Sitting of 29 January 1996

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

    Deregulation
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what analysis his office has made of the number of regulations approved by the Government since 1979 which affect businesses; and how many of these regulations he has removed. [9978]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): In 1994, there were 1,467 statutory instruments, excluding road closures and local transitional and commencement orders, of which two thirds either were specifically intended to help business or had no impact on business. I do not have comparable figures for earlier years. We are now monitoring all statutory instruments on a monthly basis to ensure that they are necessary and that the benefits exceed the cost.
    Mr. O'Brien: I do not know who the Minister thinks he is kidding if he thinks that the Government have a record for deregulation, because he is certainly not kidding business men in my constituency. Is it not the case that this Government have created more regulations than any Government in British history and that they are in the process of creating an administrative bungle, on the scale of that in the Child Support Agency, with their introduction of self-assessment for the self-employed and for businesses, which will create an enormous burden on business in my constituency and across the country because it is being rushed in?
    Mr. Freeman: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about self-assessment, which is due to be introduced in the next financial year. It will be a success and its introduction is being carefully monitored. Labour opposed the 1994 Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill on Second Reading and at all other stages. That is an example, once again, of Labour saying one thing but doing another.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: How many of those statutory instruments and other regulations affecting business have been brought on us through EU directives? Is my right hon. Friend confident that he has the powers to deregulate those regulators or the mechanisms and proposals to put before the intergovernmental conference later this year? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to an important subject, which the
    628
    deputy Leader of the Opposition seems to find funny. The number of directives likely to be passed by the Council of Ministers in the coming year is likely to be substantially down on the past few years. Yes,. we have the mechanism to deregulate existing European law, where it is sensible so to do.

    Cabinet Committees
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how often each Cabinet Committee which he chairs meets. [9979]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): When Government business demands it.
    Mr. Griffiths: We can hardly call that an illuminating reply. Let us see if the Deputy Prime Minister can have a stab at this question: as the Minister responsible for the presentation of Government business—he chairs the Committee on the Co-ordination and Presentation of Government Policy—what would the Prime Minister—
    Mr. MacShane: Not yet.
    Mr. Griffiths: I was a couple of months ahead of myself. What would the Deputy Prime Minister have to say to a group of politicians who promised to cut taxes year on year and then raised them by the largest amount in peacetime history?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I would tell them that we had protected those least able to protect themselves in the aftermath of one of the worst recessions since the war and that, as we had done that and created one of the most successful economies in western Europe, we are now back on a tax-cutting agenda. If they wanted to watch taxes go up, they should just put a Labour Government in power.
    Mr. Yeo: When my right hon. Friend next chairs the relevant Cabinet Committee, will he say whether he agrees that a political party that opposed the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986, successive Criminal Justice Acts, the Prison Security Act 1992 and even the modest measure that banned joy-riding is soft on crime and the causes of crime, and merely sheds its crocodile tears for the victims of crime to conceal its real sympathy for the criminals?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary pointed out most eloquently this morning, people who are now in prison for crimes that they committed would not be in prison had the Labour party had its way in resisting our changes.
    Mr. Prescott: Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that he is responsible for the presentation of Government policies on crime and that, since 1979, burglary has increased by 160 per cent., theft from vehicles by nearly 200 per cent. and violent crime by 400 per cent? That is the real Tory record. Is that not why he resorted to abuse, innuendo and slurs over the weekend, to hide the real truth about crime? Will he now take this opportunity to apologise to the Opposition for the untruths that he told yesterday, and to the British public for his Government's record on crime?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that spending on law and order has more than doubled in real terms since 1978–79, police manpower has increased by 32,000, or 22 per cent., and recorded crime has shown the largest fall over a two-year period. That is in contrast with what the Labour party voted against: raising the maximum sentences for serious crime, giving the Attorney-General the right of appeal against lenient sentences, strengthening police powers to stop and search criminals, giving the police more powers to deal with disorder on the streets and making parents more responsible for their children's actions. It is another classic example of Labour saying one thing and doing another. It is a classic example of hypocrisy in this critical field.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he is taking to accelerate progress on the deregulation initiative. [9981]
    Mr. Freeman: By the end of 1995, we had already dealt with more than 500 of the 1,000 or so regulations identified by Government for repeal or amendment and we shall tackle the remainder over the coming months. The first deregulation orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 have now passed into law and there is a steady flow of new orders. We shall continue to seek support from the European Commission and member states for our deregulation initiatives.
    Mr. Evans: Small businesses are important economically to this country, especially small rural businesses, which breathe economic life into areas that might not experience it, if not for their existence. Will my right hon. Friend therefore encourage his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments to look at fresh and imaginative ways to lift bureaucracy and regulations from the shoulders of those small rural businesses?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is extremely important to monitor properly the impact of regulations, whether they come from Brussels or Whitehall, on small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I have written recently to all Ministers reminding them of the need carefully to monitor the impact of any proposed regulations, particularly from Europe, on small and medium-sized enterprises.
    Mr. Foulkes: If a group of politicians had promised to abolish 1,000 regulations and instead brought in 200 extra regulations, would the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster call them hypocrites or liars?
    Mr. Freeman: I would call them extremely successful.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his determination to rescind, if necessary, directives emanating from the European Union that have an adverse effect on British business. Will he put the electro-magnetic compatibility directive at No. 1 in that category? It is particularly harmful to small businesses, whose owners may be penalised to the extent of three
    630
    months' imprisonment or a £5,000 fine if they do not comply with the directive. That is quite excessive and it bears heavily on small businesses.
    Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. Friend that a number of directives, including the one to which he refers, need either amendment or repeal, and I have tabled eight suggestions for the Commission to examine. I note that last week some of his hon. Friends published a pamphlet entitled "Dire Directives". I think that the pamphlet's thrust is correct and I have invited the members of that group, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), to attend an early meeting.

    Government Policy
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what new proposals he is making to enhance the co-ordination of the presentation of Government policy; and if he will make a statement. [9982]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. David Willetts): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interest and can assure him we are constantly seeking to enhance the co-ordination of the presentation of Government policy. We seek every opportunity to explain how only this Government's policies can ensure economic success combined with constitutional stability.
    Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to the intellectual wing of the Department for that reply. Can the Minister explain why, in presenting Government policy at the weekend, the Deputy Prime Minister launched an election campaign—that is, he launched his campaign to succeed the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) by proving that he is as big a right-wing villain as anyone else in the Cabinet? How do the Minister and his colleagues justify the immense expenditure of taxpayers' money on what is now nothing more than a Tory party Ministry of lies? Would they not be better off returning to Tory central office where their gutter politics will be more appreciated?
    Mr. Willetts: I think that we are getting our message across rather well, as the events of the past 10 days have shown.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will my hon. Friend take an early opportunity to publish a paper about the Government's approach to hypocrisy in public life so that Labour Members may benefit from an accelerated learning curve?
    Mr. Willetts: It would certainly be a long paper as it would cover Opposition policies on crime, education, the economy and housing. I look forward to such a publication.
    Mr. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that a number of Conservative policies on law and order that were presented at Conservative party conferences have been quietly dropped? I refer, for example, to compulsory identity cards or the Home Secretary's very expensive plan to ensure that all prisoners serve their entire sentences without remission. Does that not illustrate that

    631
    many of these law and order policies are political gimmicks with no practical crime-cutting benefit? Has he become the villain's friend?
    Mr. Willetts: The Government have published a consultation document on the identity card scheme and responses to it are being considered now. As to the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary at the party conference, he has a fine record of implementing the measures that he announces at party conferences.

    EC Regulations (Competition)
    Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what priority he gives to representations from United Kingdom industries in assessing EC regulations which affect competition policy. [9983]
    Mr. Freeman: Business views are central to our assessment of the impact that proposed Economic Community regulations have on United Kingdom competitiveness.
    Sir Roger Moate: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, under competition policy, the European Community is due to review the block exemption for the tied house arrangement between British brewers and public houses? More than 27,000 tenanted and leased houses are covered by that tie. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that any threat to the tied arrangement—which, in theory, could end in 1997—could undermine the existence of many thousands of British pubs? Is it not time to say that Brussels has no business interfering in British public house arrangements? We should say that now robustly, before we get involved in consultations which threaten those arrangements, and we must confirm that Britain has no intention of ending those arrangements in 1997 or at any other time.
    Mr. Freeman: The President of the Board of Trade has responsibility in that area and I am sure that he will look after the interests of the brewing industry as well as those of the entire United Kingdom industry.
    I am glad that the Commission has adopted new guidelines for issuing new directives, which include proper consultation with the industry and with businesses affected before the directives are introduced.

    Water Companies (Charter Marks)
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many water companies have received charter marks; and if he will make a statement. [9985]
    Mr. Willetts: Five water companies have won charter marks: Anglian Water, Severn Trent Water and Wessex Water in 1992 and Welsh Water and South Staffordshire Water in 1993.
    Mr. O'Brien: In view of the appalling record of water companies in providing services to their customers and the fact that people in Yorkshire have suffered more than many others, will the Minister assure me that Yorkshire
    632
    Water will not qualify for a charter mark and that others, such as Severn Trent Water, should have their charter marks withdrawn because of the appalling service to their customers?
    Mr. Willetts: Water companies will have the opportunity to apply for charter marks in 1996, but, in order to win one, they will have to show that they have maintained the highest quality of service to customers. If they have not managed to achieve that, they certainly will not receive a charter mark.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that after years of neglect in the public sector, water companies have taken the opportunity of massive capital investment to improve infrastructure and water quality? Will he give particular credit to Thames Water, which has invested £2 billion in the past five years to improve water for Londoners?
    Mr. Willetts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. It is revealing to compare the conspicuously dry summer of 1995, when there were 53 drought orders, with the previous hot summer of 1976, when there were 136 drought orders. That is a testament to the improvement in the quality of service after privatisation.

    Ministerial Responsibilities
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent representations he has received about his responsibilities. [9986]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: None, other than from Opposition Members.
    Mr. Grocott: In view of the Deputy Prime Minister's welcome initiative in raising the subject of law and order at the weekend, will he confirm that in 1979, under the last Labour Government, the number of offences was 2,540,000 and that in 1994, after 15 years of Tory government, the figure was 5,040,000? In the Deputy Prime Minister's own language, clearly villains love Tory Governments. As Britain was unarguably a much safer place in the 1970s, will he devote his energy and attention to answering a simple question to which we all need an answer: why has crime rocketed under the Tories?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should be fully aware that recorded crime shows the largest ever fall in a two-year period. That is in no small measure the result of legislation introduced- by the Government in the teeth of Labour opposition.
    Mr. Jenkin: May I make representations to my right hon. Friend about his responsibilities and suggest that his job will be far easier if he continues making the Opposition angry by pointing out how they have obstructed the Government's law and order policies at every twist and turn?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. That is precisely what I did and the result is to send the Opposition into mayhem. They thought that they would get away with repeated one-off

    633
    opposition until someone added their comments together, to show that they have consistently resisted the Government's policies to deal with rising crime.
    Mr. Winnick: Are not some of my colleagues being rather naive when they criticise the Deputy Prime Minister for his remarks yesterday? Is it not quite clear there is no lie, no innuendo and no smear that the Government will not use to get re-elected? Does not the Deputy Prime Minister see the difference between the Cabinet Minister who resigned on principle over Westland and walked out of a Cabinet meeting and the same Cabinet Minister who today is quite happy in the political sewers using every possible political smear against any proposal?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so upset, but the truth is often inconvenient.
    Dr. Spink: In advising the Government on their future policies, will my right hon. Friend encourage them to avoid Labour's greatest hypocrisy—the adoption of the social chapter and the minimum wage, which would destroy jobs and businesses?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If I remember correctly, the deputy leader of the Labour party said that any fool knows that a minimum wage will cost jobs. Coming out of the mouth of the deputy leader, that seems a pretty accurate description of the position.
    Mr. Mandelson: Following the Deputy Prime Minister's descent into the campaign gutter yesterday and the recent reining-in of the Secretary of State for Scotland after his misuse of civil servants and public funds in his campaigning against Labour in Scotland, will the Deputy Prime Minister give an undertaking this afternoon that those abuses will not be allowed to continue as the Tories' lies and smears against Labour mount as the election approaches—as inevitably they will?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I know that the leader of the Labour party talks only to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), but I did not realise that the right hon. Gentleman would send the hon. Member for Hartlepool here to eclipse his own deputy leader—a most extraordinary situation. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, whose electioneering techniques have been the subject of great interest on both sides of the House, that nobody has brought more professional skill to the debasement of British public life than the hon. Member for Hartlepool.
    Mr. Lidington: May I ask my right hon. Friend to arrange an early and thorough presentation of Government education policy, to make it clear that, although this Government have always supported the principle of setting and streaming in schools, that is in marked contrast to the policy adopted by Labour Members, who have often denigrated and condemned that approach?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter because I understand that it is to be the subject of a major speech by the leader of the Labour party tonight, in which he will advocate something called accelerated learning—which, in any other
    634
    language, is streaming. The leader of the Labour party gave his views, or at least what were his views, in June last year. He said—
    Hon. Members: Order. Reading.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I will decide whether the Minister is in order.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is not just what the Minister has to say, Madam Speaker—
    Madam Speaker: Order. As far as I am concerned, it is what the Minister has to say at the Dispatch Box today.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: This is what the leader of the Labour party had to say—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no points of order during questions and the hon. Gentleman is aware of that.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The House must know that the views of the leader of the Labour party on streaming are of major interest to the House. He said—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister was asked a question and he is attempting to answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was out of order."] It is for me to determine whether the question was in or out of order, and it was in order. The Minister will answer it.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. The leader of the Labour party said on 23 June 1995:
    "Streaming, with its rigid distribution of children into bright, average and backward camps, is a waste of talent."
    Yet tonight, that is to be the major theme of a major speech. That is not so much a case of accelerated learning as one of accelerated hypocrisy.

    Civil Service Morale
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on morale in the civil service. [9987]
    Mr. Willetts: Morale in the civil service is best maintained by allowing staff to perform to the best of their abilities in the career that they have chosen. This Government's civil service reforms enable staff to focus their attention on delivering high-quality public services. That is the best way of satisfying them and the users of their services.
    Mr. Martlew: Surely the Minister is being complacent. Does he not realise that civil servants' morale has been sapped because of Government changes? The Government have created a climate of insecurity. Does

    635
    not the Minister agree with Sir Robin Butler, head of the civil service, who wrote that in an article in The Observer recently?
    Mr. Willetts: The Government have a fine record of reforming the civil service. Inevitably, nobody nowadays can be offered a job for life but, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister explained in a speech last week, we have a fine record and we are pursuing our reform agenda.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what has happened to the numbers in the civil service? Sometimes people outside suspect that one party in the House is more interested in jobs for the boys than in getting value for money for the taxpayer.
    Mr. Willetts: There were 735,000 civil servants in 1979 and there are now 506,000 civil servants. The number will go below 500,000 this year, and that shows that the Government are serious about cutting overhead costs.
    Mr. Derek Foster: What is the Minister's response to Sir Robin Butler's charge that low morale and the climate of insecurity are caused by perpetual reorganisation imposed by Tory Government? Has not morale plummeted further because of the Deputy Prime Minister's scorched earth policy in pursuing privatisation to ludicrous lengths, for example with Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency, which has been so roundly condemned by Lords Bancroft and Hunt?
    Mr. Willetts: We published a White Paper in 1994 on the civil service called "The Civil Service—Continuity and Change", which made it clear that the Government are committed to a high-quality civil service that will also be smaller and more committed to numeracy and technical skills. Many civil servants welcome the reform agenda that the Government are pursuing.
    We expect improvement and reduction in overhead costs in the private sector and there is no reason why the Government should not ensure that their house matches the quality of service in the private sector. That is what we are doing.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: What would happen to the morale of a civil service team if the deputy leader of that team was left out of all considerations and discussions because he was thought not to be intellectually up to it?
    Mr. Willetts: I dread to think what would happen to the civil service in the event of a Labour Government, and especially what would happen if the personal press officer of the Leader of the Opposition were put in charge of the Government's information service.

    Government Policy
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of his time spent on ministerial duties is devoted to promoting Government policies. [9988]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Whatever time I judge necessary.
    Mr. Ainger: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that since he took up his position in July last year and devoted
    636
    so much time to promoting Government policy, the Gallup 9000 public opinion poll has been registering a constant lead of more than 25 per cent. for the Labour party? Is the reason for the Deputy Prime Minister's dismal failure to promote the Government because the policies he is promoting are no good, or is it that he is no good at promoting the policies, or is it a combination of the two?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: If the failure to promote Government policies had been acute as the hon. Member suggests, the Labour party would not have been thrown into the abject pandemonium that we have seen in the past four days.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has an easy job because our policies are clear and understood? Does my right hon. Friend, who is a kindly man, feel some sense of compassion for Opposition Members who will have to cluster around the tape machine this evening to try to discover what their policy is on testing, selection and streaming in schools?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I do feel compassion for them, and that is why I spend so much of my time explaining Labour party policy for them.
    The accelerated learning proposals of the leader of the Labour party give us a new version of Labour's stakeholder society. I read in The Times today that our best teachers would be sent to the worst schools. Britain's best teachers would have to take a stake in Labour's worst schools, while the children of Labour leaders would get a stake in the Tories' best schools. That is another example of accelerated hypocrisy.
    Mr. Radice: I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister can tell the House when the Scott inquiry report will be published.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not have a date to give the House today, but I believe that the House realises that Sir Richard Scott's report is likely to reach the Government in the not too distant future.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend monitor the teaching of moral education at St. Olave's and the London Oratory schools? Does he think that the teachers at those schools will teach their pupils "to do as I say" or "to do as I do"?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I would not wish to interfere in the excellent teaching standards that those schools enjoy. The parents concerned have exercised exactly the choice that I think that the vast majority of parents would exercise in their position. It is difficult to understand, however, how the Labour party would deny parents the chance to exercise such choice, which self-evidently is the sort of choice that its leaders want to adopt.

    Foreign Companies
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to issue further regulation in respect of the activities of foreign companies operating in the United Kingdom. [9989]
    Mr. Willetts: The Government have no plans for further regulation of foreign companies operating in the United Kingdom because we do not wish to jeopardise our record of attracting substantial overseas investment.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister will know of the appalling and entirely unregulated activities of Campbell Soups of America, including those in my constituency, where it shut down a perfectly profitable factory. The Minister will know also of the national boycott of Campbell Soups and Fray Bentos products. Will he join me in expressing the view that Safeway, Sainsbury and Tesco have a solution to the affair? If they say in the marketplace, to Campbell Soups, that enough is enough, it will be forced to reverse its decision.
    Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman's clarity and consistency on this matter is in striking contrast to the behaviour of Labour Members on most policy issues. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, there was not a qualifying merger under fair trading legislation. There is, therefore, no basis on which the Government have any powers to intervene in what was a straightforward commercial decision.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Aid Budget
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the size of the overseas aid budget in 1996–97. [10007]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): We always receive a large number of representations from hon. Members and the general public, and this year is no exception.
    Mr. Evans: I have received many letters from my constituents in Ribble Valley about the overseas aid budget, which I have passed on to my right hon. Friend. Does he believe that the interest shown by my constituents and those of other hon. Members reflects the interest that the British people wish to see the Government demonstrating in maintaining a high level of spending within the overseas aid programme while ensuring that every pound of that money is spent effectively so that we can be proud of our overseas aid programme?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right. Britain's aid programme is the fifth largest in the world. It is one of the most effective of all the official programmes. The Government are committed to maintaining a large and effective aid programme with the aim of reducing poverty and creating a more prosperous and stable world. I believe that the United Kingdom people join us in that.
    Mr. Foulkes: The fundamental expenditure review does not square with the Minister's description. "Narrow focus" is a smokescreen for cuts. It is no good repeating parrot fashion that we are fifth in the list of donors when we have fallen to 13th place in the real terms of gross national product.
    638
    What response does the Minister expect from countries in central and southern America, in the Caribbean and in the Pacific, and especially Commonwealth countries, which will receive no aid from Britain under the fundamental expenditure review? The review is a betrayal of those countries. The Prime Minister said that we would maintain an aid programme of which we could be proud. We must be ashamed of the present policy.
    Mr. Hanley: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The fundamental expenditure review contained the recommendation of concentration of effort in priority countries, continuing a process of focus already under way. There will be no radical change and we shall not neglect traditional partners. In 1994–95, 70 per cent. of our bilateral programme concentrated on the 20 largest recipients. We currently give aid to 160 countries.
    There is no doubt that the bilateral programme will face reductions during the survey period—we have admitted that—as we switch to multilateral aid. The FER is not in the slightest the slashing of budgets that the hon. Gentleman says that it is. If he wants to know about the slashing of budgets, let me tell him that Italy's expenditure on aid fell by 36 per cent. last year, Canada reduced its aid by 20.5 per cent., and the United States provides only 0.15 per cent. of its gross national product as aid. Perhaps those are the sort of programmes that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. We are proud of our aid. We are, and will remain, the fifth biggest donor.
    Mr. Key: I warmly welcome the fundamental expenditure review, as we shall have to make difficult choices in the coming years. I am in no doubt that the quality of our aid programme is the finest in the world, but will my right hon. Friend explain how we shall fit into a new relationship with the European Union's aid programme, which is of inferior quality and dilutes our traditional aid effort into parts of the world with which we have precious little in common?
    Mr. Hanley: I understand what my hon. Friend says. The FER's conclusions are only recommendations, and we are considering how policies should be changed to respond to them. The FER has confirmed the basic rationale and thrust of the aid programme, the continuing need for concessional aid, and the desirability of the Overseas Development Administration to continue to have responsibility for all aid in the ODA. I am very proud indeed that more of our officials from the ODA are helping out in the European Commission to ensure that the multilateral aid that is given by Europe is given effectively and efficiently, as our bilateral programme is.

    Rwanda
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department is currently giving to the Government of Rwanda. [10008]
    Mr. Hanley: Since January 1995, Britain has committed £11 million bilaterally and £8.5 million as our share of multilateral aid in support of the Rwandan Government's programme of rehabilitation and reconstruction.
    Mr. Ainger: Is the Minister aware that more than 55,000 people—some of them children—are in prison in

    639
    Rwanda awaiting trial on charges of genocide? Is he aware that aid agencies and the United Nations now consider the primary priority to be to get the judiciary functioning in Rwanda so that we can reconstruct and rehabilitate the whole of its society? Is he further aware that the Minister of Justice in Rwanda requested, more than three months ago, that the international community provide some 678 judicial personnel-303 judges, 300 prosecutors and 75 police officers—so that they can begin to process the 55,000-plus prisoners? How have the Government responded to that request?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a tremendous job to be done in Rwanda. We have seen, in the weekend newspapers, further stories of atrocities, and the war crimes tribunal has been set up to try to deal with the matter. We understand that it now has sufficient funding for start-up costs, pending approval of a budget by the UN General Assembly. The United Kingdom has seconded three police officers to work for the prosecutor's office, and we have pledged £200,000 towards that and other costs. Trials are expected shortly. The judicial procedure will inevitably take some time if the trials are to be fair and thorough. The prosecutor will decide whom to try. It is likely that the tribunal will prosecute the ringleaders, while the Government of Rwanda will deal with the remaining suspects.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating those who have worked so hard in Rwanda and other parts of central and eastern Africa on water aid? Is he aware that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said that our aid is the most effective of its kind in Europe? Is it not a case of, "It's not the size of it that counts; it's what you do with it"?
    Mr. Hanley: Indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right about the need for good water; it is essential. The House might be interested to know that we recently sent our first-ever British ambassador to Rwanda. She took up her duties in Kigali in December and is also accredited to Burundi. I believe that that is a sign of our support for the Rwandan Government's efforts to promote reconciliation and rehabilitation, and to remain closely engaged in the problems of the Great Lakes region.

    Central America
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what examination he has made of the effects of structural adjustment programmes on the economies of central America and the role of the British aid programme. [10009]
    Mr. Hanley: We regularly examine the effects of structural adjustment programmes in different regions, both in consultation with the World bank and independently. In central America and elsewhere, they are laying the basis for sustainable economic growth, a prerequisite for poverty alleviation.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that the fundamental expenditure review undertaken by his Department seems to give automatic support to structural adjustment programmes advanced by the International
    640
    Monetary Fund and the World bank, and that structural adjustment programmes throughout central America, in the wake of the end of the civil wars, are unbelievably destructive of human life? They are reducing life expectancy, increasing poverty and malnutrition and leading to considerable social discord and unrest. Is it not time to abandon the nonsense of such programmes, and to plan for the social needs of people in those countries rather than imposing market economics on them?
    Two thirds of the population of Nicaragua, for instance, are now living in serious poverty, and unemployment has more than doubled in the past three years. Does the Minister think that structural adjustment programmes have something to answer for in relation to those terrible figures?
    Mr. Hanley: Sound economic policies are a key prerequisite for sustainable growth and poverty reduction, and adjustment programmes are designed to help developing countries to implement policy reforms in order to restore growth and strengthen institutions. The evidence from successive reviews shows that effective reform programmes are associated with reduced poverty, and inadequate programmes with worsening poverty. The ODA recognises the need to consider the social impact of adjustment programmes on the poor—indeed, we do consider it—and the World bank is working to improve the collection of information, and to improve policies for reducing poverty. The ODA has supported that work by seconding two consecutive social development advisers to the World bank since 1990. Let me repeat that sound economic policies are the key prerequisite for sustainable growth and poverty reduction.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Are not the structural adjustment programmes allowing the countries concerned to return to proper economies? Combined with the overseas aid programmes involving investment in projects, would that not allow people to earn a living and self-respect, rather than having to rely on the begging bowl that seems to be the only alternative proposed by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is, perhaps, the most knowledgeable of hon. Members in regard to the region that we are discussing, and he is absolutely right.

    Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much British international aid was provided in Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda in (a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96. [10010]
    Mr. Hanley: In 1994–95, we provided the three countries combined with well over £100 million under our bilateral aid programme. In addition to that is our share of multilateral aid, which in 1993—the last year for which figures are available—was £48 million. The figures for 1995-96, for which the hon. Gentleman asked, are likely to be similar, but we do not have them at present.
    Mr. Griffiths: In the light of developments in Uganda and Tanzania in particular, is the Minister prepared to increase the amount of aid? Both countries are making efforts to transform their economies. Will the Minister

    641
    also put pressure on the Kenyan Government to reintroduce human rights, so that we can continue to help people in that country as well?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman speaks for many hon. Members. Of course, we shall spend what money we can afford. My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is in Tanzania today for discussions with the new Government, and will shortly report on what she finds there. We welcome the Tanzanian Government's intentions to enter a new phase of economic reform and to deal with corruption, but it is important for those good intentions to be instituted into action to restore donor and investor confidence.
    I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about Kenya. Our project assistance focuses strongly on support for economic and financial reform, and programme aid will also be available if that reform proceeds. There has also been an energetic economic reform programme for Uganda, which has achieved significant economic growth as a result—over 5 per cent. per annum since 1987, and an estimated 10 per cent. last year.
    Sir John Stanley: Will good government considerations form part of the Government's view as to the appropriate overseas aid level for the three countries concerned?
    Mr. Hanley: Yes, I can confirm that they will.

