevertheless necessary to make such provision. The Bill does in any case provide for the concept of aggregate service which defines the length and frequency of permanent service that any person called out under Part VI of the Bill could be required to perform. This provision applies equally to officers and men but varies with the call-out power. It is that safeguard, rather than the one that the noble Earl is proposing, that is perhaps more important to most people. It certainly leaves the Ministry and the services with the necessary flexibility that they may require. I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Earl will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

CWH 93
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Call out for national danger, great emergency or attack on the UK]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 27, line 30, after ("to") insert ("both Houses of').
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if at the same time I discuss Amendment No. 34. I trust that it will be in order to facilitate our proceedings at this stage if we sweep up the clause stand part debate in the context of what I am going to say.
Amendment No. 33 deals with a point we have already debated today. It seeks to clarify what is meant by "Parliament". To be absolutely clear and so avoid misunderstanding when the event occurs, we say that it means both Houses. In advocating that point, which I am sure the noble Earl, in his very constructive approach today, will be willing to accept, may I just draw his attention to the fact that inadvertently subsection (7) does rather seem to substantiate the argument so well put forward by my noble friend Lord Williams. There may have been quibbling when we were discussing Amendment No. 5 about the words "as soon as". I thought that the noble Earl put up a brave attempt for his case in that context, but here we are saying "forthwith". That is exactly what my noble friend Lord Williams was arguing for, so it will be interesting to hear how "forthwith" applies here but "as soon as" could not possibly be accepted and would have put onerous and unacceptable responsibilities on Ministers and others in the context of Amendment No. 5. It is an interesting contradiction. I hope the noble Earl can deal with it. I hope too that the Committee will forgive me for raising the point in the context of this amendment.
Amendment No. 34 raises the interesting point of what happens, not if the House is prorogued or adjourned, but we are in the middle of a general election. I suppose that sceptics and cynics might say that the old guard in the Kremlin, with their very bureaucratic approach, would never have dreamt of challenging in the middle of a general election. They would have understood that the election must be over before going to war. We are now in a much more unpredictable, volatile age in which perhaps not all the mavericks who are operating understand the constitutional niceties. I wonder what would in fact happen if the House were dissolved. It is important that we hear the Minister's observations; hence our probing amendment.
I wonder, considering the clause, whether I am reading Alice in Wonderland. It says:
"(a) if it appears to Her [Majesty] that national danger is imminent or that a great emergency has arisen; or
(b) in the event of an actual or apprehended attack on the United Kingdom".
Subsection (8) goes on:
CWH 94
"a proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of Parliament within 5 days,"
One wonders what would have happened within those five days; where, indeed, Parliament might meet; how many Members might be able to turn up; all sorts of considerations of that kind. I find the clause delightful in the context of our discussions earlier on the Civil War, Cromwell and the rest, and perhaps in terms of the last century or the earlier parts of this century. However, it does not seem totally in tune with the awful realities with which we are now living. As we are coming towards the end of our proceedings today, I would like to say that the noble Earl has been extremely gracious and helpful and we appreciate it. It would be very helpful if he could put all our minds at rest on this matter. It may be that he and his Ministry have insights into how, in modern warfare, it will be possible to call Parliament within five days and everything will proceed absolutely methodically, carefully and well. However, I do not believe we are all totally convinced about that. It would be good to know how the noble Earl himself sees it.
Earl Howe: It would in any event be the Government's practice to report the making of a call-out order under subsection (1) to both Houses. It is implicit in the requirement in subsection (8) that Parliament—not just one of the Houses of Parliament—be recalled if it is not sitting when the order is made. The noble Lord asked what the force of the word "forthwith" was in this part of the Bill. The answer is that in time of national emergency everything would be done forthwith. It would be a time of very rapid action indeed. We covered in a previous amendment the definition of the term "Parliament", so I do not propose to repeat myself on that. I believe that the proposed amendment is unnecessary and it is likely to lead to confusion over the meaning of the term when it is used elsewhere in the Bill and in other legislation.