    China
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department has given to China to improve provision for orphanages. [10011]
    Mr. Hanley: We have provided support to the Save the Children Fund for a project in Anhui aimed at extending and refurbishing a kindergarten for both able and mentally and physically disabled children, and to Health Unlimited for a training programme for mother and child health workers. Total funds committed are around £250,000. We also contribute to UNICEF—the United Nations Children's Fund—which has just announced a programme to assist the orphanages that are most at risk.
    Mr. O'Brien: I welcome the contributions, such as they are, but they are just not enough, are they? Does the Minister recall the television images of the children tied to stools—some of them left to die—in Chinese orphanages? Does he agree with my constituents and me that those merit the strongest representations to the Chinese Government, that those conditions are intolerable in any society—any civilised one at least—and that the British Government will expect the Chinese Government to prevent such images from ever appearing on our television screens or in any orphanage in China again, and will continue to monitor the position?
    Mr. Hanley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I saw the television programme and was disturbed by it. The "Human Rights Watch" report of ill-treatment of abandoned children in China contained serious allegations. The Channel 4 programme also presented a
    642
    profoundly disturbing picture. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary was in Peking earlier this month, he strongly urged the Chinese authorities to investigate those allegations fully and quickly. The Chinese Foreign Minister told him that those reports were untrue and the Foreign Secretary encouraged the Chinese Government to do everything possible to demonstrate that, including providing full access to the public. That has begun to happen.
    Even at Chongming, which was previously not open to the public, European Union diplomats have had access within the past few days. I also welcome the willingness of the Chinese authorities to allow further visits to any of the institutions in Shanghai, and their offer to provide further data. Obviously, however, it was difficult to form a complete picture during the short pre-arranged visit. The EU diplomats reported no evidence of systematic ill-treatment or abuse at that institution but we will, of course, continue to urge full access by Chinese and foreigners alike to those institutions. It is the only way to ensure that those terrible scenes do not continue.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I welcome the assistance of my right hon. Friend's Department to the charitable endeavours in Chinese orphanages, but will he use the good offices of his Department to persuade the People's Republic of China not to waste money on naval expansion programmes, a nuclear missile armoury and, above all, repression in Tibet, and to concentrate on putting its own house in order, in particular by offering a reasonable standard of living, especially for orphaned children?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right. At least 100 million people still live in abject poverty in China. It is right that it should recognise that the world is watching. If it wishes to play a full part in the modern world in the years to come, it must demonstrate that it can look after its own people properly. The issues to which my hon. Friend referred affect us all. After all, we are deeply concerned about reports of abuses of human rights in Tibet. There is destruction of historic buildings, the immigration of the Han Chinese, arbitrary security measures and environmental damage. We raise those issues with the Chinese authorities: the last time the Chinese Foreign Minister came to England, I was part of the delegation that raised them with him, as I do with the ambassador regularly and as the Foreign Secretary did with the Chinese Foreign Minister on 9 January.

    Sri Lanka
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements currently exist for the delivery of aid to the northern regions of Sri Lanka. 110012]
    Mr. Hanley: Aid is being provided through the Sri Lankan Government, international organisations and non-governmental organisations. Over and above our regular support for rehabilitation in the north, we have recently provided an additional £350,000 for programmes run by the International Committee of the Red Cross and by Christian Action, Research and Education; and an additional £690,000 for Oxfam. We also contributed £350,000 through the European Union.
    Mr. Gerrard: I am sure that the Minister acknowledges that there is enormous need in the north,

    643
    following the fighting towards the end of last year when several hundred thousand people were driven from their homes. Do the Government of Sri Lanka still insist that all aid to the north is delivered through them and their agencies, or are they now allowing agencies such as the UN to deliver directly to the north? Plainly, many people in the north will be extremely suspicious of the practice of all aid having to go through the Government.
    Mr. Hanley: Yes, I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. I can confirm that, for instance, the ICRC is taking provisions, both medical aid and food aid, by ship to the north. I was at Vavuniya, which is not far from Jaffna, just a few months ago and I saw the main road along which aid is taken. I understand that the Government of Sri Lanka now believe that sufficient aid and medical supplies are getting through to the north. I took this opportunity to plead with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to meet the Sri Lankan Government to discuss their plan for autonomy within Sri Lanka. Only by discussion can permanent peace be brought to that otherwise beautiful island, which has been so scarred in recent years.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Investments
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what new proposals the commissioners have to improve the ethical content of their investment. [10017]
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners' investments, as I told the hon. Gentleman when he last raised the subject a few weeks ago, have always been subject to ethical criteria and are continuously reviewed. The ethical working group set up in October 1994 plays an important part in keeping under review the ethical investment policy of the Church Commissioners and of the Church's two other main investing bodies, the Central Board of Finance and the Church of England pensions board.
    Mr. Flynn: The commissioners deserve the congratulations of the House on the decision that they were reported to have taken in November when they sold 2 million shares in BSkyB because of its investment in a pornographic television channel. When will the commissioners deal with their investment in another, more dangerous, obscenity—the international arms trade? It was reported recently that they had nearly 3 million shares in GEC. A quarter of that firm's production is for the arms trade and it has been reported that the commissioners have discussed with it its exports to Indonesia and Nigeria. Did such a meeting take place and, if so, what was the outcome?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman's question covers a wide spectrum. We are investors in GEC, whose
    644
    armaments portfolio is held to be less than 30 per cent., which is just about the cut-off point for our ethical application. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the five permanent members of the Security Council have reaffirmed, and continue to reaffirm, the inherent right to individual or collective self-defence that is recognised in article 51 of the United Nations charter, which implies that states have the right to acquire the means for legitimate self-defence. Nevertheless, the Church of England does not invest in companies whose main business is armaments. It has to be less than 30 per cent.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Church intend to increase its investment in inner cities? Is its view that the Government should do the same?
    Mr. Alison: The Church urban fund, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, is a very important but, nevertheless, by statute a subordinate part of the claims on the income of the Church of England. Although we shall do everything possible to sustain our cash flow into the Church urban fund, pensions and stipends of clergy and their dependants must remain statutorily the overriding priority. Incidentally, I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the capital value of our total assets has risen to £2.6 billion from £2.1 billion or less 10 years ago.

    Cyclists
    Mr. Steen: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is his policy in respect of charging cyclists for the use of Church Commission land. [10018]
    Mr. Alison: The Church Commissioners make no charge for cyclists using legal rights of way across their land.
    Mr. Steen: Is the reason why the Church Commissioners are refusing to allow the completion of the Totnes to Buckfastleigh cycle route that they can get more revenue from fishermen fishing in the River Dart than they could possibly get from cyclists going across Church Commissioners' land? If that is the case, would not one of the best ways to reduce the £800 million loss that resulted from the property collapse, and the property speculation, in the 1990s be to charge cyclists a toll as they cycle across Church Commissioners' land?
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend is quite right to pinpoint the importance of fishing rights as a source of income to this essential charitable fund, whose beneficiaries, I remind him, are clergy and their dependants. In relation to that particular stretch of territory in his constituency, I doubt whether the toll that we could levy on cyclists passing that delectable spot would be payable by them or that they would agree to pay it if it were set at a level that would raise the same amount of money that we receive from letting the fishing rights. I am afraid that cyclists might bash through and we would have very little power or control to prevent them from doing so in trying to levy a toll.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not having given you the usual notice of this point of order, but frankly it is one of the problems of the peripatetic Scottish Grand Committee, which was in Stirling this morning.
It may be within your recollection that, at column 483 in business questions on Thursday, the Leader of the House said that the President of France was laying it open for experts to monitor French nuclear testing. Has there been any statement, or request for a statement, from any Minister, given particularly the urgent responsibilities that we have in this House towards the Pitcairn islanders, the nearest community to Mururoa where the testing is taking place? Do not the widely reported leaks of iodine 131, strontium 90 and caesium 137 show that France's statements that the rocks would in no way leak are false? In those circumstances, should not a Minister make a statement?
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Madam Speaker: Is it on the same point?
Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is. It is very disturbing that there have now been six French nuclear tests. If you recall, Madam Speaker, I asked you on a point of order on the occasion of the first test whether it was possible to have a debate or a statement on the issue. You very kindly allowed myself and others to take part in an Adjournment debate the following week.
646
Despite the fact that there have been six tests, the Government have never made a statement on the matter. This must be one of the very few Parliaments in the world that has not heard a proper statement from the Government on the matter. I wonder whether, through any office whatever, we can be assured that at some stage the Government will be accountable for their very strong support of Chirac.
Madam Speaker: I know that both hon. Gentlemen are aware that I cannot give any guarantee that a statement on this issue will be made by the Government. Of course I understand the concern about the matter, which, as was rightly said, has been previously raised with me. Indeed, we have had a Adjournment debate on it. It seems that hon. Members have raised a matter of concern to them, not so much a point of order for the Chair. As the House knows, I deal with procedure. There is no doubt that Members sitting on the Treasury Bench will have heard what has been said and the concern expressed, and will report back to the appropriate authorities.
Ms Liz Lynne: I tabled a question to the Deputy Prime Minister, which was accepted on to the Order Paper. I was then told that the question was to be transferred, even though it dealt with Government policy and the sharing of information between Departments. I should be grateful for some guidance on which questions the Deputy Prime Minister answers.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that the transfer of questions is entirely a matter for Ministers, not for the Clerks in the Table Office or for me. Ministers determine whether questions remain with them or are transferred to another Department.

Orders of the Day

  Housing Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I must announce that speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm will have to be limited to 10 minutes.
  3.35 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  When we published our housing White Paper last summer, we made clear our continuing commitment to a decent home for every family. We said that we remained committed to meeting that objective in the face of the social and economic changes and the environmental concerns that place new and increasing demands on government.
  The Housing Bill extends opportunity. It will mean that more housing association tenants will have the opportunity to buy their own homes, that leaseholders will have stronger and more accessible protection, and that council tenants will have the opportunity to vote for new types of social landlords, who can bring in private money to improve their estates.
  Conservative Members have shown that housing issues can be approached with imagination. We have not simply fallen back on the tired old policies of building municipal estates: "Never mind the quality; measure the quantity; count the cost". The Conservative party brought in the right to buy—1.3 million households in England wanted that right, and took the opportunity that was given to them. Each day, 200 households go on wanting that right. The Labour party voted against that opportunity.
  We are also the party that brought in private finance alongside public money to improve our council estates. We brought in competition to provide housing, with housing associations competing to provide it at the best price. That means better housing at a cheaper price, and more of it than would otherwise have been the case. We brought in new rights for tenants, and gave them a greater say in how their estates are run.
  The Labour party says that it wants those things, but it voted solidly against every one of them. It says one thing and does another.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I agree with absolutely everything that my right hon. Friend said about our housing policy, but I should like to press him on one point, which I may have missed. In the housing White Paper, we proposed to legislate to allow profit-making companies and other bodies to compete for the grants available to those in social housing. Will my right hon. Friend explain whether that is in the Bill, or whether we are planning to introduce it later?
  Mr. Gummer: We have said that the needs of leaseholders are more important in the immediate term, and we have to deal with them. We are therefore producing a separate Bill that covers that issue, which I hope will soon be introduced. There is no question of
  648
  dropping it. However, decisions on leasehold problems, particularly in London and the south coast resorts, are so serious that they should be taken immediately. That is therefore covered in the Bill.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman, because I have one or two things to say to him in particular.
  We published our White Paper last summer and have now introduced the Bill. The Opposition, of course, did not publish their own policy document, despite the many promises that they would do so, and that it would be bigger, better and certainly more expensive than ours. They leaked ours in order to pretend that they had one. When they were pressed about it at the Housing Corporation conference in February 1995—I stress that date—the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said:
  "A new approach is called for and over the next few months Frank Dobson and I will be working up detailed housing policy proposals which the Labour party will be publishing later this"—
  that is, last—
  "year."
  We are less than three weeks away from the anniversary of that statement. When will we get Labour's housing policy? Why has it taken so long? Has the hon. Member for Greenwich been unable to get the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to understand it? Has the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras—having taken some time to understand the policy—not been able to get his Treasury team to agree to it?
  Or is it merely that Labour does not have a clue as to what it would do if anybody was ever silly enough to ask it to take charge? Does Labour want to stick with saying and never doing? The hon. Member for Greenwich said that he was going to produce a policy in a few months. That was good enough to allow him to get away with it in front of an audience, but it is not good enough for the people of Britain who want to know what Labour would do.
  I have taken some time to look at the one piece of Labour policy that I have discovered so far—that, somehow or other, Labour would release the accumulated receipts so that they could be spent. That is the one thing that Labour has said, but it has not explained until recently what that would mean. It would mean not that a Labour Government would allow councils to spend their receipts, but that some councils would be allowed to spend other councils' receipts.
  We have now discovered that, carefully hidden in Labour's policy, is a proposal that the arrangement of phasing would mean that the Labour council in the Wyre, for example, would be asked to spend its receipts in, let us say, Gateshead. So when a council leader says, "We will release the receipts," he thinks that the receipts will be released for the people of the Wyre, Bracknell Forest, Dacorum or any of the other places that are temporarily in Labour control. That is what the councils think, but Labour would actually give permission for those receipts to be spent somewhere else.
  Labour's policy has been rumbled. Inside Housing, a newspaper not entirely in favour of the Conservative cause, asked what would happen to the interest that is now

  649
  going to the local authority that has the receipts when those receipts are spent. The newspaper said that, if there were a Labour Government, councils could refuse to use billions of pounds of capital receipts unless they got an extra subsidy from the Labour Government to pay for the interest they were losing.
  Hidden in the only bit of Labour policy that works in the minds of the public is the fact that it would, in absolute truth, hold back receipts from councils to make sure that it could subsidise the spendthrift by nationalising the receipts of those councils which have done their job properly.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept—as he must, since he has no evidence to the contrary—that everything he has said in the past five minutes is absolutely untrue, and that he has made it all up?
  Mr. Gummer: No. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that Labour would not allow the leafy suburbs to spend the money, because that would be the only way in which it would he able to provide the extra money for the councils to which it wants to give money. That is precisely what Labour intends to do. The housing press has revealed precisely what Labour did not want to be admitted or publicised. It is no wonder that the hon. Gentleman was so quick on to his feet—he knows that he has been rumbled.
  Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that we can get on to the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: My question was exactly that, Madam Speaker. Can the Secretary of State answer three simple questions? Will the Bill mean any significant increase in the number of houses for rent; will it mean any significant reduction in the rents of people in housing association properties, as those associations are losing their grant by a greater amount every year; and will it mean any relief for those who have bought their properties from local authorities, particularly in council tower blocks, and who face maintenance, service and capital charges of up to £28,000, which some of them cannot afford?
  Mr. Gummer: The first question is dealt with in the Finance Bill, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The second is not part of this Bill, because it is part of others, and the third is one of the issues that we have already taken into account and on which we have taken action.
  One of the key arguments about the Bill is that an alternative way exists, which is related centrally to capital receipts. That is why it is crucial for us to deal with that issue at the beginning, and it is why I gave way to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I wanted to have the opportunity to tell the House what his party said about his policy. He has said:
  "Liberal Democrats have no ideological attachment to public or private housing."
  That means, according to the party's Whips Office, that the Liberal Democrats' weaknesses are as follows, first,
  "we haven't got a particularly strong or new line on housing."
  650
  Secondly, it states:
  "our intention to phase out MIRAS will cripple mortgage payers and exacerbate negative equity"—
  the very point that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey had the cheek to question me on a moment ago. So the Liberal Democrats admit that their policy would make the present situation worse.
  Lastly, the Liberal Whips state:
  "our policy on helping home owners suffering from negative equity"—
  which is what the hon. Gentleman asked about—
  "is expensive and ill-thought out".
  That is what the Liberal party says about its policy, and I must thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to mention it, in case he did not have the opportunity to do so.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: In one moment.
  The Government are facing up to the real issues. We are asking the hard questions, and giving the tough answers that need to be given. We are facing the challenge to set up fair systems that help those who need it most, concentrating our resources effectively, and helping those who can house themselves to do so affordably. We are giving them rights and responsibilities.
  To ensure that that will continue, we are introducing a second Bill, which will include measures to improve construction contracts and reform renovation grants. That Bill will be widely welcomed.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay rose—
  Mr. Gummer: Before I give way, I want to explain what I want to do in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We need to ensure that we have a fair way of allocating the housing we have for social purposes. We want not several queues but one waiting list, with people judged according to their need. That is what the system is meant to do.
  Some people have temporary needs, and others long-term needs. The allocation of long-term social housing should depend on long-term needs, and not merely on people's short-term needs. People on the waiting lists for council and housing association housing need to know that they are being treated fairly.
  At the moment there is a problem. Some people who need housing are in the right category, and others are not but are in greater need. All the Bill does is to ensure that people are judged according to their needs. To each according to his need—or is that another philosophy that the Labour party has thrown out? That is what the Bill is intended to do, as any sane person would recognise.
  Ms Glenda Jackson rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), as he rose first.
  Mr. Mackinlay: When the Secretary of State has finished his swashbuckling fun of knocking the Labour

  651
  and Liberal parties, will he address the criticism made by the Roman Catholic bishops of England and Wales, who have referred to the Bill as "ill-timed", and drawn hon. Members' attention to our Christian obligation to have regard for families and the disadvantaged? The bishops regard the Bill, especially part VII, as repugnant. What does he have to say to those caring people with a pastoral role, who have no political axe to grind, who consider the Bill to be unacceptable and uncaring?
  Mr. Gummer: I would point to the guidance notes that were produced last Thursday. They said that the categories to which the Roman Catholic bishops drew attention are the very categories that will be at the top of the list for the measurements of need. We have met every single criticism that the bishops put forward. The only thing that was ill-timed was the fact that they did not wait for the guidance notes so that they could see that what they had feared was untrue. Those who misled the bishops had better explain to them why they did so.
  We particularly included a provision that concern should be taken for married couples who have waited to have children because the conditions in which they lived were unsuitable for having them. I am sure that His Eminence and the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops will be pleased at that attitude which, for the first time, is expressed in our documentation.
  The Bill provides for a single waiting list route into social housing, but with the first priority for the most vulnerable.
  Mrs. Diana Maddock: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I ought to get on a little further, but I shall come back to the hon. Lady because I am always willing to hear from the Liberal party, given what it has said about its own housing policy.
  At the same time that we bring up to date the criteria for the allocation of long-term social housing, we are keeping an effective safety net for homeless households. Families and vulnerable people who are unintentionally homeless would be given a minimum of one year's accommodation, with further help where needed. In many areas, one year will be more than enough for a household with real needs to get permanent accommodation allocated through the waiting list, but it is much more sensible to give people immediate help—the help that is available—and then try to assess what the best help is in the circumstances of those people. Any sane person would accept that.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), because she rose first.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: How can the Bill, which will create a longer waiting list, deal with the basic need, which is the gross lack of decent, affordable housing? Will the Minister define what an "unreal need" is for a family without a home?
  Mr. Gummer: A family without a home gets a greater advantage if its homelessness is statutory and
  652
  categorisable than does a family with appalling accommodation, which is in a much worse position. The second family would not get a home. The first family gets a home first simply because it is in the right category. I am merely saying that we should judge cases by need.
  The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate says that we have a longer waiting list; that is not true. We have a waiting list based upon the principle of need instead of one based upon those who are lucky enough, if that is the right word, to be in the right category. Such families always beat others, who may be in worse conditions, on local authority housing waiting lists. If she would leave her doctrine aside and look at the facts of need, she would find that what we say is right. She will never oppose the system once it is in operation, because she will see that it works properly.
  Mr. Clive Betts: At present, a family with priority need, which will often be a family with children, is entitled to rehousing as a homeless family. Such families still have the great trauma of having to move home, and, especially, of their children having to change schools, but will the Secretary of State confirm that, under the new legislation, they would have to move once to temporary accommodation, and, with no choice at all, have to move home for a second time within 12 months? Will he confirm that that will not only cause housing disruption but education, social and every other sort of disruption?
  Mr. Gummer: That is not true. If a family was in the circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman, it could be moved directly into permanent accommodation. The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. As always, he has been reading his own propaganda, not the statements of the Government.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all local authorities should be obliged to provide the temporary accommodation required within their own area? Will he bear in mind problems experienced in places like Southend-on-Sea, where for many years other authorities have had the habit of putting their homeless families into temporary accommodation, making Southend's problems worse?
  Mr. Gummer: Under the Bill, local authorities will be able to refer people to their local authority of origin, which is one of the issues that my hon. Friend is concerned about. I hope that he agrees that, if we are to deal with need, we must ensure that people get the accommodation they need.
  While some people find that decision difficult. to make right at the beginning, others have acute immediate needs that may not continue for long. Still others have an immediate need for permanent accommodation, which is clear to their local authority. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) would wish, such people can be accorded that permanent accommodation. We must be concerned for homeless people, not for some theory of homelessness put forward by the Opposition.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) asked me to give way, and I promised

  653
  that she would be next. I wish to proceed with a couple more paragraphs of my speech, after which the hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time to intervene.
  Our consultation paper on allocations, published last Thursday, shows our intention to have a fair system that encourages local authorities to stand back and ask who really needs long-term housing, who really needs short-term help, and how they can use existing housing to the best advantage. They can therefore meet the requirement of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate. A better use of housing enables more people to be decently housed, which is an important part of what we seek to do.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Christchurch in a moment, and then come back to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Dobson: The Secretary of State misled the House.
  Madam Speaker: Order. Did the hon. Gentleman say that the Secretary of State had misled the House? No Minister or Back Bencher misleads the House. Will he withdraw that remark, so that we may proceed with the debate?
  Mr. Dobson: I withdraw the remark, Madam Speaker, but it would appear that what the Secretary of State said is at variance with the Bill.
  Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that, at some stage, the Secretary of State will allow him to intervene. Am I to understand that the Secretary of State is allowing the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) to intervene?
  Mr. Gummer: Yes.
  Mrs. Maddock: Will the Secretary of State explain his thinking on regulations? Like me, many hon. Members object to Ministers having the power to put measures into practice through regulations. We saw what happened in the case of the Child Support Agency. I do not expect an overnight change, but should not the Bill at least show the criteria that the Secretary of State will use?
  Why is the consultation paper going out when we are about to discuss the Bill in Committee? We will not have responses on some of the matters that we are supposed to discuss in Committee.
  Mr. Gummer: I am concerned that everything should be properly discussed. If the hon. Lady wants better and further particulars on anything, I should be pleased to provide them. That is why I published before Second Reading the proposed criteria in the form of guidance, which we are discussing with local authorities. There is therefore no difference between us on wishing to obtain as much information as possible.
  May I say to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that I enjoy having a rough and tough discussion, but I do not wish to mislead the House. Let
  654
  me therefore go through precisely what I was asked. If a local authority has a homeless family, with no roof over its head and in real difficulty, it can move it into any accommodation available. There is no question of children having to change schools, because it will be perfectly possible for the local authority to find the right accommodation and move the family into it permanently in the shortest possible time.
  Mr. Dobson: I do not suggest for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to mislead the House, but what he has just said appears to be at variance with clause 161, which says:
  "A local housing authority shall not perform any such duty…by providing accommodation"—
  for homeless people—
  "other than—

  (a) accommodation in a hostel…or

  (b) accommodation leased to the authority"—

  again, that would be temporary accommodation—
  "for more than two years".
  Mr. Gummer: The fact is that we are talking about a particular example of someone who is in desperate need. The hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras tried to suggest that people in desperate need of housing would not receive permanent accommodation, but would be stuck in temporary accommodation.
  I say quite clearly that, as soon as that need is discovered, the local authority will provide permanent accommodation if it is available. That is precisely what is occurring. The hon. Gentleman does not understand the situation, and he has not read the legislation properly. [Interruption.]
  The hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) may laugh, but the Labour party has no policy with which to respond. Although the hon. Lady is new to the Opposition Front Bench, she must know that the issue is clear: accommodation will be available immediately for people with no roof over their heads, if they are suitable applicants for permanent accommodation and they reach the top of the waiting list in that sense. They will receive accommodation because their need is greater than that of someone else.
  The House now sees what Labour's policy would mean: if a family was on top of the waiting list but it was less needy than another family on that list, it would be housed before the family in greater need. We now see what Labour Members believe in: if people are in the correct category, they will receive housing, and people in need will not receive housing.
  We believe that families in need should be moved into permanent accommodation as rapidly as possible. That is surely the right way to go. The Labour party is wrong, because it wants to allocate housing according to category and not according to people's needs. It does not care about people's needs; it simply wants people to be in the correct category. The Labour party is not prepared to provide even temporary accommodation to those who are in immediate need, because it wants to stick to categories. That is why the Labour party is wrong.
  Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I must proceed, but I shall return to my hon. Friend in a moment.

  655
  The hon. Member for North-West Durham has got it wrong; she wants to stick to categories—no doubt that is another example of the "stakeholder" concept. The Bill allows us to house people according to their need, which must be the right way to go.
  I now turn to the question whether council tenants should have the same landlord, regardless of whether that is what they want. We believe that the Bill should allow council tenants to choose new landlords who can unlock the capital that is tied up in council houses and inject private investment, along with public money, in order to improve housing. The new landlords, such as local housing companies, will be not-for-profit bodies regulated by the Housing Corporation. They will be backed by an estates renewal challenge fund worth some £314 million over the next three years. That money will be used to improve many bad estates, if the council tenants choose to have a new landlord. They will make that choice; it will not be imposed upon them.
  I want to know whether the Labour party will support that measure. It seems a very good way of unlocking capital, which would otherwise not be available, in order to improve those estates.
  Mr. Pike: Does that not contradict what the Secretary of State said a few moments ago, as it does not necessarily mean that those houses most in need of improvement will receive the money for that work?
  Mr. Gummer: That has nothing to do with the allocations. I am talking about bad, rundown council estates which will be able to raise their standards of housing. Is the hon. Member saying that we should not raise the standards of the worst council estates—which are so bad largely because they have been controlled by Labour authorities which have allowed them to run down, year in, year out, for party political purposes in many cases? There is also the question of extending the measure.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No: I shall continue my remarks so that the hon. Gentleman may listen and learn about the additional opportunities that the Bill will provide for the public.
  The Bill provides a further opportunity to offer people a real choice between renting and ownership. It will give purchase grants to those who live in housing association accommodation, so that they will have the right to buy. It will be a valuable extension of opportunity and people's right to own.
  I shall be looking very carefully to see whether the Opposition are in favour of extending the right to buy in that way, or whether they refuse it. That will tell us whether they really believe in the right to buy, or whether they merely accept it as convenient for electoral purposes. So far, they have voted against every extension of the right to buy. They do not want people to own; they want them to be governed by the tenancy clauses of local authority housing.
  The only area in which we consider it better for people not to have the right to buy is the small village, where alternative accommodation is difficult to find. People
  656
  have often given the land and been granted special planning permission. As we want land to be offered, we feel that that is the right course of action.
  Mrs. Maddock: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No, I have already given way to the hon. Lady.
  Some freeholders use their powers in a wholly unacceptable way and abuse their responsibilities. Many Members have material that shows that to be categorical.
  I have here a document that I shall certainly place in the Library of the House. It was produced by a management company seeking to frighten leaseholders out of their rights. That is wholly unacceptable, and I do not believe that we should allow it to continue. That is why I have found room in the Bill to address such behaviour, although it meant displacing a matter that my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I look forward to bringing before the House.
  Mr. David Ashby: Has my right hon. Friend considered also the scam used by freeholders who charge long leaseholders exorbitant insurance premiums and take the commission on those insurances? Will he accept any changes to the Bill to prevent that being taken into account when the value of the freehold is assessed?
  Mr. Gummer: It is important that we look carefully at any suggestions on that complicated matter. My hon. Friend will he pleased to know that the arrangements in the Bill will cover the issue he raises, but if he thinks that we can do better, I am certainly prepared to listen to him.
  Mr. Matthew Carrington: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The amendments to the Bill that he has promised will be extremely welcome to leaseholders in London, particularly those who are suffering badly from the depredations of rogue landlords. One of their greatest problems is the exorbitant cost of enforcing their rights against their freeholders. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any amendments to the Bill are easily and cheaply enforceable, and that the present rights of leaseholders under the leasehold reform legislation are also cheaper to uphold?
  Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I have suggested that we discuss and consult on our proposal that those matters could be taken out of the hands of the courts and brought before the tribunal. It would be cheaper and easier, and would enable the chairman of the tribunal, who is often a professionally qualified valuer, to use his professional ability—which a judge cannot do. That would help considerably, and I hope that consultation will show it to be the generally accepted view.
  Most freeholders behave in a perfectly honourable manner. I am concerned about freeholders such as Bebington and Associates, who write threatening letters. I would also mention the solicitors who support them, and the professional people who claim that their behaviour should be allowed. I hope that we shall have an united view at least on this matter. Those people should not be allowed either to damage the leaseholders or to write

  657
  down the qualities of good freeholders, many of whom do their job as it ought to be done, and who are as angry as anybody else about how certain operators have acted.
  Mr. William O'Brien: I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman—particularly to his remarks about need. How will he decide the categories? What advice will he give housing allocation officers in respect of people who are living in overcrowded or sub-standard conditions, or who have been on the waiting list a long time? We and the public want the answer.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased that, last Thursday, we published the proposed guidelines, a copy of which is in the Library. They bring together all the categories in the legislation, so that the needs of each family can be considered at the same time and on the same basis. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will like that arrangement, and will have no difficulty with it. It is not for me to say which category comes before another. It is for me to say the matters that a local authority must take into account. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will find that the guidance is acceptable, and he will not need to worry about that.
  One matter that divides us, and I am sorry that it does, is that Labour still wants two categories of allocation for need instead of one. Labour will not, even for the shortest possible moment, allow a homeless family to wait while the best way to provide for its need is decided. Instead of saying that that is reasonable, as most people would say, Labour always makes the sort of argument used by the hon. Member for Attercliffe—that a family of two parents and two children would have to stay in temporary accommodation, change schools and then change again. That is not so, as I told the House.
  Mr. Betts: Why not?
  Mr. Gummer: Because the time spent in temporary accommodation in circumstances of the extreme kind that the hon. Gentleman cited is bound to be short. If such a family comes to the top of the needs list, it will be accommodated. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the family should be rehoused in advance of people who have more need.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Gummer: No—I want to continue.
  I wish to talk about something else in which the hon. Member for Christchurch is very interested—houses in multiple occupation. We are most concerned that standards in some parts of the private rented sector need to be improved. Some of the worst conditions are found in houses in multiple occupancy—the so-called HMOs. They are typically bedsitters or bed-and-breakfast hostels. Local authorities already have powers to require safety and amenity standards to be met, but the Bill goes further. It strengthens local authority powers to register HMOs and to control conditions. If buildings are unsatisfactory, local authorities can close them down.
  There are particular concerns in many seaside areas. Former hotels and guest houses have become what are sometimes called benefit hostels. Where they are badly
  658
  managed or there are too many of them, that can have a serious effect. Considerable nuisance is often caused, and sometimes real danger. Such wholesale changes can alter the character of an area, and damage, for example, the tourist industry on which the area specifically depends.
  I propose to bring forward amendments to strengthen the Bill's powers further. I propose to allow local authorities to close down HMOs without compensation if they are being run in a way that causes nuisance or annoyance to the neighbourhood. I propose also to allow authorities to prevent new HMOs from opening if to allow additional HMOs would be detrimental to the area. That means that we will cover the whole range of public concerns about buildings that were not meant for the purpose to which they are now being put.
  Mr. Roger Gale: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and to the Prime Minister for the way in which they have listened to representations from those of us who represent seaside resorts. What my right hon. Friend has just announced will go a long way to meeting the requirements.
  Will my right hon. Friend clarify one point? Until now, local authorities have sometimes found serving notice on anybody difficult, because the "anybody" is not clearly defined. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that it is clearly possible to identify, and if necessary disbar, the manager of such a property, so that it can be closed down and that person can be prevented from running one again?
  Mr. Gummer: It will certainly be possible under the proposals to close down properties immediately without compensation. I hope that, in the discussion of how registration might work, we can cover the other aspects that my hon. Friend suggests. We need a simple and straightforward system, not one that is too complex and bureaucratic, and one that delivers the goods on safety and the other concerns that I have outlined.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that students form the single category that would be most affected by the proposals? There are huge numbers of students in big cities, and Leeds now has more than 10,000. I welcome my right hon. Friend's appreciation of the fact that, for years, many students have lived in unsafe and poorly maintained accommodation—although, of course, some landlords are fine.
  There is legitimate concern that landlords might have to re-register only every five years. Can my right hon. Friend use his discretion and require more frequent registration? To cover the cost, a fee could be charged for it, as it is for an MOT licence.
  Mr. Gummer: I am happy to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. I am trying to achieve a balance between too complex a system which would be too unwieldy to operate, and one which is not sufficiently strong. I hope that we have got the right balance, but if my hon. Friend thinks that there are ways in which we can improve it, I shall certainly consider them.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: My right hon. Friend will know how welcome the proposals he has just announced will be in Blackpool and other seaside towns.

  659
  Will he instruct his officials to monitor carefully the operation of those new powers, not only in the Bill but in the further amendments?
  There is concern that, in seaside resorts with Labour or Liberal Democrat or Lib-Lab authorities, councillors are reluctant to operate the powers that are already in existence. There are especial concerns, which have been expressed to me by residents' and hoteliers' associations, about the strong links between Labour councillors and some of the unscrupulous landlords. Will my right hon. Friend ask his officials to investigate?
  Mr. Gummer: The Bill will give local authorities the powers to operate sensibly. The reason we have made the changes in the Bill on giving homes according to need is that we want local authorities to make those decisions themselves. It will be the local authority's fault if people in the categories that have been so far trumpeted abroad find themselves in temporary accommodation for a long time. It will be local authorities that will be in a position to carry out that part of the Bill.
  We will monitor the situation carefully, but local authorities should be in the driving seat, and local authorities should not be deprived of the powers they now have over their receipts, as the Labour party wishes. I shall be interested to see how the Labour party will explain that.
  Mr. Clive Soley rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No, I will give way to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), and then I will come back.
  Mr. Soley: The Secretary of State may recall that, during the passage of the Housing Act 1988, the issues he is raising now were raised then as serious matters for concern—not least the activities of Mr. Hoogstraten. The Secretary of State will also recall that we raised the same concerns that he has mentioned today about freeholders and leaseholders. Why has it taken the Government eight years even to begin to think about acting on those matters, when they rejected our amendments at the time of the passage of the 1988 Act?
  Mr. Gummer: The amendments were not as the hon. Gentleman put them forward. The Government are meeting present needs clearly and directly. I am pleased that there is agreement on those matters on both sides of the House. I hope that the Opposition parties will help us to get the Bill through fast, so that, first, we will be able to ensure that families in real need get their homes. Secondly, we will be able to ensure that houses in multiple occupation are covered by better legislation than at the moment. Thirdly, we shall be able to ensure that leaseholders have protection, which they do not have now. All these things can be achieved if the Labour party drops its dogmatic opposition to the Bill and supports us in what we are doing. We shall watch the Opposition and press them. We look forward to hearing what the Labour party's policy is in a few moments.
  Mr. David Atkinson: May I welcome the changes that my right hon. Friend has mentioned? They will be generally welcomed in Bournemouth.
  660
  How do the changes, together with the proposals in the original measure, respond to the problems being experienced by local authorities because of a lack of definition of what is a hotel, a hostel or a house in multiple occupation? Lack of definition effectively prevents local authorities from applying the controls that they already have. In responding to problems concerning HMOs, will there be a clear definition in a schedule to enable local authorities better to respond to the changes that my right hon. Friend has announced?
  Mr. Gummer: There will be a clear definition in the Bill. It will probably appear in a schedule. It will make the position as clear as can be. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is not an easy area in which to introduce provisions and definitions. I have no doubt that there will be discussion in Committee.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No. I must get on.
  The conduct of tenants who are already in place is a matter of considerable concern. We felt that a natural approach would be, first, to ensure that local authorities that so desired would be able to grant a probationary or introductory tenancy of a year to see how the tenant settled down and how others considered that he or she had settled down. It is not an unreasonable idea.
  I am sorry that the Labour-controlled Association of District Councils is opposed to that. It is a great mistake. The Labour party is supposed to be in favour of taking action. Unfortunately, is opposes the simple mechanism that we propose. It is opposed by Labour authority after authority. It will be helpful if individuals have the opportunity to see how they settle down in a new tenancy. It will be for local authorities to decide whether that is what they wish to do. I would recommend them to adopt that approach, but the decision is entirely for local authorities. I want to give them the opportunity to make a decision.
  Neighbour nuisance damages many people's lives. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware of that from surgery experience. We are giving landlords effective powers against a minority who do not accept responsibility. We need especially to protect social tenants, who may have little choice when it comes to their neighbours. It is a real issue, especially for our older constituents.
  Our proposals have been developed in consultation with local authorities. We have taken account especially of recommendations contained in the ADC's report. We have also taken on board recommendations from elsewhere. We have tried to arrive at as common a view as possible. I am sorry that a measure which I think would be important has not gained the support of the ADC.
  Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, even in an area such as Taunton, there are noise problems affecting tenants and owner-occupiers. Those problems are greatly increased in many inner cities. Those suffering from noise abuse are often afraid to complain. I know of instances in which there have been reprisals against those who have complained. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that measures are taken to

  661
  preserve the secrecy or confidentiality of those who complain, so that the proposed measures may be successfully implemented?
  Mr. Gummer: That will be, I am sure, the concern of local authorities that wish to implement the proposals. I shall give them every encouragement to take the matter on board. If my hon. Friend has any ideas on how we might extend the proposals, I should very much like to be informed of them.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No. I must bring my remarks to an end.
  The Bill is designed to extend opportunity. It is designed also to ensure that the resources available to help those in need are applied to those most in need. I say again to the Labour party that, if we are to accept—this has been the position under all Governments—that there are never enough resources to meet every need, we must decide which comes first. That has been the most contentious issue.
  We have at the moment a system in which some people get to the top of the list by category, thereby overtaking those who by need should be at the top of the list. The way to overcome that is to ensure the most rapid transition for those in real need from not having a home to having a permanent home, and not to have a system whose automaticity means that one shoves down the list those who most deserve and need accommodation.
  The Labour party should answer a simple question. Is it prepared to continue to allow people in lesser need to get permanent accommodation, and thereby push those in real need further down the list? That is what the Labour party proposes. That situation is wholly contrary to any proper assessment of the use of resources and to compassion for those who really need our help.
  When the Labour party looks at the arrangements in the Bill and sees the powers of local authorities in association with them, it will discover that the fears that it has raised are unfounded, and that this is a sensible way forward. It is also a question of ensuring that people who can buy their homes are allowed to do so, particularly in future housing association building.
  The Bill gives people the opportunity to protect themselves against a freeholder who abuses the system. We want to protect people in houses in multiple occupation much more effectively than we have until now, and we want to ensure that HMOs can no longer be concentrated in a way that does damage to everyone concerned. Lastly, we are concerned to see that the opportunities, which until now have been much more restricted, are expanded.
  This is a proper policy, based on a White Paper that has had a great deal of discussion, argument and consultation. It is noticeable that neither the Labour party nor the Liberal Democrats have a policy with which to counter the Bill. It is for the House to demand that, in their criticisms, they sketch out the policy for which we have waited month after month, since the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras promised that we would have it. Today, we are waiting to hear what it is.
  4.26 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: The people of this country are racked with insecurity: people feel insecure in their jobs; people who need a hospital bed or an ambulance are no longer secure in the knowledge that they will get the attention that they need when they need it; old people feel insecure about their pensions; and millions of people of all ages feel insecure on the streets where they live.
  The Government are doing nothing to combat the insecurity that they have inflicted on the people. Instead, they revel in it. Cabinet Ministers clearly welcome it. The Government preach insecurity. They are not hypocritical; they practise it. [Laughter.] Nowhere is their policy of making people insecure more obvious than when it comes to people's homes. Insecurity affects every part of the country, including the constituencies of the giggling oafs on Conservative Benches. It affects all sorts of families—owner-occupiers, leaseholders, council tenants, housing association tenants, private tenants. Above all, it affects the homeless, the families who have no place of their own.
  Measured against the huge crisis of housing insecurity, the Bill is not just useless, but worse than useless. The proposals in it will make matters worse for many families. It ignores the problems of owner-occupiers. It only tinkers with the problems of leaseholders and of people who live in houses in multiple occupation.
  The Government are not just complacent; they are nasty and mean-spirited as well. The Bill weakens the position of private tenants and attacks homeless families. It contributes nothing to the building of more houses for the thousands of families with nowhere decent to live. It is no good the Secretary of State trying to blame other people for all that. He cannot shift the blame for the present housing crisis. It is no use him trying to blame Labour councils for everything. The Government have been in power for 16 years. It is time that they accepted responsibility for what they have done. It is their record at which the public are looking. Labour councils, for instance, are not to blame for the plight of owner-occupiers; nor is it the fault of that other old Tory scapegoat, the previous Labour Government.
  Mr. John Sykes: Why should this Minister, this Government or this party take any lectures from the push-me-pull-you Labour party, which says one thing and does another? Hackney council has 2,000 empty houses even as we. speak.
  Mr. Dobson: I shall not defend Hackney council's indefensible housing record. Apparently, however, Conservative Members will defend the indefensible record of Departments whose housing "empties" grotesquely exceed that number. The number of empty Department of Transport houses, for instance, has increased by 16 per cent., and the figures for the Ministry of Defence and the Welsh Office have increased by 15 per cent. and 44 per cent. respectively. Meanwhile, as the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration himself said in a press statement, the number of empty council houses has fallen.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: I shall return to that issue. Now, however, I want to talk about the Government's record on

  663
  owner-occupation, and compare it with that of the previous Labour Government. Under the previous Labour Government, housing repossessions were running at 3,000 a year, and falling; under the present Government, 50,000 families a year are losing their homes. There are now 17 repossessions for every one that took place under Labour; the Tory record on repossessions is 17 times worse than Labour's.
  Under the previous Labour Government, fewer than 10,000 families were in serious mortgage arrears. Today, the figure is 250,000. There are 25 families in serious arrears for every one under the Labour Government; the Tory record on mortgage arrears is 25 times worse than Labour's.
  On top of that, the present Government have inflicted negative equity on the nation. More than 1,100,000 families now live in homes that are worth less than their mortgages. Negative equity is most common in the south-east, where it affects 434,000 families. It affects 185,000 families in London, and 159,000 in the south-west. However, it also affects 27,000 families in Yorkshire, 51,000 in the north-west, 63,000 in the west midlands and 99,000 in the east midlands.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: Not yet.
  I cannot give a comparable figure for negative equity under Labour, because it did not exist under Labour. It did not exist as a fact, and it did not even exist as a phrase.
  Mr. Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman not admit that it would be pretty difficult to bring about negative equity with inflation at 28 per cent.? He is merely saying that, under Labour, inflation was so high that there was never any possibility of such circumstances.
  Mr. Dobson: Apparently, the Secretary of State is now claiming credit for negative equity. I never thought that we would get him to do that.
  In fact, the Government have had to invent the phrase "negative equity" to describe the circumstances into which they have dragged innumerable families. It is said that necessity is the mother of invention. It was necessary to invent the phrase, so the Government invented it. The Tories engineered a property boom in order to win a general election, and when they turned the boom into bust, they left the victims in the lurch. There is nothing in the Bill to help owner-occupiers: they are still left in the lurch.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman has talked a good deal about what he calls negative equity. Will he now clearly give his party's position? How much more money would a Labour Government spend to resolve the problem that the hon. Gentleman describes as negative equity?
  Mr. Dobson: The main thing that is necessary—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] At the beginning of my speech, I spoke of the insecurity that racks everyone in the country. It is mainly job insecurity. The Government's economic incompetence has caused negative equity, and all the other problems suffered by owner-occupiers.
  664
  The Tory party claims to be the party of owner-occupiers, but it is not: it is the party of repossessions, of mortgage arrears and of negative equity. But it is worse than that because, on housing, as on tax, it is the party of election lies and broken election promises. During the 1992 election, the Prime Minister said:
  "We are going to make life easier for people buying their own home."
  That added his personal touch to the Tory election manifesto—and Conservative Members were all elected on it—which stated:
  "We will maintain mortgage tax relief."
  Since then, all these Tories, led by the Prime Minister, have cut mortgage tax relief twice, cut mortgage help to people who lose their jobs in six different ways on four separate occasions—
  Mr. Thomason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not.
  The Tories have also cut mandatory home renovation grants for owner-occupiers. No wonder Mrs. Thatcher said—so it must be true:
  "You can imagine my horror when the Government that succeeded me cut mortgage tax relief. It is not fair on all the young people who bought"—
  their house—
  "in the knowledge it was there".
  We could not ask for a clearer statement of the breach of an election promise.
  Mr. Thomason rose—
  Mr. Dobson: The pre-election campaign contained another of the Prime Minister's flights of fancy. On "Desert Island Discs" in January 1992, presumably dreaming of a Thatcher-free zone, he fantasised:
  "We've stopped, if you recall, the repossessions just before Christmas".
  Since the Prime Minister said that, more than 200,000 families have had their homes repossessed. The rate is running at 50,000 a year.
  Mr. Thomason rose—
  Mr. Dobson: One in 10 homeless families are the victims of repossession. I say to Conservative Members: no wonder the boss of the house-building company Persimmon Homes said:
  "Home ownership is no longer the cornerstone of the Conservative Party. They are kicking us in the teeth".
  I point out to Conservative Members that that was from the boss of a company which, up to now, has donated money to the Tory party.
  Mr. Thomason: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for eventually giving way. Is it his party's intention to restore mortgage tax relief to previous levels?
  Mr. Dobson: Until we hear from the Government what their intention is, we will not say. I understood that the hon. Gentleman had some experience of the problems of the housing market. Probably, we will not want lectures from him.

  665
  The Conservative Government cannot claim to be the party of tenants. It has been the party of enormous rent rises, which have placed a massive burden on the taxpayer. Under the Government, average council rents are six times as high as they were under Labour. In the past five years, they have risen by three times the rate of inflation.
  Mr. Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: Certainly not.
  Over the same five years, when the retail prices index rose by 27 per cent., housing association rents rose by 85 per cent. Rent rises in the private sector have been steeper still and, as a result, the cost to the taxpayer of housing benefits has gone up from £4 billion to £10 billion.
  So the Tories have done nothing for owner-occupiers and they have driven up rents for tenants. When it comes to homelessness, however, they are even worse—the Tories really are the party of homelessness. Under them, the number of homeless families has doubled.
  Mr. Sykes rose—
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes rose—
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way to either of the hon. Gentlemen.
  Hundreds of thousands of other families have been left in overcrowded and unsatisfactory homes. The Tories claim to be the party of the family—you agree with that, do you? Thank you.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the conventions in the House.
  Mr. Dobson: I am sure that you believe in the family, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Under this Government, homeless parents have been forced to try to bring up their families in circumstances that would be unacceptable to every hon. Member, and all that comes after 16 years of the Tory Government and 16 years of Tory housing policy. Last year, more than 120,000 families were officially accepted as homeless. To meet their needs, plus the needs of all the other families who are on council housing waiting lists, to which the Secretary of State referred, last year the Government committed councils to building just 404 council homes. That is one new home for every 301 homeless families. In the last year of the previous Labour Government, councils started to build 54,000 new homes. That means that under Labour they were building 135 new homes for every one that is being built today and that the Tory record on house building for people in need is 135 times worse than that of Labour.
  Like repossessions, negative equity and mortgage arrears, homelessness and the lack of new homes are found all over the country. In London, Labour was building 415 new homes for every one that is being built today. We were building 9,128 new homes, while last year the Tories managed 22 in London. That number in a
  666
  whole year would not provide enough space for the people who will sleep in cardboard boxes in the Strand this very night.
  Homeless families are not the only people who are looking for homes. To put the Tories' building record into perspective, against the 22 houses that they built, 28,000 families were accepted as homeless in London last year.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the needs of inner-city families, especially those on housing estates. Does he agree that the Secretary of State is in danger of being labelled as the King Canute of housing, because he will be overwhelmed by the rising tide of crime in such estates, and problem families? He and his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary have done nothing about that, but Labour has produced a policy on those problems, which we have had in Coventry.
  Mr. Dobson: I fear that my hon. Friend may be giving the Secretary of State more credit than he deserves. As I understand the story, King Canute attempted to demonstrate to creepy courtiers that he could not turn back the tide. I rather suspect that the Secretary of State thinks that he can.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have exceeded our manifesto commitment to build 150,000 houses since being elected. Will the hon. Gentleman say precisely whether he would build more or fewer than that, and by how much he would subsidise public housing?
  Mr. Dobson: The Government have not built them. [Interruption.] Under the Government, the combined construction of houses by councils and housing associations—which I think some Conservative Members believe has entirely made up for the cut in council house building—is half what it was in 1979. The Government have halved building and doubled homelessness, and some of us think that there is a connection between the two.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has been asked whether he would spend more or less on house building, whether he would provide more or less money to aid those with negative equity and whether he would spend more or less on tax relief for mortgage payments. He has failed to answer any of those questions. If he wishes to criticise the Government, he must tell us whether he would spend more in each of those areas. If he will not, then he must shut up.
  Mr. Dobson: When we put our manifesto to the people before the general election, those matters will be spelt out. We do not like making promises that would be broken—unlike Conservative Members who made promises about tax and housing and then threw them away, pretending that they had not been made. I shall give the right hon. Gentleman more detailed figures. In the last five years of the previous Labour Government, the building of what some people call social housing averaged 134,000 houses a year. Under this Government, the total built by housing associations, local authorities and new towns is 34,000. That means that, on average, there are 100,000 a year fewer over a five-year period.
  Mr. Ashby: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have told him that, so he might as well sit down.
  Mr. Ashby rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is well aware of the convention on giving way.
  Mr. Dobson: I have told the hon. Gentleman that I will not give way at the moment. If he behaves himself and is civil, I might give way to him later.
  In Yorkshire, under a Labour Government 6,300 new council homes were being built. The latest figure is just 24—not 24,000, just 24 houses. More than 11,000 people are homeless in Yorkshire. In the north-west, Labour was building 8,600 homes, but under the Tories the total is just three houses for the whole of Yorkshire to meet the needs of the massive total of 18,000 homeless people.
  Mr. Ashby: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No. I have explained to the hon. Gentleman that if he behaves in a civil manner, he might get a look in.
  Mr. Ashby rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules and he must abide by them.
  Mr. Dobson: In the south-east outside London, 11,000 homes were being built under Labour. Last year, the Tories managed just 47. There are 18,000 homeless families in the south-east.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked about subsidies for social rented housing. Housing revenue accounts are ring-fenced, and by and large the only subsidy for council housing is housing benefit. The average council rent is £36 a week and the total housing benefit bill for tenants, who make up 30 per cent. of the population, is £5.3 billion. By contrast, the Government are spending £3.6 billion, paying an average of £69 a week to the private rented sector—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Lady will not catch my eye if she refuses to accept that when I stand, she must sit down. Her conduct is not good enough.
  Dr. Jones: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As I have said, under this regime, shall we say, over a five-year period, the cost to the taxpayer of housing benefit has gone up from £4 billion to £10 billion. That is the wrong way to go about it. Faced with record numbers of homeless families and other families who want to rent somewhere decent to live, a Government with any common sense would build some houses for them. That would be good for people who would be able to move in and good for building workers and the people who supply the building industry. For instance, it would be good for
  668
  people who make bricks in Bedfordshire, and for those who make carpets in Kidderminster, central heating boilers in Belper and electrical fittings in Basildon. But we cannot really expect common sense from the Government and instead there is in the Bill Tory mean-mindedness and a lurch to the right.
  Instead of helping the victims of their policies, the Government are blaming them. Faced with enormous queues for council and housing association homes, the Government are not trying to shorten the queues by building more homes. Instead they propose just to rearrange the queues and hope that, by that process, the people who are affected will start blaming one another and that attention might also be distracted from the Tory record.
  Mr. Ashby: The hon. Gentleman keeps on quoting the new houses built under Labour in 1979. I was one of the chairmen of housing on the Greater London council. May I give the hon. Gentleman an example of the new housing that he is talking about? There were 300 perfectly good houses knocked down and 303 houses built—an extra three houses, not 303 houses. His figures are completely and utterly wrong. We saw social manipulation, not extra houses.
  Mr. Dobson: If that was the quality of thought brought to the Tory side of housing on the GLC, no wonder the Tories were slung out.
  Instead of finding families somewhere decent to live, the Government propose to force them to live in perpetual insecurity; to live for ever in sub-standard temporary homes, badgered and bullied by bureaucrats and landlords. That is what the so-called party of the family intends for thousands of families. What will that do for the health of families, for the job prospects of the parents, for the relationships between the parents and between the parents and their children, and for the education prospects of the children?
  Ministers claim that their housing policies have worked and that their benefit policies have worked, but it is not true; it is not like that. If one wants to find something that epitomises all that is worst about the Government, one need go no further than Westminster. I should make it clear that the Tories must take the blame for whatever happens in Westminster. Like the rest of the country, Westminster has a Tory Government, with Tory housing policies and Tory benefit policies, but unlike almost all of the rest of the country, it has a Tory council, with a Tory housing policy and a Tory environmental health policy.
  What do we find in that demi-paradise? We find the Clarendon Court hotel, which used to be a luxury hotel. Now it is rotten, rundown, insanitary, and a bed-and-breakfast hotel for homeless families. It is occupied by 158 households, and they are living in squalor. The landlords will not be living in squalor. They are being paid £750,000—£14,000 of taxpayers' money a week—in Tory Government housing benefit by Tory Westminster council. The company that owns the hotel cannot be traced. It is believed to be a foreign company, so for all I know, it might be one of those foreign companies that make secret donations to the Tory party.
  Living in that insecure and insanitary dump are 158 households. They each live in a bedsitting room and share kitchen facilities. A professional report says that a

  669
  typical bedsitter in the place is infested with cockroaches and the windows are dangerous. The occupants have to use an electric plug at floor level for the kettle. They share the use of a communal kitchen 40 yd away from their bedsitter, and they share it with the occupants of 47 other bedsitters. The 48 have access to just three electric cookers, with a total of 12 electric rings. Only six of the rings are working—six rings for cooking, for the residents of 48 rooms. The kitchen, like the bedsitter, is infested with cockroaches. The surfaces are worn, damaged, chipped and insanitary.
  That is the place—what about the people? I shall briefly describe just one family who have been forced by the Tory Government and the Tory council to live in such squalor. The family consists of a father, a mother, a son aged four and a daughter aged three. Those of us who have children should remember the circumstances in which we were living when our children were toddlers of four and three years old. The father has had a serious operation on his head—[Laughter.] What a funny chap he is to some Conservative Members. Doctors say that the father needs a clean atmosphere, free from dust and dirt. He will never get that at the Clarendon Court hotel.
  It is not hard for Labour Members—even some Conservative Members—to imagine the effects of such squalor on the people who live in that hotel. In case some people find it difficult to understand, however—it is clear that one or two hon. Members do—I shall read from two medical reports that describe what it is like to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The first report says:
  "Even if hotel accommodation is in good order"—
  clearly, the Clarendon Court hotel is not—
  "it is rarely appropriate for the needs of young children. It is difficult to maintain hygiene while washing, eating and sleeping in one overcrowded room. High levels of gastroenteritis, skin disorders and chest infections have been reported. Kitchen facilities are often absent or inadequate, so people are forced to rely on food from cafés and take-aways which is expensive and may be nutritionally unsatisfactory. The stress of hotel life undermines parents' relationships with each other and their children. Normal child development is impaired through lack of space for safe play and exploration. High rates of accidents to children have been reported, probably due to a combination of lack of space and hazards such as kettles at floor level."
  A further medical report spelled out the consequences of such squalor. It said:
  "Risk to health in bed and breakfast…is well above that of the domiciled population. These risks stem from shared, or lack of, amenities, overcrowding and unsafe properties. Infection, accidents, malnutrition, sleep disturbances, low birth weight babies, eating problems, behavioural problems, depression and even death can result".
  Those reports refer to circumstances about two and a half miles away from the House. It is shameful.
  Faced with the likely consequences of the squalor of the Clarendon Court hotel, Westminster council has done next to nothing to help—except hand over housing benefit to the tune of £14,000 a week. It is not the fault of the Labour party, the trade unions or anybody else; it is the responsibility of a Tory Government, a Tory council, and in all probability a Tory landlord.
  The Housing Bill does not propose to do anything to improve the living conditions of those families. Nor does it propose anything to help them get somewhere better to
  670
  live—quite the reverse. The Bill is likely to force them to stay there longer. That is because the Government are lurching to the right.
  Mr. Sykes rose—
  Mr. Dobson: One of the lurchers is standing up now.
  It is no good Ministers trying to deny what is happening. The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, which the Government want to update, was a private Member's Bill supported by both the then Labour Government and Mr. Peter Walker, a former Environment Secretary and subsequently a Cabinet Minister under Mrs. Thatcher. The Bill was opposed only by right-wing Tories, who have lobbied against it ever since.
  As a result of that lobbying, the law was reviewed in the early 1980s by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), now the Deputy Prime Minister. It was reviewed again in the late 1980s by the late Nicholas Ridley, while Mrs. Thatcher was still Prime Minister. On each occasion, it was decided to leave the law alone. That is not for this Government—they want to toughen up a law for the homeless that even Mrs. Thatcher thought was harsh enough.
  The Tory lurch to the right is also the reason why the Government are changing the law to put private tenants at a disadvantage—both when they are looking for somewhere to live and if they get into arrears with their rent. From now on, the law will assume that every tenancy is a shorthold tenancy, and landlords will be able to evict tenants who get just two months behind with the rent. There is not much hope of extra security there.
  Then there is the case of leaseholders. The Government claimed when they introduced the previous housing Bill that they had protected leaseholders, but they had not. Dishonest, unscrupulous landowners, managing agents, lawyers and a whole host of shark-like, so-called professionals have continued to exploit leaseholders. Now the Government are proposing further changes. As usual, they are a bit too late and certainly too little. They do not go far enough; they do not give leaseholders the right to manage, which is what is really needed and what the leaseholders are looking for.
  We have further evidence of the Government's wish to centralise all power into their own hands. They propose to decide on the housing allocation policies of all local authorities. So housing allocation priorities in Wakefield, Wigan and Warrington will be laid down by the Secretary of State, who represents Suffolk, Coastal, instead of by local councillors who know their area and have to answer to the electors for their decisions.
  The Government have decided that they know best, so the next question is: what housing allocation policies will they pursue? Will they be those pursued by Tory Westminster city council, whose Tory councillors allocate homeless families to asbestos-ridden blocks, and who, according to the district auditor—not me—have unlawfully squandered £29 million of public money allocating houses for party political advantage? Is that what the Secretary of State has in mind for when he takes his new powers? To the best of my knowledge, he has never criticised Westminster council's allocation or priorities. We can therefore reasonably assume that they are the sort of priorities that he wants to introduce in every other part of the country.