Turning to Amendment No. 34, the noble Lord has raised an interesting point and I shall deal with it before dealing with the clause as a whole. I suppose that, in theory, if Her Majesty were driven by circumstances to make a recall order while Parliament was dissolved, there would be no Parliament to which the making of the order could be reported. That perhaps is obvious. Parliament would not be dissolved without a date being fixed for the sitting of a new Parliament, so it is most unlikely that there would be any substantial interval which would delay reporting the making of the order. It may also be reasonable to assume that we would not be subjected to national danger, a great emergency or attack on the United Kingdom, without having some warning of it, and one presumes that Parliament would not be dissolved in these circumstances. The key point is that the absence of Parliament sitting would not prevent us from acting as required.
Turning to the clause as a whole, it is important to put these remarks in context. The purpose of the clause is to enable the Crown to call out any member of any reserve force in the most serious crises. It is similar to the national danger great emergency provision in

CWH 95
Section 10 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. It also incorporates the powers of call out in Sections 16, 18(1) and 22 of that Act in the event of actual or apprehended attack on the United Kingdom. It also supersedes the prerogative powers governing officers on the retired and emergency lists of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, officers of the regular army reserve of officers and retired officers of the Royal Air Force. Some former air force officers, principally those on non-pensionable commissions, serve in the air force reserve and are governed by statute.
The noble Lord read out a subsection of this clause in tones of some surprise. I do not know whether he would prefer it if we omitted a provision for Parliament to be recalled. I imagine that Parliament would prefer to be recalled in circumstances of national emergency, and that indeed is our assumption, too.
7 p.m.
Lord Judd: I am grateful to the noble Earl, but I do not think that I can quite let it rest there. If I may first deal with the point about "forthwith", it is rather disturbing to hear the noble Earl argue that if there were an emergency it would be possible for Ministers to do everything forthwith and indeed they would be doing everything forthwith, but it might be a bit of a nuisance to have to do things forthwith if there were not an emergency. It seems to me that defence is about defending our parliamentary democracy, and in defending parliamentary democracy the paramountcy of Parliament is terribly important in this context. Therefore, if this speed and expedition applies in this context, it really should have applied in the other context. If he will forgive my saying so, I do not think that he has adequately begun to justify the difference in approach on the two clauses.
If I may continue, on his point about whether I would prefer that there were no reference to the recall of Parliament and so on, what we are arguing here is that it is important to be assured that some thinking has gone into what would actually happen in a real situation if the provisions that are carefully laid out here were not actually possible. It seems to us that in the context and speed in which modern warfare moves, it is not impossible that they might not be possible. It therefore would be, we hope, in order for the Minister to take away this clause and think about what indeed would happen in circumstances which made this particular arrangement impossible to fulfill.
I wish to make one other point before I conclude. In a very gentlemanly way, the noble Earl rather dismissed my point about both Houses of Parliament. He suggested that Parliament is Parliament and Parliament involves both Houses of Parliament, so it is unnecessary to say both Houses of Parliament. But as things stand, it would not be unfair to argue that the Government could say that they had reported to one House and one House was part of Parliament and that they had therefore reported to Parliament. We are saying that it should be absolutely explicit that the reporting is to both Houses of Parliament.
CWH 96
I really cannot see why, if the noble Earl and the Government feel that that is what is intended, there is any harm in putting simply and straightforwardly into the text the words "both Houses of Parliament".
Earl Howe: As to the noble Lord's last point, I shall reflect further and perhaps write to him between now and Report stage. He suggested that I was applying one rule to the laying of regulations and another rule to taking emergency action at a time of national crisis. That is not the case. If the noble Lord will recall, the words used in the previous amendment relating to the laying of orders and regulations were that they should be laid as soon as made. The point I was making then was that that phrase "as soon as" is equivalent to "instantaneously". That is not only onerous; it is a physical impossibility. That is rather different from the term "forthwith" which simply implies speed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Will the noble Earl accept in a previous clause—Clause 4—the expression "forthwith" instead of "when it may"?