  671
  The Government claim to be the party of law and order. They are nothing of the sort. All over the country, Labour councils have been taking action, and trying to take action, to combat and reduce anti-social behaviour, not only on council estates but everywhere, but have received precious little help from the Government.
  When the Labour party introduced proposals, some of which are incorporated in the Bill, the Prime Minister said:
  "we have taken action on that problem. Nothing in the proposals from the Labour party adds to that action; they are merely window dressing on Labour's part."
  On the same day, the Home Secretary said to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw):
  "the hon. Gentleman knows full well that the proposals that he announced this week add nothing to those measures which are already part of our law and those which we have announced already. If we take the two together, all that we have is a bit of pretence of precisely the kind that we have come to expect from the Labour party on this and on other matters."—[Official Report, 22 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 469–72.]
  The Secretary of State says that he is now introducing in the Bill some of the very measures that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn was proposing and which the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister denounced in their usual knee-jerk manner.
  The Government have given precious little help to councils that have been pushing to improve matters and to combat anti-social behaviour. The Labour party has been pressing for changes in the law, and the Bill includes some of those changes. However, it is typical of the Government that they are not introducing all the necessary changes. None of the changes relates to witness protection, rules of evidence or court delays, and the Government are not prepared to extend the scope of injunctions to cover visitors to council estates as well as the tenants.
  Of course, the Government have a long history of making exaggerated claims for all sorts of housing schemes that turn out not to work. No one has mentioned it, and it has not been in any press releases, but the Government have quietly dropped an idea thought up by the late Nicholas Ridley and the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
  I must say that I always had doubts about a scheme affecting council tenants that had been devised by the son of Viscount Ridley and the son of Earl Waldegrave—how right I was. It was the tenants choice scheme, which was designed to bring about the wholesale privatisation of council housing. Tenants were to be asked to vote on whether to get a private landlord. The voting system was rigged, so that those who did not vote and empty flats counted as a yes vote.
  Despite those strange electoral arrangements, eight years later, fewer than 1,000 tenants have opted for a private landlord, and more than 900 of them were tenants of Westminster city council who were desperate to escape its clutches. In the whole of the rest of the country, fewer than 100 tenants availed themselves of the Ridley-Waldegrave choice. That scheme has, however, been costing between £500,000 and £1 million a year to advertise and administer—for the sake of argument, let us say £6 million over the past eight years. It is a further Tory waste of taxpayers' money.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and other colleagues will be dealing with other aspects of the Housing Bill. They will work hard to
  672
  improve it in Committee, but they will have a hard task, because the Bill ignores the realities that face tens of thousands of British families. Above all, instead of reducing insecurity, the Bill adds to it. That is why we shall vote against it tonight.
  Our approach to housing is based on the belief that every family should have somewhere decent to live and should be able to afford to live there. A decent, secure home is vital to family life. Without it, a family's health suffers; without it, grown-ups find it hard to hold down a job; without it, children find it hard to do well at school; without it, family relationships are soured and family breakdown becomes more likely.
  Everyone recognises that it will take a long time and a lot of hard work to ensure that everyone in Britain has somewhere decent to live. The people know that this Government will not do what is necessary. They also know that they need a Labour Government, even to make a start.
  5.3 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and I share, pleasurably, parliamentary responsibility for Covent Garden, which spans our constituency boundaries. In the past, we have shared the different experience, although not simultaneously, of being councillors for the London borough of Camden where, indeed, in its previous Hampstead embodiment, my noble mother—to coin a phrase—was for many years the chairman of housing.
  The fact that Camden and Westminster have different housing policies may explain why I did not agree wholly and precisely with everything that the hon. Gentleman said in what I would describe as a characteristically provocative speech. There are moments when I am relieved that there are china shops left standing in his constituency.
  The hon. Gentleman's attack on Westminster council contained a long passage about Clarendon Court hotel. What he said would have caused any hon. Member to make inquiries, within the proper constituency conventions, even if, as in my case, the matter had not previously been brought to my attention, for reasons which I am sure he will understand. He did his case less good and made it less convincing with his charge that councillors in Westminster had been putting homeless people in asbestos-ridden property when he knows that the words he used would be potentially actionable outside the House.
  Mr. Dobson: I would repeat them outside the. House.
  Mr. Brooke: That is something to which Westminster councillors will no doubt look forward.
  Six days ago, Madam Deputy Speaker, you were very kind to call me as one of the few Back Benchers to speak on the benefit regulations for asylum seekers. Given that I was called such a short time ago, I am particularly conscious that I must not trample on the time of other hon. Members in this debate, not least because of the rationing that will occur later.
  My interest is a constituency one. I have not sought to verify whether each and every clause in the Bill—a description of which, incidentally, would owe more to a

  673
  pantechnicon than to a portmanteau—relates to my constituency precisely, but it would not surprise me. I shall, however, concentrate on a limited number of issues.
  First, although I have absorbed a great deal of briefing from interested parties hostile to the amendments to existing homelessness provisions, I am not convinced that, in an environment such as Westminster's, amendment was inappropriate. The number of homeless people who have been permanently rehoused in Westminster has steadily climbed from just under 900 in 1990–91 to nearly 1,250 in 1994–95, with one blip in the middle when it went up to nearly 1,300.
  During the same period, the number of category A cases that required rehousing and were rehoused fell from just under 200 in 1990–91 to 119 at its lowest, although I acknowledge that, last year, the number went back up to 138. With those trends, in terms of absolute numbers and their respective directions, it is not surprising that, in the most recent month of relevant statistics, the average wait for a category A rehousing case in Westminster was more than three times that of the homeless wait for permanent housing. The Westminster figures afford a poor climate for the case for the homeless to be accepted by those with much deeper roots in the community.
  Briefing that I received from various lobbies implied that one quarter to one third of accommodation was going to homeless families. In Westminster, in the five years that I was citing, the figure has always been in excess of 50 per cent. and, in two years, it was more than 60 per cent. Incidentally, some of those homeless, whose handling will be changed by the Bill, will appear on the waiting list—a waiting list on which the prospects have been improved.
  The second matter to which I should like to allude is the major role that has been played in Westminster by the Peabody Trust and similar bodies. A great city requires a significant amount of low-income housing near its centre in order to provide homes for those who will run many of its city services on comparatively low incomes.
  I have historically been critical of the Peabody Trust in private for changing its priorities to the disadvantage of those reared on Peabody estates and who, in my view, conferred genuine and helpful stability in an inner-city community. However, I can now pay public tribute to at least a partial change in emphasis on its part. I am genuinely concerned that the Government should listen in Committee to the practical problems of those who manage social estates in central London, including those which have been admirably created in the past quarter of a century by organisations such as the Soho Housing Association.
  Everyone thinks that, in my constituency, it is the City of London that has businesses but no residents, yet in the WI postal district alone, the number of businesses equals the number of households. That confers special problems on medium-sized organisations with dispersed properties that have a critical role to play in inner-city housing provision. I am particularly concerned that the extra legal and administrative costs associated with leaseholders should not adversely affect rents for tenants.
  The very nature of Westminster brings me back to the homeless. Clause 155 offers real potential for assistance, provided the word "district" in line 9—which is noticeably
  674
  spelt with a lowercase "d"—genuinely offers some flexibility and does not limit an authority to its own boundaries. Westminster in particular is an authority whose nature of housing would make that specifically unhelpful, but I recognise that the matter will be examined again in Committee. Likewise, while introductory tenancies may not be welcomed everywhere, they would be helpful in Westminster as an extra weapon in the armoury.
  On a different subject, I am glad, in the interests of effective legislation, that the Government have revisited the issue of leasehold reform. I too have had constituency cases like those that have animated my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington).
  I am conscious that the majority role that owner-occupiers now play in the housing market—which I welcome—potentially reduces the attention that is paid to the rest of the community. This can have untoward effects, and I do not blame the lobbies for trying to redress the balance—or for the vehemence with which they argue the case. Whether that is the best way in which to achieve their several objectives is for them.
  While I support the main thrust of the Bill, I hope that the House and the Government will listen carefully to the case that is put for the homeless, who are also my constituents, as we study its detail and small print. The Bill will warrant close study in Committee, and it would be a particular service to those affected by it if sensible and strategic approaches to the relevance and importance of different parts of the Bill were to take precedence over more familiar tactical enthusiasms.
  5.11 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I want to do two things that have not been done so far in the debate. First, I want to make it clear that we can solve housing problems only by spending more money. We can alter systems and arrangements between tenancies and owner-occupation, but unless we are prepared to spend more money we will not solve the problems.
  Mr. Sykes: How much more?
  Mr. Bennett: I hear the hon. Gentleman's comment—all I would say at this stage is that it needs to be a substantial amount. It is no good shouting across the Chamber. The question that should be exercising the House is, "How can we find that money and persuade people to spend it on housing?" Unless that is done, there will be difficulties.
  Secondly, I want to praise the Government. I was delighted that, nine months ago, they published figures showing how many houses they believe are needed. Such figures were last published in 1977. It is regrettable that Ministers refused to update them for a long time. I believe that, if we are to persuade people to spend more money, we must have a clear estimate of housing need.
  I warmly welcome the fact that the Government have published the figures. Some hon. Members will be aware that the Environment Committee is now examining them. There can he many arguments about such figures. As the Committee has not published a report, I shall say simply that the majority of the evidence suggests that the Government have underestimated the need, but whether we accept the Government's figures or other—slightly higher—ones, the real challenge is how to achieve the totals

  675
  in the next few years. Finding 1.7 million new homes in the next 10 years and—on the Government's own estimate—an average of 60,000 new social houses a year will be a substantial challenge. I praise the Government for publicising the figures, but we must think carefully about how we will find the money to meet the targets.
  We must ensure that we look after the existing housing stock, and do not allow any existing houses to deteriorate. When I look around my constituency, I see clear examples of what first a Labour Government, and then a Conservative Government, did to turn houses that were built at the turn of the century and in the early part of this century into little palaces in which people could live. Reddish has benefited from being a housing action area. It now has first-class accommodation, and people are proud to live in their houses.
  What worries me is that all that has been done in that part of Reddish could have been repeated in three or four other areas of my constituency; unless we are prepared to put more money into urban renewal, we will run the risk of allowing many areas of attractive old housing to continue to deteriorate. The country cannot afford that, and I deeply regret that the Bill does not propose to improve urban renewal.
  Mr. David Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman has made much of resources, and he could refer, as did the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), to the vast number of houses that were built in the 1960s and 1970s but, over 15 to 20 years, did not many of those houses become unsuitable and unfit to live in? Did not they require vast repairs at vast expense?
  Mr. Bennett: Of course, but I am trying to illustrate that the lessons were learnt—certainly in my constituency—not just by a Conservative Government, but by a Labour Government. They appreciated that good urban renewal meant that, instead of continuing a clearance programme, it was possible to rehabilitate houses. That has been done successfully during the past 20 years, and it has been a real success story in a pocket of my constituency. My complaint is that it has not happened in many other areas.
  I want now to mention what are, allegedly, unpopular estates. In my view, many estates are unpopular because there is a lack of resources for good housing management, not because they are inherently bad. The failure to accept that money has to be spent on the management and on the maintenance of communal areas has often led to deterioration.
  I want also to refer to problem tenants. I welcome the fact that the Government are suggesting that there might be ways of dealing with the issue, but the House must consider the matter carefully. Evicting a tenant—or not renewing a short lease—is one thing, but we must ask what happens to those tenants, particularly if they have children. One solution that was adopted recently was slowly to push the problem tenant around until he ended up on what was called a sink estate.
  If we are trying—rightly—to get rid of sink estates, we must ask where such tenants are to go. Furthermore, what will happen to their children? There are measures to remove next door neighbours who are causing a nuisance, but unless we decide what should happen to them, we shall simply create problems. We might not even be able to allow the evictions to take place.
  676
  The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) said that certain properties that were built in the 1960s are now unsuitable. The ones that particularly concern me are bedsits. There was an assumption that elderly people would be happy with a bedsit. Many of them were in the 1960s, but that is no longer the case. Unless we have a positive policy for converting bedsits, a problem that has developed in parts of my constituency will become widespread.
  If there is a vacancy in a bedsit and no elderly person wants to take it, as the Government rightly put pressure on the local authority to ensure that vacancies are filled, the authority puts someone in—very often someone who has come out of a long-stay hospital or who has psychiatric or alcohol problems. We would find it difficult enough to have such a person living next door and we might attempt vigorously to stop them making life hell, but it would be intolerable for an elderly person. We must spend money on dealing with some of those bedsits.
  Another problem that I find alarming, and which came to the attention of the Select Committee on the Environment during its inquiry, concerns tenants who have bought council properties. I understand why the Government pushed the right to buy and encouraged many tenants to buy their properties. What I find unacceptable is the fact that building societies, which were originally keen to lend such tenants money to buy their properties and, in some cases, were happy to lend to a second buyer when the tenant sold the property on, are making it difficult for the prospective third owner to get a mortgage.
  Building societies cannot afford to red-line former council estates and say that mortgages are not available. I would not mind if they had been honest and said that they never wanted that type of business, but having rushed in and encouraged people to become owner-occupiers in such areas, it is unacceptable for them to say no now. We need some quick action from the building societies, which ought to spend more time looking to their original principles and encouraging people to buy homes, rather than turning themselves into banks.
  Finally—to keep my remarks brief—the Government are promising to deal with the problem of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. They say that local authorities will have the right to close down such establishments quickly. Authorities often have powers now, but they have to pick up the cost of using them. If an establishment is closed, and 20 families are immediately put out on the street, the authority has to find them somewhere else to go. When the medical officers had strong powers in local authorities, they could say, "Get on and do it", and pick up the consequences. Now, no one is strong enough to tell local authorities, "You've got to do this. It's your statutory duty." As a result, councils will waver and worry whether they can afford to do something.
  To my Front-Bench spokesmen I simply say that it is all right to complain about some of the measures in the Bill, but I want to know—soon—how we will persuade people that we have to spend more money on housing. It will be one of the crucial issues at the next election. It is no good merely listing the problems. We have to be clear that we are going to find the money and we must not raise people's expectations and then leave them disillusioned.
  5.22 pm
  Mr. Roy Thomason: I welcome the Bill. It makes a substantial contribution to housing welfare and the sooner it is implemented, the better.
  In the spirit of Nolan, I must declare two interests before I go any further. I am a consultant to a building society and to a firm of solicitors and parliamentary agents. My remarks do not relate to matters that, so far as I am aware, impinge on the activities of either of those organisations. I have not been asked by the clients of that firm or by either of those organisations to make any representations during the passage of the Bill.
  In building confidence in the lettings sector and in generating new partnerships, the Bill creates opportunities in housing on which we can build in the spirit that we have been building for the past 15 years. I want to focus my remarks on parts V, VI and VII. We have all had many people come to our surgeries to tell us about their difficulties with neighbours. Life being what it is, neighbours often find it difficult to get on with each other. Sometimes, however, people who live on council estates are asked to bear wholly unreasonable and untenable difficulties. Part V allows local authorities to deal with such difficulties and we should welcome and support it.
  The Bill goes beyond that and helps people who have suffered domestic violence inflicted by a spouse, who has remained in occupation of the former matrimonial home while the family has been driven out. It seems wholly unreasonable that the accommodation should be left under-occupied and used by the perpetrator of such violence while the family is homeless. The Bill will allow the new ground to be used to remove the perpetrator of domestic violence from the accommodation that the family formerly occupied.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: While I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the welcome provisions in the Bill, is he not concerned that owner-occupiers and the tenants of private landlords living in sold council houses are increasingly causing problems on some of our estates? Would not the Bill be improved if such people were included, and should not the local authority take action to deal with the behaviour of such a category of person?
  Mr. Thomason: Owner-occupation is a totally different question. Turning people out of the house that they own on the basis that they are perpetrating a nuisance must be a different area of law. It is a tortious liability and must be treated in the courts as such, rather than as a contractual breach of obligation between landlord and tenant, which can properly be dealt with in a housing Bill. The hon. Lady is widening the Bill outside the scope of its long title. Technically, that issue is not before us today, and it could not be dealt with in the manner that she suggested.
  Increasingly, on many council estates and former council estates and in many housing association areas, one part or sometimes the whole estate gains a bad reputation for tenants who are frequently a nuisance. They drive out the better tenants. Sometimes, credit is not advanced because of the address, and yet the majority of the estates' tenants are respectable, reasonable and proper people who are afforded difficulties because of a few neighbours, who gradually concentrate in an area as the better tenants move
  678
  elsewhere. The Bill will give us an opportunity to avoid that sink estate or bad road labelling, which so often affects parts of our towns and cities.
  We also ought to welcome the introduction of a probationary tenancy, which will give people an opportunity to take on, responsibly, the obligation of tenancy with their local authority or social housing association landlord. Tenants will understand that a tenancy contains obligations and is not given for them to despoil, but contains rights and responsibilities and must be treated as such.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked what would happen to the people who were removed from accommodation because of the grounds of possession given in part V. Clearly, if such people fall within the appropriate needs groups, they must be given alternative temporary accommodation. It will probably be very different from the property that they occupied. Some Opposition Members suggest that they will be treated in the same way as homeless people, a matter with which parts VI and VII deal. The housing stock is inevitably finite, whether one takes the view of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that 1,700,000 houses or social units should be built in the next 10 years or accepts a figure of perhaps a quarter of that, which might be regarded as the other end of the spectrum.
  Mr. Bennett: I talked about 1.7 million extra homes, not social housing units. I accept that the figure for social housing units should be between 60,000 and 100,000 per year, which is nothing like the figure that the hon. Gentleman gave.
  Mr. Thomason: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification of his position, but it makes no difference to my point. Whatever one accepts as being the parameters of the argument about the need for the development of social housing, whether it be 40,000 or 100,000 units a year, the fact is that the stock is finite. There will always be considerable demand on it and no Government will ever be able to ensure the construction of enough units to meet all the demand.
  Mr. Sykes: I greatly enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Does my hon. Friend agree with the hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks that the Labour party Front-Bench spokesmen have no policy on the subject?
  Mr. Thomason: That was clear from the inability of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who is no longer in his place, to answer any of the key interventions from Conservative Members. It is clear that the Labour party mouths arguments and criticisms against policies but rarely advances constructive comments. Finding a policy in the modern Labour party is like looking for a needle in the proverbial haystack: there is a lot of straw, but few constructive points to help us to know where it stands.
  As the housing stock is finite, it is essential that it should be put to its best use. That is the aim of the Bill, in conjunction with the guidelines on assisting local authorities in allocating accommodation issued last Thursday. I had the deepest suspicion, when I heard his remarks, that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras had not read those guidelines.

  679
  I remind the House of the arguments that were circulating at the time of the introduction of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. I was involved in local government then and I remember the deep resentment that was felt about Parliament telling local government how it should go about its business in allocating housing accommodation.
  We were very angry. We thought, "We know the needs of our areas and the criteria that should apply to those who approach us for housing. We will allocate our housing stock according to the needs, as we perceive them, of our communities. We do not expect people from Westminster, by legislation or order, to tell us how we are to allocate our accommodation. If homeless people arrive in our area and we consider that they have appropriate claims on our resources, we will allocate accommodation as we think it best to do so." Local authorities everywhere devised skilful and carefully thought-out allocation policies.
  Mrs. Maddock: Does the hon. Gentleman favour the Minister telling local authorities how they should allocate their properties to homeless families? That will be the result of the Bill. Is he aware that today, whatever happened in 1977, nearly every local authority in the country does not support what the Government propose in the Bill?
  Mr. Thomason: We are constantly told that almost all local authorities are under the control of the Labour or Liberal parties. It is interesting that hon. Members who led the criticism of the changes in 1977 and their successors today are suddenly changing their position and opposing the terms of the Bill. It is amazing that they have altered their position from that which they occupied, perfectly correctly, 18 years ago. I remind the hon. Lady that the draft guidance on allocation lays out the skeleton of direction to local government about the way in which accommodation should be allocated. The great advantage of the new regime is that it will allow local authorities, taking those points, to allocate housing according to the needs of the people who apply to them. Clearly, more flexibility is being introduced into allocation policies than has been possible under the 1977 Act.
  Mr. Betts: Under the Bill, local authorities will not be able to give permanent and secure accommodation to homeless families. They will be able to give accommodation for no more than two out of three years before a family has to move on. That requirement on local authorities is exactly opposite to what the hon. Gentleman said about local authorities having freedom to operate. Will he confirm that when he had a responsible position in the Association of District Councils, on no occasion when he served on delegations to Housing Ministers did he argue for changes of the sort contained in the Bill?
  Mr. Thomason: Although I was not on the council of the ADC in 1977, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I made representations in the early 1980s, when I was on the council of the association, for changes that I thought would be appropriate. I spoke to Ministers about that and these proposals substantially reflect that.
  It is clear that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) has not properly read the allocation document. I accept that it is a consultation document and not yet sat in concrete, but it gives the very flexibility to
  680
  which I have been referring. Homeless families who, under the current definition, are entitled to be housed, could still be housed by a local authority if it considered that the family met the other criteria set out in the paper. As I understand the Bill, there is no automatic referral. No doubt, my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm that.
  Successive Opposition speakers are making a great mistake. The Bill does not state that a homeless person must automatically go into temporary accommodation. It says that the local authority must try to ensure that that happens, but it can still allocate that family into permanent accommodation if it wishes to, considers it appropriate and has the stock available. Let me draw hon. Members' attention to paragraph 32 of the draft guidance, which says that where continuity of schooling or care is important
  "it will be desirable to give higher priority to providing settled accommodation for households in such tenancies containing young children or a vulnerable adult."
  The document itself proposes that, in those circumstances, accommodation should be made available.
  Mr. Sykes: Will my hon. Friend ignore the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), who foisted the world student games on the ratepayers of Sheffield and whose authority has one of the worst records in the country on empty council houses?
  Mr. Thomason: I am obliged for that helpful intervention.
  I have heard cries from Opposition Members that the young and the old do not receive appropriately favourable attention from housing authorities when they have particular problems that should be acknowledged. The allocation policy gives a list of potential items which should be considered in rehousing, which will apply to the young and the old as well as to families. We have that flexibility. I repeat that point because it seems to have escaped many Opposition Members who do not want to take note of it. We have the flexibility to deal with those problems where the local authority considers it appropriate to do so. The council will decide whether family X, which is homeless, should be accommodated or whether someone else should be accommodated using its inevitably limited resources.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Thomason: I shall give way once more—and only once more.
  Dr. Jones: Local authorities are at present free to house homeless families in temporary accommodation—as they often do, especially outside London—when they need to make further inquiries about the circumstances of the family concerned. However, at present, local authorities have the discretion to take into account homelessness as a factor in their housing policies. That discretion will be tempered by the proposals. If so, why do we need these provisions? Should we not leave local authorities to decide their housing allocation policies? We need more homes—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is the second time that the hon. Lady has started to make a speech rather than a short intervention.
  Mr. Thomason: Local authorities will have that freedom within the broad framework of the allocation policies proposed in the consultation document, and it is up to them to rise to the challenge offered.
  May I make a couple of observations to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration on the consultation paper on allocation? It is important that the accommodation that local authorities seek to make available to homeless families through recommendation rather than direct housing provision is seen to be affordable and of reasonable size and condition for the homeless occupants. Local authorities must not simply hand over a list of names and addresses of property that is available; they must give proper guidance to those who need it and follow up that guidance. They must also ensure that rejections by private sector landlords to whom reference has been made by the housing authority are not simply taken as the end of the story but lead to homeless families being given continuing and further support by the housing authority.
  I hope that this initiative will lead to the final disposal of bed-and-breakfast accommodation as a housing alternative. The Government have made great strides in that area, and should be congratulated on what they have done. I hope that we see more moves in that direction as local housing authorities use references within the private sector or other social housing landlords to provide temporary accommodation.
  I am conscious that many other hon. Members wish to speak in this debate and it would not be fair for me to say more, except to underline that this thoroughly good Bill needs to be implemented as soon as possible.
  5.41 pm
  Mrs. Diana Maddock: Some parts of the Bill are to be welcomed, but the overwhelming view of people involved in housing provision, whether in the local government or voluntary sector, is that the Bill does nothing to tackle the root cause of long waiting lists, rising homelessness and increased insecurity in housing. The root cause is the lack of product to meet the ever-increasing demand, which hon. Members on both sides of the House have discussed. Once again, the Government are abdicating their responsibility. The Secretary of State spent much of his speech discussing everything but what the Government would do about the problem.
  Part II of the Bill gives local authorities the power to set up compulsory registration schemes for houses in multiple occupancy. Those are long overdue but none the less welcome. Liberal Democrats would like the Government to go much further and place on councils a legal duty to enforce minimum standards on housing in multiple occupancy. We shall discuss that matter in Committee. Despite the fact that the Government enable councils to charge for setting up such registration schemes, we are, as usual, concerned about how local authorities will find the finance to do that.
  The Secretary of State discussed leaseholds. He criticised other parties for not coming forward with their policies. He has proposed a Bill that he will amend and we still do not know what will happen to leasehold properties. We all agree that something must be done because we have been heavily lobbied by people experiencing problems and the Minister discussed those this afternoon.
  682
  We are concerned about chapter I of part III, which proposes to reduce the amount of time that private tenants can be in arrears before their landlords can evict them. It is another blow to private tenants, many of whom are already reeling from the Government's housing benefit changes. If we look closer, we see that the Government's proposals do not add up. They encourage private landlords by making it easier for them to evict tenants, yet they cut housing benefit from every direction. Landlords are being sent conflicting messages. Tenants are being hit on every side, and insecurity will be the order of the day. Tenants on housing benefit can easily run up eight weeks' arrears with no delay on their part.
  I should be interested to know whether the Minister or anyone else in the Department of the Environment has ever sat through a housing benefit review board case. If they had, they would realise how difficult it will be to make the Government's proposal work. Many housing benefit departments are already struggling to cope with the changes and are way behind with payments. Moreover, tenants trying to obtain housing benefit must often acquire information and pieces of paper from a wide area, including the Benefits Agency and the Department of Social Security. The Bill will make the private rented sector extremely difficult for all tenants, yet the Government are to inflict that measure on homeless families.
  I also welcome the requirement for local authorities to advise people about housing and homelessness. I hope that, during the passage of the Bill, we shall receive clearer information on how the Government expect that to happen. Many of us are concerned that people should have independent advice.
  I also welcome most of part V. Local authorities need additional powers to deal with anti-social tenants on their estates. Liberal Democrats make three proposals: first, we need better resource, prevention and conciliation measures; secondly, we need tougher tenancy contracts to ensure that tenants are aware of what their contracts mean in practice and how they will be enforced; and, thirdly, the law needs to be changed to make it easier for local authorities to pursue anti-social tenants. The Association of District Councils has been requesting that for some time. I hope that chapters II and III of part V will fit the bill.
  Mr. Bennett: What will happen to tenants who are evicted?
  Mrs. Maddock: If tenants are being extremely difficult to their neighbours, they must be housed elsewhere and helped to ensure that they keep their tenancy going. 'That will happen only in extreme cases, but people cannot be allowed to get away with making other people's lives a misery.
  The Secretary of State presented no evidence that probationary tenancies will work. The pilot projects are still going on. I do not know whether we shall have the evidence from those before the Bill completes its passage. Introductory tenancies will lead to a two-tier system with no real advantages.
  I am also concerned about the blanket granting to housing association tenants of the automatic right to buy their homes. Liberal Democrats do not oppose home ownership or allowing people in the social rented sector to buy their homes. Housing associations should allow

  683
  their tenants to buy their homes if they can afford to do so, if the homes can easily be replaced and if it is in the local community's interest. We are not unsympathetic to the idea of providing them with grants to do so, and most of the councillors with whom I have discussed this matter share my view that the effects of the voluntary purchase grants scheme will benefit many individuals and many areas.
  However, I believe that the Government's mania for a right to buy has led them to produce proposals which are badly flawed. We have heard this afternoon about the exemption for communities of fewer than 3,000 people but, like many other provisions, that is not on the face of the Bill. There is great concern that the Government are using criteria that are too crude. I hope that the matter will be considered in Committee and that other criteria will be brought to the fore.
  This morning I received a communication from East Dorset district council in my area. It is very concerned that there will be little money left after the house sales. Although the councils may keep the money that is raised from the sales, by the time they have rearranged loans and so on, less than 50 per cent. of the money will be available to them to build replacement properties.
  The Bill also introduces new and far-reaching changes for the Housing Corporation and they will need fairly detailed scrutiny in Committee. There is a strong case for reforming the corporation as it will be assuming extra powers. We welcome particularly the appointment of a housing ombudsman because, if housing companies are to be the new landlords—it appears that this time we shall not have landlords who simply want to make a profit—we must have decent regulation.
  I turn now to the heart of the Bill: the changes in the allocation of social housing and the consequent changes in local authorities' duties to the homeless in parts VI and VII of the Bill. In the light of my experience as a member of a large housing authority for almost 10 years and as a Member of Parliament for a constituency with two different types of local authorities, I find it difficult to swallow the Minister's attitude that the Government's proposals are perfectly reasonable and perfectly sensible.
  I have shared platforms with the Secretary of State and, to hear him speak about the proposals, one would think that they are uncontroversial. Sometimes one would think that there is no need for housing legislation. One gets the impression that all is sweetness and light and that there is nothing wrong in the housing sector that a little fine tuning will not solve. We heard that sentiment expressed again this afternoon.
  That view runs completely contrary to the views of everyone who is involved in the housing world—be it professional organisations, the voluntary sector, local authorities or housing associations throughout the land. When the Government were first elected in 1979, they claimed housing to be a top priority. They promised council tenants the right to buy, more choice in the private rented sector and greater mobility through the property-owning democracy.
  Some 17 years later, we are witnessing housing problems which affect individuals and communities as never before. No one is immune—as home owners who took out large mortgages in the 1980s and who are now facing employment difficulties will testify. Some 19 years ago, the late Stephen Ross, a Liberal Member of
  684
  Parliament—for the benefit of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason), I supported Mr. Ross then and I still support his actions at that time—introduced the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill, which enjoyed all-party support. Perhaps the trigger for that legislation was the screening of the television documentary "Cathy Come Home", which alerted many people to the scandal of homelessness on our streets and the dreadful problems that people face when they are left without a home.
  In introducing the legislation, Stephen Ross explained very eloquently why homeless families need secure tenancies rather than temporary accommodation, which forces people to move continually from place to place. He said:
  "In 1948 it was believed that a short stay in some kind of temporary accommodation would be adequate to tide people over…That may have been so then, but the nature of homelessness today is certainly not like that…The need of most homeless people is a permanent solution to their problem which they have been unable to arrange for themselves."—[Official Report, 18 February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 898]
  I shall now cite some figures—I make no apologies for doing so, as the Government seem to turn a blind eye when it comes to statistics. In 1977, local authorities in England accepted that more than 31,000 households were homeless. That was regarded as a scandal at the time. For the 12 months to the end of September last year, there were more than 124,000 acceptances. In 1977, slightly more than 4,500 properties were repossessed by mortgage lenders. In the year to June 1995, the comparable figure was almost 50,000.
  The problems in housing are deeper now than at any time since the immediate post-war period—there is insecurity, disrepair and homelessness. Yet unlike in the 1940s and 1950s, this Government do not seem to have the political will to tackle the root problem: the simple lack of rented housing which people can afford. Since 1979, Government investment capital in housing has fallen from £6.4 billion to less than £3 billion.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I shall ask the hon. Lady the same question as I asked the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). We have met our manifesto commitment to build more than 150,000 houses since we were elected in 1992, but the hon. Lady criticises the Government's policy. In the unlikely event that the Liberal Democrats were elected to power, how many houses would they build each year and how much would they spend on the social housing sector?
  Mrs. Maddock: I supported the Government two years ago when they forecast how many houses they would build and how much money they would spend. However, I would not have reneged on that promise: we would have gone on to build those properties. If the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is patient, I shall comment later on how we would pay for social housing.
  In 1977, more than 162,000 public sector homes were completed across Britain. We will be lucky if the figure reaches 50,000 this year. For the past four years, social housing output has averaged only 60,000—which is at the bottom end of the Government's estimate of need, ranging from 60,000 to 100,000. The situation will be even worse next year. According to the Budget outcome, the Government have halved their expenditure on housing in

  685
  the past two years. They have estimated that there will be 51,000 new social lettings—which is 9,000 fewer than the Government's lowest estimate of housing need.
  The Government seem to be alone in estimating housing need at 60,000. Even the former chief housing economist at the Department of the Environment—who until 1994 was the official Government expert on such matters—now thinks that the Government have got it wrong. Is the Minister saying that everyone but the Government has got it wrong? It seems incredible that it is almost 20 years since the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 was enacted, but apparently no lessons have been learnt about tackling the long-term problems of homelessness.
  The Government continue to take a short-term approach. They are driven by an obsession with the headline figure of the public sector borrowing requirement to the exclusion of almost any consideration of the long-term benefits of investment in good-quality housing. The Government have hit the safety net for home owners and for private tenants and they now intend to hit the safety net for the homeless.
  The review of access to social housing was not, of itself, a bad idea—and under different circumstances I might have welcomed it. However, it was clear from the context in which it was announced that it was less about tackling the housing crisis than about reinforcing Ministers' prejudices. Those prejudices include the belief that local authorities are bad, that home ownership is the only answer, and of course we have all heard about "back to basics". It is time that the Government stopped looking for scapegoats for those problems and started to look for solutions.
  It was brought home to me very clearly before Christmas what damage the Government have done by attempting to scapegoat groups of people. A charity in my area, which provides assistance and accommodation for young homeless people, conducted an appeal before Christmas. It found hate mail in its appeal envelopes, reflecting politicians' often repeated claim that all young homeless people are wastrels. It is not so, but that is what happens when one maligns groups of people.
  If the Bill succeeds, it will be the final undoing of the 1977 legislation. Last summer's judgment by the other place in the Awua case has not altered the way in which most local authorities deal with homeless families. The Government's proposals most certainly will.
  The Bill represents a golden opportunity to move forwards, not backwards, from the 1977 Act, but it appears that that opportunity will be lost. Liberal Democrats will fight tooth and nail to defend the Act that Stephen Ross took through the House with all-party support.
  Sir Anthony Grant: We are waiting with mounting impatience for the hon. Lady to say just what the Liberal Democrats would do about the housing programme. They have already pledged to increase taxation by 1 p to pay for more spending on education. By how much would they increase taxation to spend more money on social housing?
  Mrs. Maddock: The provision of housing is not a matter of revenue budgets and taxation.
  686
  The Government's proposals to encourage the use of short-term tenancies in the private rented sector for housing homeless people make bad financial sense and would be bad for families. There is no substitute for a stable, affordable home. Instability damages children's education. Using the relatively expensive private rented sector will increase the Government's housing benefit bill and make it harder for homeless people to take work without losing benefit.
  The prohibition on a local authority housing a homeless household in its own property for more than two out of three years is quite astonishing. When the Secretary of State was asked about the problem of families having to move, he said that it would not happen, but the Bill will make it inevitable.
  The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): It might be helpful if I clarify the matter before the hon. Lady takes it any further. A local authority can provide temporary accommodation in its own housing for more than two years. If a family present themselves as homeless, they will be given temporary accommodation in a property owned by the local authority or a housing association, or one in the private rented sector. If that family then fulfil the criteria in the allocations policy—I suspect that the hon. Lady has not read our allocations policy, otherwise she would not have made implications about the moral prejudices that informed it—they can then be housed permanently and very rapidly, possibly in the same property.
  Mrs. Maddock: We shall have to differ on our interpretation of the Bill. The Bill makes it clear that a tenant could be asked to move after two years in local authority housing.
  It is quite amazing that the Government avoid stating anywhere in the Bill or in the consultation paper that homelessness is a factor in housing need. Insanitary housing, unsatisfactory housing conditions and people living in conditions of temporary or insecure tenure are among the proposed criteria for housing registers, yet the most severe and obvious form of housing need—homelessness—is conspicuous by its absence. I have yet to hear a good reason why we shall be debating regulations when we will have almost completed considering the Bill in Committee.
  Clauses 145 and 146 are particularly draconian as they exclude a person seeking political asylum in the United Kingdom from any local authority assistance, however temporary. Apparently that includes advice or information on housing. We recently debated the effects of excluding asylum seekers from housing benefit, so the Minister should be in no doubt about my views and those of my colleagues. I remind him that we are talking about those who seek asylum officially—not illegal immigrants or people who fail to be granted asylum, but people who are waiting for the Government to process their appeals. The Government could reduce costs by dealing with those appeals more quickly.
  What angers me most is the Government's complete abdication of responsibility for the current shortage of social housing, which has reached crisis level. I am angered by the sight of Ministers, who are responsible for the underfunding of housing and have reneged on promises even since I have been in the House, trying to pin the blame for the waiting lists on homeless families.

  687
  The Government are fond of talking about the marketplace. We are discussing a product for which demand greatly outstrips supply. A normal response would be to increase supply, but the Housing Bill will reduce the supply to those in most need.
  We have heard much from the Government about the values by which people live in society. The Minister will know as well as I do that that is exactly what prompted the enormous write-in by members of the Methodist Church, who have written to me, to him and to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). I know that many of them will be as disappointed as I am by the lost opportunities in the Bill.
  The elements of the Bill that I have welcomed should be part of a housing policy that recognises the importance of investment in housing. We spend £1.5 billion on treating people who suffer ill health because they live in cold, damp homes. There is massive unemployment in the construction industry and that represents considerable cost to the nation. More investment in housing would save the money that is being spent on those people. Most people agree that the capital receipts that are sitting in council coffers should be invested in housing, although there may be differences on how to go about it.
  First, we need a change in attitude to public accounting that recognises the difference between revenue and capital spending and the value of long-term capital investment in infrastructure, as in the rest of Europe. Secondly, the Government need to recognise the importance of safety nets, whether people are renting or buying, so that fewer people are in severe housing need. We also need a mortgage benefit.
  Earlier in the debate, we were asked what we would do about mortgage income tax relief. As we have said for many years, we would do away with it, but we would introduce a mortgage benefit to provide direct assistance to those who need it most.
  If the Minister were to incorporate some of those suggestions into the Housing Bill, he would get more bouquets and fewer brickbats. We have the opportunity to improve the Bill in Committee. I mentioned earlier that Members have received communications from the Methodist Church. I am still receiving them and I picked up another bundle on my way to the Chamber. One of them echoes what I have been saying for some time. It says:
  "Homelessness is a scandal. The Government must take responsibility."
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Charles Hendry: First, I wish to declare an interest as set out in the Register of Members' Interests. I am chairman of Home Rent 16 to 23 plc, which rents out private rented property, although my speech will bear no relation to that sector. I am also a trustee of Big Issue Action, the charitable foundation set up by The Big Issue magazine to help those who are homeless on our streets.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has left the Chamber. Having heard his speech, I felt that he might have benefited from listening to others. I imagine, however, that he has left the Chamber to shave off his beard, having read all those reports in the weekend press that, in order to get
  688
  advancement in the Labour party these days, one has to shave off one's beard. Having heard his speech today, I regret that, however much he shaves off, it will not make him more credible.
  The hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to answer many questions this afternoon, and he chose to ignore them all. He was asked, "How many pounds?"—which I thought was rather rude. My guess would be about 18 stone.
  Time and again, the hon. Gentleman ignored questions that he was invited to answer. He was asked how much more money Labour would spend on housing, and whether Labour would make a commitment to bring back MIRAS in the way that it used to operate. The hon. Gentleman was asked how many more houses Labour would build. He did not even make an attempt to answer, but dodged or ignored the issues.
  It is clear that Labour's approach is to be tough on policies and tough on the causes of policies—something that even the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) pointed out. It is unfortunate that the only serious part of the hon. Gentleman's speech bore no relation to the Bill. If he had taken the trouble to read the Bill, he would have realised that it directly addresses his concerns about parts of Westminster.
  Mr. Sykes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was honest about one question directed at him? He could not defend the fact that Labour-controlled Hackney council has 2,000 empty council houses. Was that not honest of the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Hendry: Of course—as honest as I would expect him to be over such a question—but no doubt he wanted to brush it aside for fear that others of my hon. Friends would ask about the number of empty houses in virtually every Labour metropolitan authority. The hon. Gentleman would have been too embarrassed to deal with such questions, so he decided to leave the Chamber.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: How does the hon. Gentleman square his remarks with the situation in Birmingham, which has about 1,800 empty council houses or 1.5 per cent. of the property stock, which is a normal minimum—but 16,800 empty houses in the private sector, which is the result of Government housing policy? How would the hon. Gentleman deal with that problem?
  Mr. Hendry: If the hon. Lady had bothered to listen to previous debates, she would know that one of my constant themes is the number of empty houses in the private rented sector. There is a difference when it is a matter of an individual keeping his or her home empty. It may be a second home or have been inherited from a parent. Private sector homes are empty for many reasons.
  A local authority has an absolute obligation to use its resources sensibly and constructively. For Birmingham to keep 1,800 houses empty is a scandalous disgrace, and reflects badly on the city council. It has chosen to keep 1,800 people in temporary accommodation when they could have been rehoused in fixed-term council property. The hon. Lady's remarks only draw attention to the shame that is cast on the city of Birmingham.
  Mr. Richard Burden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hendry: I have given way to an intervention about the Birmingham situation once, and I do not want the hon. Gentleman to dig himself into a bigger hole. I notice that the hon. Gentleman has shaved off his moustache, so clearly he is desperately seeking to crawl back
  Mr. Burden: I have not.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Is the hon. Gentleman giving way?
  Mr. Hendry: Having maligned the hon. Gentleman's moustache, I really ought to do so.
  Mr. Burden: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I assure him that my moustache is still there. Is he aware that the former Housing Minister complimented Birmingham city council on its housing policies, not once but several times? As a housing management authority, that city council has been complimented by this Government.
  Mr. Hendry: If—as the hon. Lady said—there are 1,800 empty local authority houses in Birmingham, 1,800 families or household units are being denied access to that accommodation. That figure is far too high, and more should be done to bring those homes back into use.
  I refer to two of the most important aspects of the Bill. I welcome the extension of the right to buy to housing association tenants, which will enable money that is tied up in association properties to be recycled, to increase the supply of association properties.
  I welcome also the Government's decision to re-examine the impact of that policy in rural areas. There would have been concern in my constituency, which is widely rural, if that policy had applied throughout the country, regardless of the size of the rural communities affected. I am pleased that the Government took note of recommendations and decided that the policy should apply only to populations of more than 3,000.
  I urge the Government to resist appeals to raise that limit to populations of 5,000 or more. A community of 3,000 people is sizeable and will have a reasonable amount of housing stock that one could expect to be recycled. If that figure were exceeded, people in reasonably sized towns would be denied the right to buy their housing association property. I urge the Government not to go down that road.
  I am disappointed that the Bill omits the original proposal to allow private companies to bid for housing association grant. I take on board my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's remark that that provision will return shortly. I seek from my hon. Friend the Minister a reassurance when he winds up that the policy has only been postponed, not cancelled. Many people would be able to build social housing of extremely good quality at a reasonable price. They could take the risk for themselves to build more houses.
  The Bill would enable people who are currently homeless or on housing waiting lists to be properly treated. I approach that issue in my capacity as joint chairman for the past three years of the all-party group on homelessness. The group has examined the issue carefully on a number of occasions. Differing views have been expressed, but we have listened to advice. I commend the
  690
  constructive way in which Shelter, under Chris Holmes, has put its case, and has sought to avoid political discussion and to concentrate on real concerns.
  People who express such concerns do not always consider both sides of the argument. Many of my surgery cases and much of my postbag centre on housing issues. I had a surgery case on Friday of a married couple in rented accommodation who are terrified of their neighbours because of their criminal activities. That couple have been No. 1 on two separate housing lists in the borough for more than one year, but every time a house becomes available it has not gone to them, however deeply distressing their circumstances, because others have had an urgent need to be rehoused.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Equally sad are cases of young married couples, when one of them is obliged to live with parents and the other with in-laws. They postpone having a family, because, being responsible, they do not want to start one before getting their own home—yet see other people, probably in far better circumstances, leaping to the head of the queue.
  Mr. Hendry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The debate has often focused on single mothers who benefit, but another surgery case involved a single mother living at her parents' home, with her six-year-old daughter sharing her bedroom. She had lived in those circumstances for five years, and for that time was No. 1 on the village housing waiting list. If that single mother's parents had said to her, "We're kicking you out and making you homeless," she would have been rehoused immediately. As that young woman decided to do what she thought was right, and her parents supported her, she has been penalised. The Bill is designed to assist in such cases.
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. Gentleman cited a serious problem, but is not the real problem the lack of provision rather than the size or quality of the waiting list? Should not the Bill home in on more social homes for rent?
  Mr. Hendry: I will respond to that point, but first I will mention another recent constituency case, in which—as my hon. Friend mentioned—the person wants to move in with his partner. They are both in council accommodation, so if they were allowed to move in together, they would free up one council property, and the availability of the stock would be increased. His ranking on the list is high, but because people jump above him to a suitable house, neither of those people can move out and free that house for somebody else. Surely more attention should be given to those who have patiently waited their turn. Their rights should be looked after as well.
  There is also a fundamental point of principle. Many people who are homeless have an urgent, short-term housing need. By allocating them temporary accommodation for 12 months, we could see whether they needed short-term or long-term housing. People may have a short-term housing need for only a few months, but they are allocated a council house which will be there for 20, 30 or 40 years. It is right, as laid down in the Bill, to consider everybody's housing needs together, so that the allocation of houses can be made according to overall need.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with care. Would he care to

  691
  comment on the fact that, among all the housing organisations, the Government are alone in thinking that the Bill will help? Has he seen the advertisement in The Times this morning, which is signed by, among many other housing organisations, the chairman of the National Housing Forum, Councillor Graham Facks-Martin, who is the last remaining Conservative councillor in the North Cornwall district? I believe the hon. Gentleman met Councillor Facks-Martin on his visit to Cornwall. Why does the hon. Gentleman feel that the Government are the only people who have got the right answer, when the broad alliance of organisations have not?
  Mr. Hendry: The hon. Gentleman has a short memory. Every policy that the Government have put forward in the past 16 years has been opposed tooth and nail by Opposition parties and their outside advisers, but many of our policies have later been adopted—the Labour party has moved on, and the Liberal Democrats have moved in different directions. The Opposition parties have accepted what the Government have done in many areas as the only sensible way forward, although they may have opposed it a few years ago. One of the difficulties of being in government, with which the hon. Gentleman will never have to deal, is that sometimes one has to take difficult decisions, and do what one thinks is right.
  The constituents about whom I have spoken, who have lost out because of the existing legislation, will welcome the Bill, and many other people feel the same.
  Mr. Betts: Will the hon. Gentleman return to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) asked him? My hon. Friend suggested that the problem was not the allocation of houses, but the fact that there were too few houses to allocate. Does the hon. Gentleman not believe that there should be more houses available to rent in his constituency?
  Mr. Hendry: In answer to the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), I said that I would come to that point. I wanted to hear the hon. Gentleman's point, because, for some years, he controlled the city of Sheffield. My constituency is on the outskirts of Sheffield, and one reason why property prices were so high in my constituency is because so many people wanted to move out of Sheffield under his leadership of the council.
  There is nothing in the Bill about removing homeless people's right to help. Indeed, I would suggest that many of the Bill's proposals will improve the type of help available. For example, if a single mother is allocated a flat in a high-rise block on the wrong side of town, where she knows nobody, at a stage in her life when she is most vulnerable and most needs support, that is entirely the wrong way to help her and her child. We should be trying to find the most appropriate form of accommodation for her, which may be with other single mothers or staying at home with her parents. The first way to help single mothers should not be to give them flats on their own, because that often results in their being in a more difficult situation, in which they cannot bring up their children as well as they would wish.
  I shall now deal with the point that has been made in a couple of interventions. Some people argue that the problems have arisen only because of the lack of homes. In 1979, there were 2 million fewer houses than there are
  692
  now. We have therefore seen a significant increase in the number of houses available. That increase has been well above the increase in the population in that period.
  The biggest change has been in the number of people who are living on their own. In 1971, there were 3 million single-person households, and they made up one fifth of all households. In 1991, that figure had risen to 5 million single people, or one quarter of all households. By 2011, the expectation is that there will be 8 million single-person households, or one third of all households.
  We must question whether it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to build more houses every year simply to take account of people's desire to have a different life style from that of their elders. All of us had parents who started life in rented accommodation, and, as they could, bought their own homes so that they could have more space. We must ask ourselves whether it is right that the taxpayer should be funding young people's desire to leave home earlier in their lives rather than stay at home, as many people did in the past.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hendry: I am very close to the end of my speech, and I do not intend to detain the House further.
  I hope that, in his response to the debate, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) will return to a point that his hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about spending capital receipts.
  The Secretary of State was absolutely right when he replied that, under Labour, that would be a way of moving capital receipts and housing money from one part of the country to another. If that will not be the case, I would like an absolute assurance—a 100 per cent. guarantee—that a Labour Government would allow the money that has been raised in High Peak and Derbyshire Dales, which are both prosperous areas, to remain in those areas and be spent there. If not, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras inadvertently said something that he did not mean. I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich will give that clear guarantee.
  There is no doubt that recent homelessness figures have been very worrying, but those figures have peaked and have since been declining. For example, local authority homelessness acceptances peaked in 1991, and the figure has now dropped by some 20 per cent. The number of homeless households in temporary accommodation also peaked in 1991, and has dropped by two thirds for those in bed and breakfast. Of course, progress can still be made.
  Mr. Raynsford: The figures are still double what they were in 1979.
  Mr. Hendry: There is no point the hon. Gentleman making that contrast between the figures. They are now coming down. He would do more credit to himself and his party by accepting the reality of the situation, rather than the biggest scare story.
  We must tackle the problems of today and the future, rather than those of the past. The Bill is clearly part of the solution, and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading tonight.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Stephen Timms: I wish to concentrate on the homelessness provisions in the Bill, which I think are deeply worrying. I am worried because of what I have observed as a member of the council in Newham in east London since 1984, and as a member of the housing committee throughout that time.
  After I was elected in June 1984, I was appointed to a sub-committee that was directed to address the problem of homelessness in Newham. At that time, the only temporary housing option for homeless people was bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I remember that we had about 30 families in bed and breakfast in November 1984. We were worried by that large number, and we were determined to ensure that every one of those families would be in a permanent home in time for Christmas.
  Twelve years on, it seems amazing that we could even have contemplated that idealism. That sort of caring at Christmas must surely belong to another era, but it was only 12 years ago. We managed it—by Christmas 1984 there was not one homeless family in bed and breakfast in Newham. Well, those days of innocence did not last very long. A couple of years later, we had 600 families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The costs were immense, and the council's budget process became a matter of cutting services in order to fund the mushrooming bed-and-breakfast bill.
  Cuts in services were not the only damage caused. I vividly remember visiting, in 1986, a bed-and-breakfast hotel in central London which the council was using. Other hon. Members have described the abject misery of a family living in a single room, perhaps with just a wash basin and a gas ring, and eking out an existence for a year or more.
  We found an alternative by leasing homes from their owners for temporary accommodation. The Government introduced restrictions to make that as difficult as possible, but it was a means of providing reasonable accommodation, less costly than bed and breakfast, for families waiting for permanent homes to become available.
  Homelessness is a desperate plight for a family to endure. Indeed, it destroys families. Until now, at least there has been the assurance that a secure and permanent home would ultimately be available where a family could put down roots, recover from its ordeal and develop as a family should. Unfortunately, that is what the Bill, if implemented, would abolish.
  We know that homelessness is deeply disruptive. Families are moved from one temporary home to another. Over the weekend, I spoke to a social worker about the consequences of that movement. Children are barely settled in one school before they are precipitately moved to another. The ordeal is then repeated. Mothers are shifted from families, friends and support to wherever temporary accommodation happens to be. They are then shifted again.
  That is happening to those who are already the most disadvantaged families in our communities. What chance do they have after they have been through that experience a few times? The purpose behind the Bill is to make that shifting, transient way of living not merely a temporary feature of people's lives while homeless but a permanent way of life.
  694
  If implemented, the Bill would lead to a class of children who would grow up never knowing what it is to have a secure home. That is a chilling prospect. We understand from recent debates that we all want everyone to have a stake in our society. The Bill would take us in exactly the opposite direction. It would rob people of the dignity of a secure home. I know many council tenants in Newham who still enjoy the dignity of a secure council home. They are able to criticise and make complaints to the local councillor, as they do, when things are not right. Their children will not be so fortunate.
  What will happen? Under the proposals set out in the Bill, a local authority will have discharged its obligations to a homeless family if it has placed it in a shorthold tenancy of a minimum of one year. Beyond the year, the family can be evicted at any time with two months' notice. The family can never be certain that it will be able to live in the same place for more than another two months.
  If, for example, there is finally an upturn in the housing market and landlords are able to start selling property, a landlord will have to give only two months' notice to a tenant on a shorthold tenancy. The tenant will then have to quit the property and become homeless again. The loss of security for an enormous number of people—taking people's housing stake away from them—is the Bill's major feature.
  How can a secure family home be built if at any time that home could be lost at two months' notice? That could happen with a shorthold tenancy.
  Which local authority takes responsibility when a family becomes homeless at the end of a 12-month shorthold tenancy in which the family was placed as a result of homelessness? Is it the placing local authority or the authority where the shorthold tenancy is located? That is not clear at present.
  Which authority pays the housing benefit? If, as I understand, it is the Government's intention that the placing authority retains responsibility, will that remain the position if the shorthold tenancy lasts for longer than a year, for 15 or 18 months, two years or 10 years? At what point does the receiving authority take on responsibility?
  A disturbing by-product of the Bill is the incentive that will be created for unscrupulous local authorities—there are a few—to export their homeless families to other areas, so that those areas, or authorities, pick up the cost of education, social services, and ultimately, at the end of the shorthold tenancy, that of rehousing.
  Homelessness re-created by the ending of shorthold tenancies is not merely a remote possibility. By 1992, 5 per cent. of all households accepted for permanent rehousing by local authorities were homeless as a result of a shorthold tenancy ending, according to the statistical bulletin issued by the Department of the Environment. By 1995, the proportion had doubled to 10 per cent. It is the third most significant cause of homelessness.
  A third of households had become homeless because parents or others were unable to carry on accommodating them. A further 20 per cent. became homeless because of relationship breakdown with a partner. Of this group, 10 per cent. became homeless because a shorthold tenancy had come to an end.
  In the most recent figures, for the third quarter of 1995–96, there was an increase to 12 per cent. The trend is clear: the ending of shorthold tenancies is already a