Earl Howe: I shall have to take advice on that. But I did say that I would reflect further on that question and I shall certainly do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, posits some extreme situations and he is perfectly entitled to do so. It might be helpful, however, to recall that during the Cold War there were plans for forming an emergency government in the event of a nuclear attack. Those plans were, as it were, on the shelf and would have been implemented no doubt 'had we been faced with that unfortunate situation. There are ways and means, I am sure, of ensuring that national government continues. My point was that in the age in which we now live it is likely that a national crisis leading to general war would be something of which we would have a reasonable degree of warning and that, correspondingly, a sudden nuclear attack from an unexpected quarter is less likely than it has been. Nevertheless, this has been an interesting debate and I hope it will have brought out at least some points to clarify the noble Lord's concerns.
Lord Judd Lord Judd: I thank the noble Earl. I do not think we can ever be too emphatic about this. For all of us—I am sure there is absolutely no difference between the noble Earl and ourselves on this point—the whole richness and privilege of living in a genuine parliamentary democracy is something very special. Our defence system is about defending that. Therefore if we are talking about acute situations we should not leave things just in the margins. We need to be fairly clear about what would happen.
If I may just make a point, the noble Earl has slightly fudged the issue by confusing the argument between the continuation of government and what happens to Parliament. It is not the same point at all. However, I notice that he said—and I listened very carefully—he would think about this and I know that he is a very committed Minister and that he does take points of debate seriously; I have experienced that. It is in the spirit of knowing that he will take this point seriously and look at it again that I shall not pursue it. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

CWH 97
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Maximum duration of service on call out under section 52]:
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
CWH 98
Clauses 54 and 55 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I suggest this is a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday next at 3.30 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at seven minutes past seven o'clock.

  Disabled People: Direct Payments in Lieu of Services
  Disabled People: Direct Payments in Lieu of Services
  Campbeltown/Ballycastle Ferry Service: Operator
  Campbeltown/Ballycastle Ferry Service: Operator
  Campbeltown and Ballycastle Harbour Facilities: Costs
  Campbeltown and Ballycastle Harbour Facilities: Costs
  Veterinary Medicines Containing Organophosphates
  Veterinary Medicines Containing Organophosphates
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips, Standards of Efficacy
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips, Standards of Efficacy
  Protection of Animals for Slaughter: European Convention
  Protection of Animals for Slaughter: European Convention
  Agriculture Council, 22 and 23 January
  Agriculture Council, 22 and 23 January
  General Dostum: UK Visit
  General Dostum: UK Visit
  OSCE Principles: Observance
  OSCE Principles: Observance
  Anti-Satellite Weapons
  Anti-Satellite Weapons
  Boycotts: UK Policy
  Boycotts: UK Policy
  UN Register of Conventional Arms: UK Weapons Transfers
  UN Register of Conventional Arms: UK Weapons Transfers
  Economic Sanctions
  Economic Sanctions
  Destabilisation of Foreign Governments
  Destabilisation of Foreign Governments
  Former Yugoslavia: Arms Embargo
  Former Yugoslavia: Arms Embargo
  Former Yugoslavia: CIA Activities
  Former Yugoslavia: CIA Activities
  Bosnian Government Forces: Training
  Bosnian Government Forces: Training
  Bosnian/Turkish Co-operation Agreement
  Bosnian/Turkish Co-operation Agreement
  Former Yugoslavia: Military Equipment Testing
  Former Yugoslavia: Military Equipment Testing
  UN Contributions: Arrears
  UN Contributions: Arrears
  Turkey: PKK Cease-fire Proposal
  Turkey: PKK Cease-fire Proposal
  Khiam Prison: Detainees
  Khiam Prison: Detainees
  Turkey: Election
  Turkey: Election
  British Coal: Outstanding Liabilities
  British Coal: Outstanding Liabilities
  Firearm Numbers
  Firearm Numbers
  Domestic Fuel: VAT Yield
  Domestic Fuel: VAT Yield
  Lloyd's: Tax Treatment of Equitas Premiums
  Lloyd's: Tax Treatment of Equitas Premiums
  Quasi-Legislative Crown Material: Reproduction Arrangements
  Quasi-Legislative Crown Material: Reproduction Arrangements
  National Curriculum
  National Curriculum
  Research Ethics Committees: Work Co-ordination Study
  Research Ethics Committees: Work Co-ordination Study