  695
  major factor in creating homelessness. It is rapidly becoming more and more significant. If the Bill is enacted, the factor will become much more significant.
  We can see the revolving door starting to spin. It is that of temporary accommodation to shorthold tenancy to homelessness. The process continues. How is it possible to keep a family together under such pressure? Where is the Government's support for the family? Who will pay the price of disrupted childhoods, under-achievement at school and family breakdown that the Bill's revolving door to homelessness will create?
  I do not object to shorthold tenancies for those who wish to rent accommodation for a limited period. Indeed, a shorthold tenancy is ideal in those circumstances. The damage is done, however, when shorthold tenancies, as proposed in the Bill, become the compulsory and sole housing solution. That is what is wrong.
  We should be concentrating all our energies on creating more affordable rented homes where people can enjoy secure tenancies. Since 1979, construction of social housing has halved. It is no coincidence that the number of homeless acceptances has more than doubled in the same period. In 1979, there were more social housing construction starts than homeless acceptances. In 1994, there were nearly four times as many homeless acceptances as social housing construction starts. The problems will worsen while that imbalance remains.
  The Bill will divide the pie, which is far too small, in a different and less efficient way. The losers will be those who are already the least well off. That cannot be right.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. John Sykes: I welcome the Bill. I welcome the general provisions that will help the private rented sector. I welcome also the provisions that will herald a clampdown on disruptive and noisy tenants. In addition, I welcome the greater powers that will be available to the Housing Corporation. All these proposed measures will be of great benefit to my constituency.
  I reserve my greatest welcome to the measures that apply to badly run Department of Social Security hostels. There will be great rejoicing in my constituency following the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My constituency is well known to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is a decent family resort, whose future depends upon tourism.
  I had not heard much about DSS hostels until February 1993, when my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) asked me whether I had had any problems with them. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) is acknowledging the same experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne first raised the matter by means of an Adjournment debate in February 1993. I told him that I had not heard of any problems in my constituency but, by amazing coincidence, the following Saturday an old lady came into my surgery and told me about her experiences with a former hotel adjacent to her flat that had become a hostel. Her experiences were pretty dreadful.
  As spring turned into summer, the trickle of complaints that I had been receiving turned into a torrent. My postbag began to swell. People would stop me in the streets of Scarborough to ask me whether there was anything that I could do to help. Mounting concern was expressed by the
  696
  borough council, the hoteliers association and the police. I canvassed colleagues in the House and, as a result, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) and I decided to commission a national survey. It was the most comprehensive report that had ever been carried out on English and Welsh tourist resorts and the way in which they have been affected by badly run DSS hostels. We consulted the housing, tourism and environmental departments of nearly every single coastal resort. We spoke with the forces of law and order. We asked national tourist organisations what their experiences had been. We questioned local hoteliers associations. We conferred with the Department of the Environment, the Department of National Heritage and the Department of Social Security. We consulted leisure companies whose interests lay in tourism.
  After several months' work, we were able to present the report to the Prime Minister, at the end of January 1994. It makes distressing reading, for in it is a catalogue of drunkenness, assault, drug dealing, drug abuse, muggings, social security fraud, thieving, organised crime, appalling language, fighting, damage to property— [Interruption.] Opposition Members may think that this is funny, but they should come to Scarborough and Blackpool and see for themselves instead of making glib comments. We have not heard one policy from them this afternoon. I shall give way to the hon. Members for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) or for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) if they want me to.
  We also included in the report a request that consideration be given to changing the "use class orders", to oblige hostels to apply for planning permission in future. I acknowledge with grateful thanks the role that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration played in helping us to secure that objective. In March 1994, we won the backing of the Prime Minister for planning permission regulations.
  In addition, the Prime Minister promised to look carefully at the case for the licensing of existing hostels. The case for a licensing scheme was cast into hideous focus by the Richmond fire, which took place in May 1994. I awoke in the early hours of the morning to be told of the grim tragedy that had overwhelmed my constituency, when a tiny baby and a young woman were killed in that terrible fire. I pay particular tribute to the firefighters who, by their efforts, saved many more lives while putting at risk their own. It remains a source of bitter regret to me that in the meantime I have not been able to stop North Yorkshire county council from sacking those same firefighters and throwing them on to the scrap heap.
  Twenty long months have passed since then, and the evidence that had been gathered through the eyes and ears of my constituents can now be supplemented by hard facts, which I present to the House tonight for the first time. It was Parliament that decided, in the form of housing benefit, to pay for the accommodation of young people who leave home at 16. It should come as no surprise that some young people decide to drift to Scarborough, Blackpool, Eastbourne and Bournemouth. Indeed, they are encouraged to do so by advertisements. This particular advertisement was for Reynolds Court hotel, in Eastbourne. It reads:
  "D.S.S. welcome. Eastbourne hotel just off seafront. Breakfast, evening meal and weekly linen service provided. TV lounges, pool tables etc. Immediate occupation with no deposit required."

  697
  In Norfolk, another advertisement appeared in a famous housing magazine, which went as follows:
  "Peace and quiet. Spectacular ocean views. Magnificent countryside. North Norfolk coast. Cromer/Sheringham. Why be homeless in the city? Accommodation now for up to 80 people in lovely furnished single, double or family rooms. Rooms are sited in shared houses on the cliffs or coming soon is a large former hotel on the seafront"—
  presumably with satellite television and in-house movie channel included.
  "All assistance given with forms for housing benefit which will cover most of your rent. Spend your time taking it easy or learning a new skill from the many courses available locally.
  Act now. You choose. Stay homeless in the city or get a life."
  That advertisement speaks for itself.
  I commend the actions of Scarborough borough council, whose extremely professional approach to the problem has helped to keep the problems caused by badly run DSS hostels within relative limits. It was the first to use its existing powers of registration. That is why we know that in Scarborough there are 560 DSS hostels. It conducted a survey of the Westville hotel, a well-known DSS hostel—fortunately, it has closed down—in a picturesque little square near Scarborough station. Out of 18 tenants, only five had previous addresses in Scarborough. The rest had come from Wakefield, Leeds, South Shields, Hull, Pontefract, "no fixed abode" and Her Majesty's prison. In other words, two thirds had come from conurbations out of town.
  Throughout the campaign, no Member of Parliament representing a seaside constituency had asked for Government restrictions on where people should move or where they can make a living for themselves, but why should small towns such as Scarborough, Blackpool and Bournemouth take more of their fair share of the homeless, when there are empty council houses in Labour-controlled authorities from one end of the country to the other? Even more important, why should a married couple in Scarborough, Blackpool, Bournemouth or Eastbourne, who have been waiting patiently for years for a council house, perhaps for a secure roof over their head before they start a family, go to the back of the housing queue because of some teenage priority waltzing into town? That is wrong.
  The drift to the coast can be confirmed in the increase in housing benefit payments. In the four years to 1994, housing benefit payments in Middlesbrough, which is near Scarborough, increased by 30 per cent., whereas in Scarborough the increase was 58 per cent. In Manchester, the increase was only 19 per cent., whereas in Blackpool it was 60 per cent. In Glasgow, the increase was only 18 per cent., but in Margate it was 64 per cent. In Bristol, the increase was a meatier 45 per cent., but in Weston-super-Mare, which is in the same area, it was 70 per cent. In Liverpool, the increase was 29 per cent. In Newquay, it was 80 per cent. Those figures speak for themselves.
  There was also an increase in the number of people signing on. In the five years to 1994, the number signing on in Scarborough increased by 62 per cent. In Weston-super-Mare, the increase was 103 per cent. In Margate, the increase was 124 per cent. In Southend, it was 169 per cent. In Eastbourne, it was 196 per cent., and
  698
  in Worthing, it was 235 per cent. Those are not anecdotal figures, as some in Whitehall would have us believe. There are undue concentrations of unemployed young people drifting to the coast, where there is little or virtually no chance of getting a job. It is unfair to ask resorts to shoulder more than their fair share.
  The most unbearable manifestation is the badly run DSS hostel, usually owned or managed by unscrupulous landlords. They are the real fat cats, with their noses firmly in the housing benefit trough. They are the landlords who cram unfortunate tenants like sardines into their hotels. They are the landlords whom I want to drive into the sea and out of business for ever. The badly run DSS hostels can be small former guest houses with five or six tenants, or they can be large former hotels with up to 100 tenants. The effect of just one badly run DSS hostel can be devastating in a town such as Scarborough.
  These are just a few of the complaints that I have received from the Scarborough Hotels Association in the past 12 months. Opposition Members must listen very carefully before they vote against the Bill. The complaints included loud music, children crying and screaming, fights and violence, windows smashed, rubbish in hotel gardens, smelly drains, using the garden as a toilet, men holding a dog out of a window, damage to crescent gardens, repairing cars in the street, children being injected with hypodermic needles, guests being accosted, violence in the local store, abuse to guests and hoteliers, obscene suggestions to lady guests, and, finally, guests leaving the hotels, never to return. That is where the problem lies, as it sets up a cycle of despair, a vicious circle, because the hotelier who lives next door does not get any guests the next year, so he in turn has to convert his premises into a DSS hostel, thus establishing the cycle of despair in towns such as Scarborough.
  Badly run DSS hostels are often the centre of organised crime and violence. We do not get many murders in Scarborough, but in 1994 we had three, and two of those were directly attributable to badly run DSS hostels. The national crime figures are even worse. They paint an ugly picture that points to drug-crazed youths stealing to feed their vile habits. In the four years to 1994, the national average of convictions for shoplifting increased across the country by 8 per cent., but in coastal resorts, the increase was 47 per cent. The national average for theft from cars increased by 9 per cent., but in coastal resorts, the increase was 30 per cent. The national average for trafficking in drugs increased by quite a terrible 71 per cent., but in the resorts the increase was 101 per cent.
  As usual, the devil is in the detail when we look at the figures, because convictions for trafficking in drugs in Eastbourne increased by 81 per cent. In Worthing, they increased by 100 per cent. In Ramsgate, they increased by 165 per cent. and in Scarborough, they increased by a staggering 350 per cent.
  These badly run DSS ghettos are no seasonal feature of our cold English winters. They are a permanent and profoundly corrosive feature of life at the seaside. Anyone who imagined for a moment that Members of Parliament such as my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North, for Bournemouth, East, for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) arid myself would sit idly back and watch the British tourism industry die a slow and agonising death because of such places would be sadly mistaken.

  699
  That is why that group of hon. Members representing British resorts—Tories to a man—are grateful for the support that has been given by our hon. Friend the Minister. That is why we are glad that we have made a sufficiently good case for a tougher scheme, allowing local authorities to cut the cancer out of badly run DSS hostels and thus to arrest the decay that has already eaten at the fringes of our great tourism industry. Some of England's finest jewels will thereby be preserved for generations to come.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that Madam Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. William O'Brien: Those who read the speech of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) in Hansard will note the effect of 17 years of Tory government. The hon. Gentleman spoke of an increase in crime, of people being driven by unemployment to the coast in an attempt to find jobs and of a rise in homelessness. Indeed, he treated us to a catalogue of failures, and I am sure that the Labour party in Scarborough will latch on to it. The hon. Gentleman's speech emphasised the need for the fair and proper legislation that is not provided in the Bill that we are discussing.
  Housing is a major social problem. In my constituency it is paramount, in both the rented and the owner-occupied sectors. For years, the Government have done little to help those with housing problems. Part I of the Bill supposedly deals with the social rented sector, but in fact it deals only with the Housing Corporation, giving it new powers over housing associations, but no accountability to anyone except the Secretary of State. I consider that part of the Bill cruel and dishonest. It does not allow local authorities to build social housing, although they are expert at doing so and have a long history of social housing management.
  The Bill offers no help to the 250,000 people who bought their homes from the social rented sector, and now find themselves in the negative equity trap. It also contains no measures to help the 1,000 families a week who become homeless when their homes are repossessed, although that has a devastating effect on family life. In many instances, such suffering is caused by redundancy or a business collapse. The Bill does nothing to help home owners, or to restore confidence in the housing market. Many people expected it to help tackle the underlying problems facing our housing stock, but nothing has been done to increase investment in either the public or the private sector. The Government still prevent councils from investing capital receipts in social rented housing.
  Clauses 15 and 16 refer to the right to buy for housing association tenants. The National Federation of Housing Associations has no objection to its tenants purchasing their homes, and the Government are currently introducing a voluntary scheme that is acceptable to housing associations. In the past, the NFHA has argued that associations should be allowed to sell houses to tenants in particular circumstances, but housing associations fear that they too could experience the devastation experienced by local authorities, given the shortage of houses available at an affordable rent.
  700
  The Bill is so inflexible that it may well result in fewer houses in the rented sector, causing greater hardship to people who need social housing. Houses in the social rented sector are already in short supply, and unless the houses that are sold are replaced, the number will be further reduced. The NFHA has told the Minister of its fears relating to the selling of certain houses in certain areas, or houses that were built with agreed terms. It has also described the problems of replacing those houses for rent, and the restriction of future agreements with providers of help.
  In the past, people have donated money or land to housing associations with the firm intention that it be used for the specific purpose of providing low-cost rented homes for those most in need. If the Government legislate for the sale of houses that were built with a minimum amount of public money, there will be fewer such donations.
  Mr. Curry: That is not true. We have made it clear that, where properties have been built and land donated, there is no question of housing authorities being obliged to put the houses up for sale. As for existing properties, housing associations must opt into the scheme in any event: there is no question of their being compelled to put the properties on the market. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I am very sensitive to those issues, and we have gone a long way to meet the NFHA.
  Mr. O'Brien: I appreciate the Minister's intervention. In Committee, however, there will be more pressure on him to give such assurances, and to ensure that they are contained in the Bill rather than in a consultative document.
  The Bill has been criticised by various people and organisations with housing interests, but everyone's concerns have been dramatically heightened by the changes in the law relating to homelessness, which constitute an attack on the most vulnerable people. If the Bill is not amended, some homeless people will never be able to obtain permanent homes from local authorities. Local authorities' duties to help the homeless will be restricted to the provision of a minimum of one year's temporary accommodation. Moreover, if there is suitable alternative accommodation within the local authority area, an authority will not be responsible for housing the homeless. Both local authorities and the NFHA want that part of the Bill to be withdrawn.
  The present homelessness legislation provides an important and improved safety net for homeless families and other vulnerable homeless people, allowing them to obtain a permanent home and start to build a stable family life. If homeless people are offered only temporary accommodation, there is every danger that they will constantly be moved around, which will have a tremendous effect on family life. That will have a major impact on stable communities. It will no doubt have a lasting effect on the children of homeless families, who could be moving from school to school every time the family has to move. That part of the Bill should be withdrawn because of the inhuman approach to homeless people.
  I recommend to the Minister the proposals by Wakefield metropolitan district council's housing department. In co-operation with the county council's

  701
  housing association—the Chantry housing association—it is providing homes for homeless people. They are taking over empty properties and improving those properties together. The housing association is making a substantial contribution to the proposals. That will also help some of those unlucky home owners caught in the negative equity trap. The end will soon be in sight for them to be able to sell their properties.
  I suggest that the Minister take note of the programme. The housing department press release states:
  "Properties need to be in good, general repair to be eligible for the…scheme. They must be self-contained with their own bathroom, have a fixed form of heating in living rooms and bedrooms and meet a number of basic safety requirements. Owners remain responsible for maintenance during the leasing period which would normally be three years."
  Without the legislation that is being proposed, local authorities and housing associations are providing accommodation for homeless people. If the Minister had more confidence in the work of those who have experience in providing social housing, and if there were more confidence in local authorities and local housing associations, there would be no need for such legislation.
  The Bill is a bad Bill. If amendments are not accepted to provide more openness in regard to the quango of the Housing Corporation, there will be a lack of confidence. If there are no amendments to help and to provide for home owners and homeless people, there will be a greater deterioration in the provision of social housing. To allow more freedom to local authorities to provide houses would be a substantial step in the right direction. We need such an amendment to the Bill.
  If changes are not made to the Bill, Labour Members must oppose it and assure people who need help with housing that the next Government, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) will serve as Minister with responsibility for housing, will ensure that such people will be given priority, and that democracy will apply to housing issues. If changes are not made to the Bill to meet some of the points raised by Labour Members, we should oppose it.
  7.3 pm
  Dr. Ian Twinn: It is a great shame that Labour Members have chosen, in their destructive way, to oppose the Bill and to announce that they will vote against its principle at the end of this Second Reading debate. It seeks to extend choice in housing. It seeks to extend the stakeholder principle, but Labour Members want to throw it away. As soon as we have a practical illustration of how their policies could be implemented, they want to vote against it. Two sets of standards are being operated by Labour Members. Today, we will see them being operated once again, when they will kick in the teeth people who are trying to get a hold of a stake in society.
  Besides extending a stakeholder's rights through housing ownership and through opportunities for private and social renting, the Bill would extend fairness and justice throughout our housing system—principles to which Labour Members should pay a bit more attention rather than sniggering and sighing when they are mentioned. Conservative Members get just as angry about
  702
  housing issues as Labour Members. We are all constituency Members of Parliament. Most of us sit in our surgeries on Fridays or Saturdays and listen to hard cases about housing.
  It is wrong to take individual cases and build laws on them alone: we have to examine what is happening over the whole sector. The present housing allocation system, for example, operates against the interests of people who are being responsible and who have genuine housing needs—they are outcasts from that system. I hope, therefore, that Labour Members will think again about their objections to the principle of the Bill.
  The right-to-buy measures are particularly welcome. It is wrong that, if two people are on the housing list, in places one and two, and go along for their allocation of housing, the first one can be allocated a local authority house and gradually develop the right to buy, but the second can be allocated a housing association house and be denied the right to buy. Both properties are developed with taxpayers' money, from public funds. One person gets the right to buy; the other is denied it.
  I am pleased that the Government have listened to the pleadings of Conservative Members that there should be some justice, and that people who occupy social housing that is provided from public funds should have the right to buy. That is a great step forward and puts right a great wrong.
  I am especially pleased that housing associations will be able to re-use funds thus realised and provide new social housing in their areas. Some Conservative Members who are great supporters of the housing association movement have been disappointed by its allowing itself to become sub-agents of local authorities in housing. Although that matter is not dealt with in the Bill, I hope that my right hon. Friends in the Government will reconsider the way in which housing associations operate, because they could be far more flexible towards specialist groups and in meeting specialist housing needs.
  One of things that most frustrates me as a constituency Member of Parliament is that people who thoroughly deserve and need to be rehoused fall through the net of local authority rules on housing. For example, on Friday night a woman came to see me who has privately rented a one-bedroom flat for 17 years. She is a single mother with an 11-year-old daughter. She has been on Enfield borough council's housing list for 17 years. She lives opposite a tower block where vacancies frequently arise, but she has always been denied a place in two-bedroom accommodation.
  The mother has been told by the now Labour-controlled authority that it is acceptable for her to share a bedroom with her 11-year-old daughter. [Interruption.] The Labour Whip, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), believes that that is acceptable.
  Ms Hilary Armstrong: My hon. Friend is not a Whip.
  Dr. Twinn: The hon. Lady believes that it is acceptable for the 11-year-old daughter to be forced for ever to share with her mother.

  703
  The local authority will not allocate accommodation to the mother because, every time there is an allocation, the property goes either to people with an emergency medical need or to people on the homeless list. The Bill's housing allocation changes are therefore to be greatly praised.
  Mr. Betts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Twinn: No. We have no time, while there is a 10-minute limit on speeches, for one of the hon. Gentleman's rambling interventions.
  The leasehold reforms in the Bill are especially welcome. There is room here for agreement even with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), who appears to take a Stalinist view on most housing matters—perhaps he agrees with what we are trying to do on leasehold reform. The Bill deals with unscrupulous landlords who have found ingenious loopholes to exploit in the present law. Perhaps they divide freeholds between related companies to avoid the right of leaseholders to buy, or do not tell leaseholders when freeholds are transformed, or put in outrageous demands for service charges that are unjustified by the work that has been done, or send grotesquely inflated bills for work that should not have been undertaken. The Evening Standard has been especially good at exposing what has been happening. A company called Linkproud has been operating with Empress Estates throughout London in a most outrageous way. The Bill seeks to tackle such practices and to give leaseholders some real power over unscrupulous freeholders.
  One group of leaseholders will be listening carefully to Conservative Members on the topic of leasehold and freehold reform. They are the people who bought local authority properties in tower blocks and in system-built blocks. Some of the descriptions of unscrupulous landlords could be applied to some local authorities, which have inflicted inflated and unjustified bills and outrageous behaviour on right-to-buy leaseholders. I hope that, in his winding-up speech, my hon. Friend the Minister will assure us that the proposed provisions for freeholders will apply also to local authority freeholders. That would go some way towards helping those who are trapped, in difficult circumstances, in leasehold properties in tower blocks.
  I welcome some of the Bill's detailed proposals, such as the proposed action to end forfeiture proceedings until service charges have been properly confirmed. The absolute right, to be given to leaseholders, to buy their freehold is also important. We must take the gloves off in the battle against freeholders, and the Bill does just that. I hope that, in Committee, hon. Members will stand up for the rights of existing tenants and for those in real housing need who have slipped through the present system. We should not give in to the Opposition, who extrapolate one sectional interest and use it to attack the Government.
  It was quite clear that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) had not read the Bill—some of his comments about it were blatantly wrong. As has been said, the hon. Gentleman went perilously close to misleading the House. I am sure that, in his wildest dreams, he would not want to do that. I recommend to Opposition Members that, in future, they spend their weekends more productively by reading legislation before they dare to speak about it in the House.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: The fundamental cause of our housing problems is the lack of affordable accommodation. That is why more people than ever are homeless and begging in the streets. It is why there are more people than ever in temporary or bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It is also why the Government are desperately fiddling about with a rationing system for homelessness and entry to the housing queue. Rationing occurs when there is a shortage, but the Government do not acknowledge that and they are not trying to solve the basic problem.
  It has not been said today that, in England and Wales, with a population of about 50 million, fewer houses are being built in the public rented sector than are being built in Northern Ireland, which has a population of 1.5 million. We could have an interesting debate about why the Government think that it is necessary to build more social housing in Northern Ireland but do not apply the same criteria to the rest of the United Kingdom.
  The second underlying problem is that the Government have done nothing to help low-income home owners. The Bill will not help them either. Conservative Members have asked how we would pay for such help, but until we address the issue of the reform of housing finance we will not be able to get that one right. The housing finance system is inequitable and inefficient. Does anyone seriously believe that £10 billion a year on housing benefit, much of which goes to landlords who do not need it, is a good way to subsidise housing? The Government started to recognise that when they reformed mortgage interest relief—by cutting it. They did it in the worst possible way because they gave no help to low-income mortgage holders, which is what they ought to have done. That is why some people are still in mortgage difficulties.
  Conservative Members who ask about financing should remember that about one in nine homeless applications to local authorities come from people who have had their houses repossessed. The mortgage company or bank gets the house and can sell it; the local authority puts the family into bed-and-breakfast or temporary accommodation for which we, the people, pay. As a result, the family suffers incredible stress while the house sits empty awaiting sale in a depressed housing market which it depresses still further.
  Before the last election, we suggested to the Government a mortgage rescue scheme that was designed to help such people. I had it costed by the Council of Mortgage Lenders. At that time, the chief executive of the council was a member of the Tory party and had been a Tory candidate at an election. He accepted that the package was cost free, but the Government refused to accept it.
  The Secretary of State outlined his proposals for freeholders and the hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) said that it was time we took the gloves off. We said that, and tabled amendments to that effect, in Committee on the Bill that became the Housing Act 1988. Conservatives voted them down. The Secretary of State says that he wants to get tough on landlords who are not fulfilling their obligations to people in houses in multiple occupation. We have known about that for years. We twice put down amendments to the 1988 Bill to deal with that, especially in the context of seaside towns about which the Secretary of State also spoke, but Conservative

  705
  Members voted them down. It is only now that the consequences of their actions in relation to what became the 1988 Act are beginning to be felt. They must face the fact that they have failed to act on such problems.
  The issue of empty properties is dealt with only as an aside in the Bill, but we have heard about it from Conservative Members. For the past 16 years, the Government have consistently been the worst offenders on empty properties. Even now, in the Biggin hill area, they are dumping Government homes on the public market for sale. There is much negative equity in that area, and their action will depress the housing market even further. They could save money by transferring those houses to housing associations or local authorities, which could deal with the queue about which the hon. Member for Edmonton complained. That is a way in which to address the problem of rationing that the Government have created.
  Local authorities and housing associations are much more effective at letting properties than the private sector or the Government. Hackney has been mentioned as a bad example. I am the first to accept that, in the past, Hackney's management has not been good. However, a year or two ago, Hackney's voids were about 5.3 per cent. They are now down to about 3 per cent., but only if the tower blocks that the Government have said must be knocked down are taken out of the calculation. The Government are giving money to have them knocked down.
  We are in a febrile political atmosphere, but I should have thought that even in this pre-election bonanza period we could still get some cross-party agreement that, by and large, it is desirable to take tenants out of high-rise flats before they are demolished. I have given the reason for the Hackney figures being so high; we should focus on that as well.
  My advice to the Government is simple: stop selling Government-owned empty properties, start handing them over to housing associations and councils and start dealing with the rationing that the hon. Member for Edmonton does not like. Conservative Members complain about the right to buy in rural areas in certain circumstances. I wish that the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) were in his place. The right to buy, matched by a duty to replace and a housing finance system that enabled councils and housing associations to replace homes that were sold, is a good policy. A housing policy that consists of a right to buy but does not enable replacement of the homes that have been sold is a disaster, but that is what the Government have given us over the years. Now, suddenly, the hon. Member for High Peak and some other Conservative Members have begun to complain because they fear that too many houses might be sold in rural areas. Exactly the same problem has been hitting us in urban areas for donkeys years. If we could have replaced the houses that were sold, we would not have the queues of today and there would not be 2,000 or 3,000 people in areas such as mine living in emergency accommodation.
  The problem is primarily the Government's. Yes, one or two people abuse the system and keep their council houses when they should get rid of them—there are examples of that in my constituency—but the core problem lies with the Government for it is they who have
  706
  failed to provide the mechanism by which the houses that are sold can be replaced so that more houses can be made available in the rented sector.
  What is the fundamental problem? A housing finance regime that allows all the money to be allocated in housing benefit instead of recognising that we need to return to a system—as the Duke of Edinburgh's report, with which just about everyone agreed, rightly said some years ago—of subsidising bricks and mortar, at least in part.
  There is no sense in giving, as we do at the moment, housing benefit subsidy to a landlord who is in prison for harassing tenants. The Deputy Prime Minister has the audacity to say that the Labour party is on the side of villains. I have never heard of any Labour policy that argues that taxpayers' money should be used to subsidise people who are in prison—which is what the Government are doing now. It is a disgrace, we know that it is, and it should be brought to an end. If we are to do that, we must reform housing finance and recognise the rights of tenants.
  I welcome the introduction of an ombudsman. We proposed that, too, during the Committee stage of what became the 1988 Act, and the Government rejected it. I am in favour of enabling the Housing Corporation to step in when bad management occurs in housing associations or councils, and to take other action to transfer accommodation from such landlords.
  Why will the Government not introduce something similar in the private rented sector? Why should we not be able to strike off a bad landlord in the private rented sector who has been harassing tenants? Why do we send them to prison at enormous cost, subsidise them while they are there, and allow them to let the house and receive yet more subsidy when they are released? That is subsidising the villains. That is being on the side of the villains.
  Most private landlords are good. Why do we not introduce something adventurous and flexible for a change? I would be quite prepared to subsidise private landlords in exchange for guarantees about good management—another suggestion that I made many years ago. If they failed to deliver good management, they would be struck off. That is the key to housing policy. We should stop worrying about ownership and concentrate on quality.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: I welcome the majority of measures in the Bill. I especially welcome the further modest encouragement and incentives that it provides for the private rented sector. I am conscious that, in my constituency, many houses are under-occupied, often by elderly people who would welcome a tenant or two. Too often, however, they hear horror stories from people who have experienced bad tenants, so they dare not take the risk.
  The Bill provides for quicker eviction of tenants who do not pay their rent and makes the advantages of shorthold more widely available so that landlords may be assured of the agreed period of tenancy. I hope that more potential small and inexperienced landlords and landladies will have the confidence to make their spare rooms available to those who are seeking accommodation.
  I welcome, too, the redressing of the balance in the duty of local authorities to house local people who need accommodation, so that those who are born and bred

  707
  locally, rather than those who become homeless away from their home town, are favoured. That will give more hope to local people on the waiting list, who see complete outsiders being housed before them. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration confirmed, that proposal in no way removes the safety net for homeless people.
  The Bill aims to help local authorities to respond more effectively to the immense problems posed by houses in multiple occupation. There is no doubt about the need for stronger powers. The lives of my constituents who live in the neighbourhoods of some of the properties of a well-known local provider of bedsits, Mr. Dave Wells, are a continual misery, as my postbag testifies.
  The behaviour of tenants, of course, cannot be directly blamed on the landlord or the owner of the property, but landlords must demonstrate the responsibility to ensure that the neighbours enjoy a right of privacy and are free from the tenants' noise and nuisance. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) said, people dare not complain for fear of threats and retaliation from those against whom they are complaining. Tenants are also entitled to a reasonable standard of accommodation that is safe and free from damp and rot and crumbling walls, which is certainly not the case in some of Mr. Wells' properties, as I have seen for myself.
  Until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's speech this afternoon, I feared that the Bill would prove inadequate to deal with houses in multiple occupation. That fear results from the change of use of buildings from hotels and guest houses to bedsit hostels, primarily aimed at benefit claimants, which has occurred in my authority and others in tourist areas, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) so vividly referred.
  Such hotels are bought and converted into multiple units to house a maximum number of tenants. It has become big business for commercial landlords, who advertise in the inner cities and in the Republic of Ireland that those on benefit should claim in a more attractive area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough said, some of those hostels have a reputation for being places of drug-related, drink-related and crime-related behaviour. As well as being offensive to local residents, the hostels very quickly lead to neighbouring hotels, especially those that cater for young families and coach parties, losing business, and the entire tourist area becomes threatened by a vicious cycle of decline and decay.
  It is now clear that the planning controls introduced almost two years ago to address that problem are not working because of a lack of precise definition of a hotel, a hostel and an HMO. In any case, the controls cannot be applied retrospectively.
  The new powers that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced today will allow local authorities to close down hostels without compensation in response to legitimate complaints from people in the neighbourhood. I welcome that, as I am sure does my local authority in Bournemouth.
  The Bill does not, however, give local authorities what I believe they need to be able to respond effectively to the problem of HMOs once and for all. We need a licensing scheme, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough referred, which local authorities can opt for, depending on the severity of the problem in their area.
  708
  It would require not only that the property be fit and proper, but that its owner be a fit and proper person to run or manage the property.
  The Government have decided that such a scheme would be too costly and bureaucratic. I do not agree. A licensing scheme need not be universal. It could be limited to local authorities such as mine and those in other seaside resorts such as Blackpool and Scarborough, which are pressing for it as the only way in which to protect their tourist areas.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And Morecambe.
  Mr. Atkinson: And Morecambe, as my hon. Friend says. The scheme would be no different from that which applies to rest and retirement homes for the elderly, which are run by a licensee whose licence is subject to periodic renewal.
  I urge my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration to give further thought to the need for a voluntary licensing scheme that local authorities could use when they experienced particular problems with HMOs, which a registration scheme, such as that in the Bill, will not address.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Richard Burden: In June last year, the Chartered Institute of Housing published a report entitled "A Point to Prove" which examined cities such as Sheffield and my own town of Birmingham. It demonstrated the direct relationship between poor housing conditions, the crises in education and health and the problem of rising crime. It also demonstrated that repossessions, negative equity and rough sleeping were symptoms of the much wider housing crisis that is facing Britain.
  With Government estimates showing that there will be about 3.5 million new households in England alone in the next 10 years, the institute calculated that around 120,000 new homes would be required each year in the social rented sector. Against that background, the Government have a great opportunity with the Bill to deal with those issues and to do something about an experience that I am sure every hon. Member encounters every week at his advice desk.
  Unfortunately, neither the Bill nor the White Paper that foreshadowed it begins to tackle the problems. I welcome some parts of the Bill, albeit with some qualification. It is good that some progress is being made in relation to anti-social behaviour, but many more and different actions could be taken as well. It is also good that efforts are being made in relation to leasehold reform and houses in multiple occupation. I agree, however, with the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) that much more needs to be done in those spheres, and that we particularly need to examine the issue of a proper licensing scheme.
  Against that, however, other aspects of the Bill are downright odious, such as weakening tenants' protection from eviction and restricting housing authorities' duty to provide accommodation for the homeless. I am still waiting for Ministers to provide a definition of which homeless families they think it appropriate to put into temporary accommodation and throw out of that

  709
  accommodation later. We have given examples of possible families, but they have said, "It's not them." Sooner or later, Ministers will have to say which homeless families are appropriate for temporary accommodation. If they cannot say which families are appropriate, Ministers will have to question why that particular provision is necessary.
  The Bill will have a particularly severe effect on young people. In my constituency, the south Birmingham young homeless project has already shown how the Bill, combined with the changes in housing benefit regulation, would do much to prevent young, single, homeless people under the age of 25 gaining access to secure and affordable housing.
  The most striking feature of the Bill is perhaps its utter irrelevance to solving the central problem, which is the shortage of affordable homes. There is a desperate need to increase housing investment. In the west midlands, the number of homeless people in 1979 was only 6,360. By 1994, that figure had risen to 16,800. In 1979, 8,103 council, new town and housing association dwellings were started; in 1994, less than half that number were started. In the four years between 1990 and 1994, the number of mortgage possession actions rocketed in that one region.
  On one level, Ministers seem to think that the shortage of affordable homes is an issue—at least they appeared to acknowledge that in what they said about the right to buy for housing associations. Why do they not follow through with the same logic when it comes to local authorities and do something to release the capital receipts that are necessary to take action against the housing shortage?
  Obviously, we have become used to the Government's prejudice against local authorities. However, they must recognise that housing associations are also suffering under the financial policies that have been imposed on them by the Government. Housing associations reckon that we need about 90,000 new social housing units a year from now on. In the coming year, however, there will barely be 50,000.
  The housing crisis in Britain is not just about building new homes, as important as that is; it is also a question of repairing existing homes. Because of my advice bureaux in Birmingham, I know exactly what that means. Each year, Ministers require local authorities to understate what they need to invest in home repair and, each year, Ministers then under-allocate according to that understated request. To put right its housing stock, Birmingham's real requirement is about £200 million per year, but it is not allowed to ask for that money. This year, less than £40 million has been allocated to it in terms of borrowing approval.
  Let me tell the House what that means in human terms. At my advice bureau last week, I received two delegations of residents who live in tower blocks in my constituency. One delegation was from a block called Kempsey house, in Bartley Green, and the other was from three tower blocks off Long Nuke road in the Weoley ward. The conditions in which they have to live were summed up in a recent letter sent by a local Labour councillor to the local housing department after a visit to those blocks. He said:
  "I am concerned about the appalling dampness in the flats in David Cox Tower in Long Nuke Road. Spending a winter in these blocks means a winter of misery. The heating is totally inadequate,
  710
  the insulation in a pre-cast concrete building is hopelessly inadequate and undoubtedly contributes to massive condensation. The general dampness that results from this is injurious to the people who live there. Of particular concern is the health of the young children. To start life in the atmosphere that pervades these flats throughout the winter and spring is dangerous and contributes to these children being prone to bronchial and other diseases to the chest. Many of the people in the flats are on low incomes and get into awful financial problems because of the cost of electric heating in one room only. It costs them a fortune to fight what is frankly a losing battle."
  That councillor went on to describe the situation of one resident as follows:
  "Her bedroom is, at the moment, impossible to live in. I would say it is positively dangerous to sleep in because it is so damp. I put my hand on the boarded area that obviously houses a metal downpipe and that was wringing wet. I could see water dripping off the ceiling and the whole window wall was very damp. The carpet was damp and wet in sections. Clothes in wardrobes and chest of drawers quickly become damp and attract mould so they cannot be left in the room".
  The residents in such blocks are not well off. However, in order to make up some of the shortfall in housing investment that the Government have allowed, tenants in Birmingham last year agreed to a £2 a week rent increase in order to begin a programme to fit UPVC window replacements and to install central heating. This year, however, Government policies will make the problem worse. Is the Minister going to deal with the problems that proposed changes to rent rebate subsidy will cause? In Birmingham, the proposed changes will mean that any rent increase above £1.17 will entail the council losing Government housing subsidy.
  The system is complicated—they always are—but the impact is real enough. If the housing revenue account is to be balanced, something that would have required a rent increase of about £2 a week under last year's rules, will—if the Government's proposals go ahead—require Birmingham council tenants to pay an extra £10 a week in rent. Tenants will not be able to afford that, and the consequence is likely to be cuts in the window and central heating replacement programme. That means that people in my constituency will continue to live in cold and damp surroundings. That is the real impact of the Government's housing policy, but it is not even mentioned in the Bill.
  The craziest thing of all is that the Government's attempts to save money end up costing money. The extra burden on the national health service because of asthma alone, which is induced or aggravated by poor housing, is estimated to cost £437 million every year. Where housing is poor, criminal activity is high. Wealthy homes are not the most likely to be burgled. The poorest council tenants are more than four times more likely to be burgled than those in affluent suburbs.
  When all political parties are stressing their wish to improve standards in education, how can we ignore the impact that poor-quality and insecure housing is bound to have on children's performance at school? How can we ignore the impact that constant changes in housing have on those children? Those changes are likely to happen because of the changes in regulations regarding housing the homeless and temporary accommodation.

  711
  Faced with all that, why do the Government refuse to take action? I should like to conclude with a quotation from Peter Ambrose, who is the director of Urban and Regional Research, in Sussex. He said:
  "Poor housing affects over ten million people"—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry, but time is up.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Harold Elletson: I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the very good news that he gave my constituency towards the end of last year on the housing investment programme. Blackpool's HIP allocation, which was £1,866,000 in 1995-96, has risen to £2,734,000 for 1996-97—an increase of 47 per cent. No other local authority has received such a substantial increase, and that is good news for housing in Blackpool and for my constituents.
  That contrasted significantly with what the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) said about the Government failing to invest in housing. The hon. Lady has, of course, disappeared—she is no longer in her place. The longer I stay in this place, the more I notice that Liberals tend to be here today, gone tomorrow.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As far I can see, there is not a single Liberal Democrat Member in the Chamber. Clearly, housing is of no great importance to the Liberal Democrats. Once a Liberal Democrat makes a long-winded speech, that is the lot for the day.
  Mr. Elletson: Absolutely. As my hon. Friend says, the hon. Member for Christchurch made an extremely long-winded speech, which means that there is much less time for other hon. Members.
  I also take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on the Bill, because much of what it proposes will be welcome news for my constituents. The Bill builds on the Government's record over 17 years of giving people more choice in housing and of enabling more people to own their own home. The Bill's proposals to increase home ownership are good news, and there is also good news for the increasing numbers of council tenants who, during the past 16 years, have been given the right to buy. It is good news also for those who want a real say in how their homes are managed.
  I also thank the Minister for the help that the Department of the Environment has given to my constituents in the Queen's Park estate, who have been struggling for the past two years to free themselves from the Stalinist clutches of Blackpool's housing authority.
  Mr. Sykes: It is a Labour authority.
  Mr. Elletson: As my hon. Friend points out, the housing authority is controlled by Labour. It has not, however, been subject to the recent breath of fresh air of so-called new Labour that has apparently swept through other local authorities. Blackpool is, unfortunately, still a very old-fashioned housing authority. The tenants on Queen's Park estate are seeking to run their own affairs and manage their own estate and, in that regard, they will be given a great deal of valuable help and advice by the tenants' participation advisory service. I was asked to pass on the thanks of the tenants to the Minister.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Elletson: No. I have given way once already, and I have only 10 minutes in which to speak. I should crack on, because I want to make one or two points that are of specific relevance and importance to my constituents.
  The two aspects of the Bill that I want deal with have great importance not only for my constituents but for those in seaside resorts throughout the country. First, I shall refer to the provisions in the Bill dealing with houses in multiple occupation. Secondly, I want to say a few brief words about the provisions for dealing with anti-social tenants. Those provisions will make a great difference to the quality of life of a lot of people in my constituency and throughout the country.
  The House has heard what a significant problem HMOs, or benefit hostels, are for seaside resorts. It is difficult for hon. Members who do not come from seaside constituencies to understand how damaging such places can be to the tourism industry and to the quality of life of the ordinary people who live in towns such as Blackpool, Morecambe, Scarborough or Bournemouth.
  Unfortunately, the tourism industry does not always get the attention it deserves. It is one of the biggest employers in the country, and one of the fastest-growing industries world wide. The industry significantly depends on its seaside element, as about 50 per cent. of all tourism in this country is connected with the seaside. We must not underestimate the importance of dealing with this crucial problem.
  The growth in the number of benefit hostels in seaside resorts has been highly damaging to the tourism industry. There are about 2,000 to 3,000 benefit hostels in Blackpool—a staggering figure. There is no way on earth that the people in those hostels come exclusively from Blackpool, the Fylde coast, Manchester, Liverpool, Lancashire or anywhere in the north of England—they come from all over the place.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) has pointed out that thoroughly unscrupulous landlords, who operate the most Rachman-type businesses and often put tenants into the most disgraceful Dickensian conditions, are deliberately advertising for customers to come and claim their benefit by the seaside. That has had an appalling effect.
  I shall refer briefly to a number of roads in my constituency to give an example of the sheer scale of the problem. These are roads throughout Blackpool and the surrounding area to the north. In Pleasant street on North Shore, cars have been broken into and cars and local shops have been vandalised. Fights have occurred between groups of residents from the hostels and rubbish has been set alight.
  In one particular hostel, the New Beverley hotel on Pleasant street, there have been four drug-related deaths in the past year. One of the victims was a 19-year-old drug addict, who was well known to the police. He had beaten up a pregnant woman and some elderly folk, he burgled homes to feed his drug habit and he had a string of convictions—exactly the sort of character one wants living in the middle of prime tourist accommodation. Just two days before his death, he had been released on bail from Lancaster Farms young offenders unit.

  713
  In Regent road, Blackpool. there are a number of HMOs. The inhabitants bring out their armchairs from the hostels and sit on them on the pavement. They block the footpaths and swear at and abuse the passing public. One of the law-abiding citizens who has to live in this street was recently threatened with a bayonet. The police are called to this road usually every week.
  I have received regular complaints that inhabitants in Knowle avenue, further up North Shore, have been sitting on the pavement all day, drinking and verbally abusing the passing public. One young woman wrote to me to describe how she witnessed a young man from a hostel urinating from the second-floor window on to street. Many residents are too frightened to walk past the hostel at any time, day or night.
  The complaints that I have heard about Maitland avenue in Cleveleys range from music being played loudly until 2 am every day, to constant loud and foul abusive language, known drug-taking and fights on the premises that usually result in the police and paramedic services being called. In one particular incident, a man wielding a carving knife and shouting a torrent of abuse chased another man down the street. There is a massive amount of theft of property from cars.
  How can we deal with that problem? The Government have gone some way in the Bill towards addressing the issue of a registration scheme, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) that the Bill does not go far enough. I was delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to say about the scale of the powers that he appears to be ready to offer to local authorities to enable them to close down places that are having a significantly deleterious effect on the local community. I believe that the best way of ensuring that that happens is through a proper licensing scheme—possibly self-financing--that allows local authorities to opt in. In any event, we need a licensing scheme. I hope that when the Government table their amendments to the Bill, we shall see the introduction of such a scheme—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Clive Betts: We were not long into the Secretary of State's speech before the difference between what the Government say about housing and what they intend to do about it became apparent. The Secretary of State managed that in his first sentence, when he talked about the right of every family to a decent home. Unfortunately, nothing in the rest of his speech pointed to a single measure in the Bill that will provide any more homes to make that aspiration come true.
  It is not that we are spending less on housing now than we were in 1979. It is just that we are spending the money on different things. Judging by the breakdown of total expenditure, we are spending only a quarter of the total housing budget on bricks and mortar. In 1979, we were spending three quarters. The difference is simple. In 1979, 10 per cent. of the total budget was spent on housing benefits and support for rent, but now it is 50 per cent. In their housing standards, the people of Britain are paying for the Government's policy of creating unemployment
  714
  and forcing up rents. The money is there, but it is not being spent on providing houses and improving housing in the way that it was.
  Indeed, the target that the Government set for themselves in the White Paper that they issued last year aimed not at increasing the number of homes, but simply at making more of them owner-occupied. The Government's obsession with owner-occupation has been a problem for the past 16 years. Rather than having an obsession with providing decent homes, they have one with trying to make as many homes as possible owner-occupied.
  Hon. Members have mentioned people who have bought flats in tower blocks, and face massive charges for them. Of course, if the charges are over-inflated, it is wrong, but during the 1980s, under Conservative Government legislation, the Government urged people to buy the flats, criticising Labour councils that warned them of the difficulties that they would get themselves into. Again, that shows their obsession with owner-occupation and with pushing into owner-occupation people who should never have been encouraged into it in the first place.
  Our surgeries show us the real housing problems. Housing is certainly the major issue in my surgeries. In the 1970s, council tenants would have been asking for repairs, but that is not the case now as we have an excellent and responsive repair service in Sheffield. People now come with their rehousing and homelessness problems and because of neighbour disputes. The first two problems can be put down to the fact that we are building half the homes for rent that we were building in 1979. Homelessness has doubled in the country as a whole and, in Sheffield, it is running at six to seven times the rate that it was when we had a Labour Government in power as well as a Labour council.
  The homelessness provisions in the Bill and the way in which the Government intend to deal with homeless families will cause me to vote against it tonight. Several Conservative Members, including Ministers, have said that they have not read the Bill, as published. I have read it several times and the more I read it, the less I like it. No one will pretend that there are not some difficulties with the administration of the present homelessness legislation. Of course, there are conflicts when there is a shortage of housing—conflicts between the homeless and those in housing need. Occasionally, people use the homelessness route to queue-jump, but that is not a reason for tearing up the legislation and throwing away the rights of every homeless family. Local authorities are under pressure because of unsatisfactory and insufficient housing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, it is a problem of rationing. There are too few houses to go round.
  Hon. Members cite examples of queue jumping and, of course, there may be some truth in some of them. In others, what is meant by queue jumping is the fact that, in the early 1980s, families could have expected to get a family home through the waiting list after two or three years and would have waited with their parents or in-laws, but as the waits have increased to 10 years for the same properties in my city, family pressures become so great that people cannot manage to live together any longer. That is why many young couples end up homeless and at the local authority's door. They are forced there by the intolerable pressures that the Government and their

  715
  housing polices are putting on family life. That is not queue jumping, but the failure of Government policy, and that is what needs to be rectified.
  Ministers have said over and over again that homeless families may still get secure accommodation, but they will have no right to it. In some circumstances, they may be fortunate enough to get it. If the Minister intends to deal with the problem in his reply, he must explain how the legislation will work. My understanding is that a right to interim accommodation comes under clause 147. Clause 151 provides a statutory duty to provide temporary accommodation, which may not be applied if other accommodation in the area is available—clause 155—and if the temporary housing offer is in local authority housing, a family can stay only for a maximum of two years in three. In the meantime, under clause 151, the family might become eligible for a local authority property through the housing list, according to the allocation policies in the consultation document.
  There is no certainty that a family that is given a two-year temporary tenancy, which is subject to periodic review—possibly every year—will be eligible for that property at the end of, or during, the two years and no certainty that it will be offered any local authority tenancy during that period. At the end of the two years, the family, which has been accepted as unintentionally homeless and in priority need, could be forced on to the streets, or into a hostel or a property that the local authority has temporarily leased. Even if the family gets a local authority tenancy because of its position on the housing list and according to the allocation criteria on which the Minister is consulting, it could be a different property from the temporary property. The family will therefore be faced with upheaval, not merely of its home life, but of its social life and its children's education. That is not good enough. It is not acceptable and we shall fight as vigorously as we can against it, today and in Committee.
  If the Minister thinks that I am wrong and that he has a correct understanding of the Bill, I hope that he will respond. I will even give up my time now for him to explain precisely how I am wrong. If he does not explain it, I shall take it that I have given an accurate description of the Bill and that it takes away the right to secure and permanent accommodation. That is why we shall oppose it.
  Neighbour nuisance is now a significant problem. We welcome some of the measures as far as they go, but I am concerned that we should not treat all council tenants as potential problems. I am worried about introductory and probationary tenancies because they stigmatise every tenant before they do anything wrong.
  Secondly, it is not only tenants who create problems of neighbour nuisance. Some of the worst cases that I have come across have involved owner-occupiers. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) proposed a community safety order, which could apply to anyone, not merely to tenants. I hope that the Government will consider that idea, because we have to be even-handed when dealing with the problem.
  Finally, on houses in multiple occupation, we need a licensing system. All the responses to the Government's consultation exercise showed that the organisations concerned with housing believed that that was the right way to proceed.
  There is a further difficulty. The Government must define what a house in multiple occupation is. Last year, in a difficult court case involving Sheffield city council,
  716
  because some students in a house happened to share certain domestic activities, such as eating, the courts found that what everyone thought was a house in multiple occupation was not classified in law as such. That is worrying. It is a loophole about which I have written to Ministers. I hope that they will define what is a house in multiple occupation and conclude that the law needs changing.
  In conclusion, the Bill is a missed opportunity at best. At worst, it does damage to those people in greatest housing need, and we shall vigorously oppose those elements of it that do so, particularly the removal of the right of homeless families to secure and permanent accommodation.
  7.58 pm
  Sir Anthony Durant: I welcome the Bill as a further step forward in our housing policy. It deals with tenants, landlords and leaseholders. I listened carefully to the extraordinary speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). There are several implications to be drawn from what he said. He implied that the Labour party would bail out people with negative equity, raise mortgage tax relief, lower rents for council tenants—thereby increasing costs for council tax payers—and build council houses, thereby stopping grants to housing associations.
  Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.
  Sir Anthony Durant: That was what was implied by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.
  Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Anthony Durant: I shall not give way. I have said what I have to say on that, and I feel that there was such an implication.
  I welcome several of the proposals, because they have been raised by my constituents over the years. First, there is the right to buy from charities and housing associations. That has been a great grievance in my area, which has a large amount of such property. People felt that the situation was unfair.
  I am delighted that the powers of the housing ombudsman will be increased. That has not been mentioned this evening, but it is an important step forward. The right to buy has been one of our great policy successes.
  There is some agreement across the Chamber on multiple occupation. We must have more safeguards and standards. There is a lot of multiple-occupation property in Reading. I do not have the same problems as hon. Members with seaside constituencies, but many people live in such properties. Registration must come and monitoring must follow it to keep decent standards for people in multiple-occupation houses.
  I am delighted that housing benefit will be tightened up. That has been a great racket and there have been cases in my constituency. We need better guidelines.
  Small landlords need more help. There was great criticism of reducing the time for non-payment of rent from 13 to eight weeks. I am in favour of that. How can

  717
  small landlords stand so long a period of non-payment before they can go to court? That is wrong. I also welcome the move to shorthold tenancies so that we can further develop the rented sector.
  I favour tightening up the homeless list. Queue jumping is a great grievance in my town. Many people come to see me who have been on the housing list for years, waiting and waiting. Every time they come near to getting a property, someone on the homeless list jumps the queue. I favour one queue—a system whereby the homeless will be put into temporary accommodation and take their turn in the housing queue. I support that strongly because it is the right way to proceed.
  I want more hostels. London's experience has been successful in developing hostels for homeless people. Many such people are not in the best condition when they come into accommodation. I do not have many homeless people in my constituency, thank heavens. There are only about 50 people sleeping on the streets in Reading, so I am fortunate. Some of them live in squalid conditions and when they come into accommodation, they need help and guidance. We need more hostels around the country.
  I am much concerned about leaseholders. I trust that amendments to the Bill will be introduced to safeguard their position. There was a leasehold property in my constituency in which all the balconies were falling down. It was dangerous and I tried to find the owner, but it was practically impossible to find who owned the block. I went round and round in circles and never found out who owned it. In the end, I think that the council did something about it and safeguarded the balconies on the flats. We have to do more about leaseholding and the ownership of leasehold properties. The present law on tenants trying to take over leaseholds is far too complicated. I look forward to when we can introduce commonhold. I hope that we shall move in that direction. I look forward to the Government introducing further amendments, as mentioned in the press, to strengthen the position on leaseholding.
  I hope that the Government will, as announced today, introduce a further Bill dealing with the Latham proposals on contracting, which are important to the construction industry. I am disappointed that this Bill does not deal with them. As chairman of the all-party group on construction, I am very keen about that. I hope that I will be reassured that a second Bill will implement aspects of the Latham report. It was a good report, which is supported by the industry in general—although not by some of the bigger companies. We need to encourage the construction industry. It has gone through a bad time from which it has still not emerged. It needs help and I was disappointed that there was not more help for it in the Budget.
  I welcome the Bill. All its aspects have come up in my constituency surgery. If we can implement it, some of those grievances will go. It is a useful and worthwhile Bill which I support strongly.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I shall be brief, but I am the only Welsh Member to speak tonight and there is an important Welsh dimension to housing policy.
  718
  The problem with housing policy, as with many other policies, is that it has been bedevilled by ideology. That has been particularly unpleasant for us in Wales because the ideology that has informed policy development has been so alien to us. It is only because enlightened people in Wales have insisted on being pragmatic that anything at all has been achieved over the past 16 years—and quite a lot has been achieved. Despite those achievements, in 1994 there were still 23,000 people homeless, according to Welsh Office statistics and according to Shelter, there were nearer 60,000.
  I shall base my remarks on the publication, "Target 2000", which has been prepared for the Welsh Federation of Housing Associations. The first point made by the document is that we need a proper description of need both for the local level and for the whole of Wales. There is no such description currently, which means that we do not have an adequate strategy. The existing strategy is one for the allocation of available resources, which is another thing altogether.
  Resources are declining. The number of dwellings provided in the social sector through Tai Cymru funding, along with private funding, has decreased from 5,274 in 1992–93 to 4,197 this year. It is projected that the number will go down to just over 3,000 in 1996–97.
  Secondly, we have something close to parity in Wales between the number of dwellings and the number of households—in fact, there is a small surplus—but we still need about 10,000 social houses per year to achieve decent housing for all by 2000.
  Thirdly, there is overwhelming evidence that the priority need in Wales—and I am sure that this is also true in England—is for affordable, rented accommodation. With owner-occupation at 72 per cent. in Wales in 1994, compared with 59 per cent. in 1979, it is clear that the trend towards owner-occupation has gone far enough—perhaps too far. According to the 1991 census, 8 per cent. of private homes in Wales were vacant or not being used as a prime residence, compared with less than 2 per cent. vacant in the social housing sector.
  Some owners are unable to sell their property and let it on a shorthold tenancy. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, but it is an indication of a surplus of owner-occupied properties.
  Some 20 per cent. of the Welsh population earn less than half average earnings, which means that they are probably ineligible for a mortgage. According to the report's author, the home ownership market in Wales is saturated. It is in those circumstances that the Welsh Office, obedient to its London masters, has set a target of 80 per cent. owner-occupancy in Wales by 2000. Such a target is clearly perverse, irresponsible, probably damaging, and ideologically driven rather than pragmatic. Policy in Wales is currently moving in the opposite direction to what is relevant. The 80 per cent. target could be achieved only at the expense of a reduction in the number of properties available for rent, unless the number of house completions is significantly increased.
  A strategy for providing the necessary additional social housing should consist of a combination of new build and a significant number of acquisitions from existing housing stock, both houses in good condition and houses for renovation. That would be good environmentally as it would discourage the development of green-field sites. It would also be appropriate in a country where, in 1993,

  719
  13.4 per cent. of occupied first homes were considered unfit, many houses dating from before 1919, which puts Wales just below central London in terms of the proportion of unfit properties there. Housing associations, along with what will now be other social housing providers, should be empowered and encouraged to make such acquisitions from existing housing stock. The funding process must recognise the higher costs of renovation, not least VAT.
  We also need a means to enable demolition and infill building where appropriate. The time comes when all buildings reach the end of their useful lives and demolition is a more cost-efficient solution than renovation. I was glad to note that Tai Cymru has recently restored housing associations' power to acquire existing property. But that power is severely restricted and housing associations, local authorities and the new local companies that will come into force need greater freedom. More emphasis must be placed on that activity.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) spoke about the need for resources for such a programme. I previously mentioned that 10,000 properties per annum were needed for the social sector in Wales, which means doubling the existing programme. Plaid Cymru has no hang-ups about the amount of public investment as a proportion of the total economy that is required for that, nor about funding such investment from general taxation if necessary, especially as that activity creates employment and reduces the benefits bill in the process. We recognise, however, that other people have problems about that approach. The Government's answer, at least in part, is to create local housing companies that can raise private finance and therefore mobilise additional resources.
  I agree with the recommendations in the Chartered Institute of Housing report, which suggest a two-pronged approach: first, a shift of emphasis in terms of public spending from the current use of the public sector borrowing requirement to a general Government financial deficit approach, distinguishing between public spending and public investment; and, secondly, the creation of non-profit-making local housing associations, wholly owned by local authorities and able to borrow against the security of the rent stream and asset values.
  The case for more public subsidy in bricks and mortar to reduce rents is now well established. Moreover, the fact that central Government only partially pay for housing benefits to council tenants means that other tenants subsidise those benefits. That is unjust and an anomaly.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mrs. Jacqui Lait.
  8.15 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this debate, especially as I was able to speak last week on a subject that was also of great interest to my constituents. All aspects of this Bill affect my constituency in some way, so I welcome the remedies that it will provide for many of the problems that I and other hon. Members find in our postbags.
  I welcome the exemption in the Bill of rural housing from the right-to-buy provision. That is not because I am not a great supporter of the right-to-buy policy but because I have had representations from almost all my
  720
  parish councils and from many people who live in villages in my constituency saying that they do not want their communities to expand. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said that housing stock that is sold should be replaced. That is easy to say, but when an area is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty, a site of special scientific interest, an environmentally sensitive area and, now, a European special protected area, it becomes extremely difficult to find the land on which to replace that housing.
  I welcome the provisions on anti-social behaviour. Several hon. Members have outlined the problems in their areas. I particularly welcome the proposal that both social and private landlords will be able to take action against those who behave anti-socially without the victims having to give evidence before the courts. I have been struck by the number of people who tell me that they dare not stand up in court for fear of being victimised further.
  I also welcome the proposals on homelessness. Although I do not wish to repeat many of the points that my hon. Friends have made, I have been struck by the number of honest, decent, respectable people who have come to my surgeries or written to me saying that they have endured difficult housing conditions for a long time and then been pipped at the post when it was their turn at the top of the housing list. A recent "Panorama" programme highlighted a 17-year-old girl who was four months pregnant, based in Hastings, and who had been given her own flat. That is a result of current policy. We should ensure that the waiting lists help those most in need, including those who have waited for a great length of time.
  As I represent a seaside constituency, I welcome the measures on houses in multiple occupation. I shall not add to the litany of complaints about those houses because I agree with all the points that have been made. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that the definition of "houses in multiple occupation" excludes self-contained flats and flats in large houses where a flying freehold has been long established?
  My hon. Friend the Minister may recall a case in my constituency where the local environmental health department was making life very difficult for residents in a mansion block with flying freehold, largely because the concept of flying freehold is not well understood. I am glad that we have been able to clarify that situation, but I would be grateful if my hon. Friend will confirm that those sorts of flats are excluded from the legislation. It reads as though they are, but I would appreciate that confirmation.
  I turn now to the issue of leaseholders. There has been much publicity about leaseholding in London blocks and on large estates. On most of those estates, the freeholders are very respectable and responsible and they are only too keen to ensure that their leaseholders get an extremely good deal. In areas such as Hastings, freeholders may once have been residents of Hastings, but that freehold has been sold on and on. In such circumstances, it is very difficult for leaseholders not only to trace the freeholder but to withstand the demands of the freeholder and the managing agent.
  Leaseholders in my constituency face two problems. The first concerns their ability to purchase their freehold. An elderly lady in my constituency wishes to buy her freehold and she made an offer in September 1994. On 5 January

  721
  1995, she informed me that she had not received an answer, despite letters from her and from her solicitors, and from me, to the managing agents, Oakleigh Property Management Ltd., and to the freeholders, Ashcorn Estates Ltd. Interestingly—or suspiciously—both of those companies share the same address of 2a Belmore Hill court, Morestead road, Owslebury near Winchester. I hope that, as a result of my comments this evening, they now take action. I believe that the Bill will make it easier for people such as my constituent to buy their freehold.
  The second problem concerns the notorious area of repairs, insurance, builders and surveyors, and residents being forced to pay inflated bills for shoddy work. I am grateful that the Bill addresses these issues too. One of the remedies for leaseholders involves the use of the leasehold valuation tribunal. Will my hon. Friend confirm whether that tribunal has any right of enforcement? If not, how is it proposed to enforce the tribunal's decisions?
  I welcome those aspects of the Bill which deal with leaseholding and I am sure that many leaseholders will agree that they are practical suggestions for resolving existing problems. I hope that they will close existing loopholes and that no more will be opened. The current situation whereby leaseholders are forced to take their cases to court definitely works to the advantage of the freeholders. I am very conscious that changes which will enable leaseholders to hold freeholders to account more cheaply will go some way to addressing that problem.
  In light of that and given the fact that my private Member's Bill, the Leasehold (Reform) Bill, is designed to reform aspects of leasehold law, I was grateful to receive the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) on the issue of commonhold. I plan to include that in my private Member's Bill, and I hope that—in tandem with the body of law that is being developed regarding leaseholding—we shall resolve the difficult and aggravating position of leaseholders and freeholders. It seems to be a particularly English and Welsh system of law and, as a Scot, I do not find it easy to understand.
  I also endorse the recommendation by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West that the Latham proposals be carried forward in the next Housing Bill. I hope that we shall move quite quickly, as much of the construction industry is very keen to support the Latham report. That should assist the construction industry in the future.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: I shall spend most of the time available to me tonight addressing that part of the Bill which deals with criminal and anti-social behaviour on housing estates. However, I cannot speak to the Housing Bill without also referring briefly to several other issues.
  I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) graphically expose the conditions at the Clarendon Court hotel, which is under the authority of Westminster city council. Taxpayers are funding that hotel and its appalling conditions through the housing benefit system—that is a modern scandal of epic proportions. Although we do not have the equivalent of a Clarendon Court hotel in Coventry, I assure hon. Members that the provision made by some private sector
  722
  landlords amounts to a disgraceful rip-off of the housing benefit system and of the taxpayer. The Government know that, but they tolerate it and allow it to continue.
  Housing cost figures mean different things in different parts of the country, but the local authority in Coventry can still provide a decent size family dwelling for less than £40 a week. However, families are forced increasingly into small, antiquated and unhealthy accommodation for which the taxpayer is paying more than £80 per week through the housing benefit system. That is a growing problem.
  When considering the dilemma of our public finances, one should look no further than the Government's mismanagement of the housing benefit and housing subsidy issue. In large part, that money is going to landlords who should not receive such support. They are ripping off the taxpayer while providing inadequate housing.
  Although other hon. Members have covered the issue adequately, I shall turn briefly to the Government's proposals on homelessness. The House is facing an adverse public reaction to the passage of bad law. That fact was graphically illustrated by the poll tax and the Child Support Agency. We are in danger of doing the same thing in this instance because dogma has overtaken common sense. The laws with regard to housing allocation for the homeless have been reviewed again and again not by Labour, but by Conservative Ministers and Conservative Governments. We are now finding that proposals which were thrown out by Conservative Ministers are being offered as law.
  I believe that this measure is born not of common sense or any attempt to introduce fairness into housing waiting lists, but of scapegoating. The Conservatives have realised that people are very angry about the length of housing waiting lists. In Coventry there are waiting lists of up to 14 years for local housing stock in some of the more desirable parts of the city. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras exposed the fact that the supply of local authority housing has fallen to the disgraceful level of only 400 new houses provided nationally.
  How have the Government responded to that situation? Instead of accepting the failure of their policies and addressing the problem, they have looked for a scapegoat. Government Members try to tell ordinary people who are on housing waiting lists—which were created by the Government's policies—that it is the fault of the homeless. They say that they shall sort out the homeless; they shall be put at the back of the queue, housed in temporary accommodation and then everything will be all right. That is another example of the Government's looking for a scapegoat instead of a solution. The legislation simply will not work.
  I now turn to anti-social behaviour. At the start of the debate, the Secretary of State said that the Government were committed to action, but did not have the support of the Labour party. He said that the Association of District Councils was opposed to the only solution—introductory tenancies.
  I have a document from the Local Authority Working Group On Anti-Social Behaviour, which lobbied Parliament last Thursday. That document is supported by the ADC and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. It endorses the Labour party's position on anti-social

  723
  behaviour, and demands—as it has demanded Government action for the past four or five years—that the Government give local authorities the power effectively to tackle criminal and anti-social behaviour on our council estates.
  The Secretary of State had the audacity to suggest that the ADC is opposed to tackling the issue. The position is quite the reverse. The document states that introductory tenancies will not work unless they are
  "accompanied by action to restrict the availability to tenants of judicial review to challenge a Local Housing Authority's decision to terminate an introductory tenancy.".
  Those are the real grounds for opposing introductory tenancies, not those that the Secretary of State attempted to put to the House.
  Criminal anti-social behaviour is a growing problem on housing estates. The issue has been raised in the House, sometimes by Conservative Members with specific problems, bt:t mostly by Labour Members demanding that local authorities be given the powers to sort out a small element on our housing estates that drives the overwhelming majority of residents to distraction.
  We are not talking just about music in the middle of the night or rowdy behaviour outside somebody's house, although that can be a massive problem. We are talking about escalating intimidation, including violence, burglary and forced entry into people's houses. The issue cannot be tackled without additional powers.
  In one case in Coventry, a tenant exercised the right to buy and bought a council house in the middle of what became a problem area. There were problems next door and the house was effectively destroyed—along with the one next door—leaving the family with massive negative equity on a property that was no longer worth a light. The wife had a nervous breakdown, and when I met him, the husband was attempting to hold down a job in London and commute back and forth, desperately trying to keep the family's finances together. That is an example of a huge problem that the Government have refused to tackle for a long time.
  It is disgraceful for the Government to suggest, as they did at the weekend, that the Labour party is not prepared to tackle crime. The record shows that the Labour party, the AMA, which has a Labour majority, and the ADC have been demanding effective action from the Government for some time. They are worried that the Bill will not lead to that effective action.
  For heaven's sake, let us have some proper scrutiny of the proposals in the Bill to make sure that they work. Let us listen to the local authorities that will have to exercise those powers. If we do not, we shall wind up with soundbite politics, the Conservative party attempting to say that it is tackling law and order, and a piece of legislation of absolutely no value.
  If Conservative Members do not make the legislation work, they will expose themselves as interested in law and order only when it affects a rich and privileged elite, and not being concerned with issues that affect the majority of law-abiding people living on housing estates in our cities throughout the length and breath of the country. If they do not take action, we shall expose them for exactly that.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. David Nicholson: I welcome the opportunity that the Bill provides to explore in detail the present housing problems and examine various alternative proposals. I agree with the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) that there should be proper scrutiny of the various proposals in the Bill, in Committee and afterwards. I say that with some comfort, because I am already serving in one Committee, so I will not be serving on the one considering the Housing Bill.
  I should like to lay down two basic principles regarding housing policy, neither of which refers to tenure. In Britain, we have been concerned to advance owner-occupation, but that has not been the case even among the middle classes in some other countries in Europe or in north America.
  The first principle is the right of all to a secure roof, although we might argue about the location, the cost and with whom it is shared. In that context, I welcome what has been achieved since 1990 by the rough sleepers initiative in substantially reducing the number of those sleeping rough in central London. I am concerned to hear from Shelter the suggestion that hostels in central London cannot always cope with the number of people seeking access. I hope that that problem will be addressed, and that the rough sleepers initiative will be continued, properly resourced and extended where necessary to other centres outside London.
  I hope that we can be more effective in going back to first causes regarding those sleeping rough, and finding out whether it was the local authorities or perhaps their families who let them down and caused their unhappy circumstances. Many of them suffer from mental difficulties or drug or alcohol problems, and other caring or public authorities should take responsibility for them.
  My second principle was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait). We must make better use of existing housing stock and areas of development, rather than constantly intruding into green-field sites. In my constituency, there has been strong resistance to the development even of private housing estates on green-field sites, and I am sure that the development of council or similar estates would also be resisted.
  We have an opportunity to do that, because, for the first time in more than a century, perhaps as a tragic consequence of the recession, we have balanced development in our economy. There is no longer the constant flow of people from the north coming south in search of work, that has continued for the past century. That has certain merit in that it gives us the opportunity to look again at our housing policy.
  In that respect, I welcome the view of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. It agreed with the view expressed in the Government White Paper that predated the Bill:
  "The Government must ensure its housing policies support sustainable development—getting the right kind of housing in the right amount in the right place and in the right way so that the environment is protected and enhanced."
  The CPRE continues that it is rather disappointed that the Bill
  "makes no reference to environmental and planning concerns and contains no measures to help integrate housing, planning and environmental policy."

  725
  Those measures are necessary; if we cannot address them in the Bill, we must do so elsewhere.
  Like many Members, I welcome certain measures in the Bill. I particularly welcome those relating to homes in multiple occupation and neighbour nuisance, although I know that the two issues are not totally interrelated. Those problems do not occur only in seaside resorts, although we have heard powerful and impressive speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) and for Hastings and Rye.
  Problems have occurred in Taunton. Rowbarton, in the northern part of Taunton, has many houses in multiple occupation. One night last autumn, there was an incident in which someone got hold of some firearms that were being illegally kept in a house, and shots were fired. The police were called, and there was much fear and concern in the neighbourhood.
  Subsequently, there was a large public meeting, which I and representatives of the police and every possible public authority attended. The feeling was strongly expressed that there should be snore rigorous control of some landlords. I noted with interest the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East and for Blackpool, North about the Bill's provisions in respect of landlords of property in multiple occupation. I hope that that issue will be examined as the Bill proceeds.
  I welcome the exclusion from the right to buy of housing association properties in certain rural villages. I hope that Ministers will carefully consider the views of the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the Rural Development Commission on the Bill's proposed safeguards, because those organisations have raised particular concerns in their letters to us.
  I have no particular brief for Shelter, which recently organised a meeting in my constituency which I, the Bishop of Taunton and the director of Shelter attended and addressed. Shelter went about things in a fairly overtly party political way—perhaps we should expect it to do so, in a pre-election year. However, I know and respect certain people in my constituency who, through the organisation South-West Housing Aid, work closely with Shelter.
  A letter from Chris Holmes, Shelter's director, states:
  "Shelter's experience, even with the existing safety net, is that many homeless families and vulnerable single people experience long stays in temporary accommodation before being offered a permanent home. The proposals in the Bill will mean that many homeless families and their children will be forced to move from one insecure temporary place to another, facing the poverty trap of high rents on restricted housing benefit. They will also add to local authority bureaucracy.
  The cost of these changes will not only be borne by homeless families. They will cost the taxpayer too."
  After the meeting in my constituency, a friend and neighbour who happens to be a Labour voter wrote to reiterate those concerns:
  "Insecurity is one of the most stressful and divisive dangers to family unity, and the proposed provision only for short-term help, followed by even shorter-term help…will result in many more broken families, with all the distress and the expensive burdens that places on society".
  726
  Another constituent wrote to point out, for example, that a number of people in professional and other posts are employed on short-term contracts, which creates an insecurity of income that relates to the problems of obtaining secure housing.
  I hope that the Committee will examine those important issues, because we need to be reassured, as we approach a general election, that there are not the problems that Shelter and others have alleged will arise.
  I have spoken on housing matters several times since I was elected, and Opposition Members will recall my concerns. However, I am aware of the danger of intrusive substantial new housing developments on green-field sites, which is why I made an important point about that matter at the beginning of my speech. At the same time, it is offensive to us to see people sleeping rough in central London.
  I hope that central Government, local authorities and voluntary organisations will be able to tackle that problem—which stems from wider issues, including the breakdown of families. The Conservative party believes in the integrity of the family, which means helping people who have suffered as a result of family breakdown and providing a housing policy and accommodation that keep families together rather than breaking them up.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. John Gunnell: First, I must declare that I have registered interests in housing, but as far as I can see, they are not affected in any way by the proposed measure.
  The Bill is a prime example of the Conservative party saying one thing and doing the opposite. It has continued to preach the virtues of owner-occupation, but the Bill, while offering the prospect of wider owner-occupation at the expense of housing associations, will create only 1,200 sales in the first year. The Bill does nothing for the 1,200 people and more whose homes are repossessed every week, who lose their status as owner-occupiers and get nothing in return.
  The Government also preach the virtues of the family, but Bishop Jim Thompson, of the Church of England's social policy committee, rightly said of the Bill's proposals for tackling homelessness:
  "We believe that these represent a step backwards for a civilised society to make and have seriously adverse effects on the lives of homeless families with children."
  Even the Bill's title is hypocritical. It cannot properly be described as a Housing Bill when it does not provide resources for additional housing or for improving the quality of existing properties. Instead, the Bill introduces measures to deprive people of housing. It will shuffle thousands of people into temporary accommodation, restrict tenant choice, restrict the activities of councils and housing associations, and add a further sorry chapter to the Government's 16 years of neglect of social housing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) pointed out that homeless legislation has survived intact since 1977, including the whole of the Thatcher era. Even Nicholas Ridley, who was hardly a liberal, concluded that it was working well. No one outside the Tory party and its various front organisations supports the Bill, except those who hope for a cash return from it. The Bill deserves to perish, and the Government should be judged by it and perish with it.

  727
  As a Member of Parliament representing a Leeds constituency who spent some years on the city council's housing committee, I can say that the Bill's effects on Leeds well illustrate my abhorrence of the measure and my condemnation of its homelessness proposals in particular. The council states:
  "households found to be homeless and with a legally defined priority need should have a reasonable priority in rehousing. However, in Leeds homeless households with a priority need are treated as part of Group A"—
  the top group—
  "of the waiting list and the Council aims to achieve a balance in allocations between homeless households on the waiting list and council tenants seeking a transfer.
  In 1994/95, 17.5 per cent. of new lettings of council homes were made to homeless households in priority need; 40 per cent. were to other households on the waiting list; 41 per cent. were to existing council tenants transferring to other council housing (including those transferring by mutual exchange) and 1.5 per cent. were let as part of the National Mobility Scheme.
  In addition"—
  to its balanced policy on the rehousing of people who are homeless—
  "the Council does not have sufficient temporary accommodation, for the homeless households it accepts as homeless over the year."
  The proposals in the Bill
  "could inevitably mean the Council having to resort"—
  for the first time—
  "to the use of Bed & Breakfast accommodation. There is also insufficient available, affordable family housing of sufficient quality in the private rented sector into which homeless households could be directly rehoused."
  Therefore, the legislation would actually make life much more difficult for the council, which already has a balanced housing policy.
  The council's views are in line with the Church of England's national housing coalition, which has conducted much research on the proposals, and published that research in October 1995. Its report said:
  "It is not true to say that homeless people are 'jumping the housing queue' and forcing other 'more deserving' people to wait longer on the Council housing waiting list".
  It continues:
  "The main factor determining the rate at which people are rehoused…is not the number of people accepted as homeless, but the supply and availability of social housing".
  The report pointed out that people are not homeless as a temporary measure but, in general, on a long-term basis. It pointed out that people are not homeless from choice. They are not responsible for being homeless. People pushed out of their homes, as the report makes clear, include those who are
  "forced to flee difficult even dangerous situations".
  Homelessness is often a problem of safety and security for families, especially families with children.
  The Government, of course, have only just released the guidance on which they are consulting local authorities. The Government should have thought twice before they published lists for councils that are already making their own sensible priorities on housing homeless people.
  In Leeds in the past financial year, although 2,318 households were accepted as homeless, a further 3,212 were found to be homeless but without a priority need for housing. The breakdown of the figures shows that more
  728
  people are housed as a priority for reasons including domestic violence, the loss of private rented housing and mental ill health, and for special reasons, perhaps because they are vulnerable young people. Anyone would agree that those categories of homeless people deserve urgent attention. Some of those categories are included in the guidance on which local authorities are being consulted by the Government.
  Why is consultation taking place at that time, when the results of that consultation will come back to the Government after the Standing Committee has considered all those issues? Is that a thoughtful way to proceed? I agree that local authorities need time to reply, but they must reply by 25 March 1996, by which time the Committee will probably have finished. Surely the timing suggests that the Government's consultation is again intended to provide a rubber stamp for what they already propose to do.
  The alternative of the private rented sector, which is suggested by the Government as a possible way forward, does not appear to be any answer. The Church of England's research shows that most landlords in the private sector want a deposit and guaranteed rent in advance, and they provide less security and, assisted by the Government, higher rent levels.
  The Bill is a package of misery for all those who are in genuine housing need. It should be thrown out.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I wish to be brief because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
  A civilised society is one that creates an environment in which there is adequate housing for its people. What is wrong with the Bill is that the Government have looked only at one type of housing for the past 17 yearsowner-occupied. Their policy and dogma have been created around that.
  Hon. Members from all parties have said today that housing should be a concern for all of us. We can all quote casework from our surgeries of the number of housing problems that come along. The core of the Bill should have been about increasing social housing provision in the rented sector. The Bill has 181 clauses and 144 pages, and the core of it is the question of waiting lists and how people figure on the waiting lists, not meeting need.
  I find it offensive that the Government, who have tried to divide society for the past 17 years in many economic areas, are now trying to divide those in housing need by saying that certain people, and they mention single-parent families, are a problem that has to be resolved. That is very offensive.
  There have been 10,000 objectors to the Bill. The Minister will have to reply to them, because they are not people with knee-jerk reactions but professionals in the housing sector, the voluntary sector and other charitable organisations.
  The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) mentioned the rough sleepers initiative. It is scandalous that, as we approach the 21st century, we have rough sleepers not just in London but in towns and cities all over the country. That is an absolute disgrace when one considers the resources that the Government have had at their disposal for the past 17 years.

  729
  The Bill is about dogma. The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration has said many times in the House that he does not think that it is appropriate for local authorities to build houses. Why not? That is a legitimate choice for tenants, if they want their local authorities to build houses.
  We have seen a move to housing associations. There are many good housing associations, especially those that have coped with special needs in society. However, housing association grants have been cut. The money that was spent by local authorities was moved to housing associations and their grants were cut. That has meant that the smaller associations have been put in jeopardy and have been unable to provide the services that people require. The housing associations are now having to compete for grant, so they have become bigger and moved away from their local areas, where they developed, and have lost local accountability.
  I believe that local authorities should be allowed to build houses because that is what people want. Local authorities, through elected members, know the needs of people in their areas.
  There is nothing in the Bill to help with the problem of negative equity and mortgage arrears. People have faced the pain of living in a house that is no longer worth what it was when they first bought it and they have got into arrears because of the economic situation. We must look at housing and plan it differently. The job for life is no longer available, and people have to change their job profile up to three times during their career. The 25-year mortgage for those who can afford to buy may not be sustainable. We must consider different housing finance.
  We are approaching the 21st century and it is time to consider the problems that we have created. For example, there are problems on large estates where the Government encouraged people to buy their homes. It is interesting to reflect on projects such as city challenge and the regeneration budget. Those who bought their houses were not able to benefit from the regeneration schemes. It was ridiculous that in many areas people were penalised for buying their homes. In some instances, the result was behavioural problems on estates.
  I am concerned that tenants' rights in the private sector have been weakened. I am concerned also about women who are the victims of domestic violence. How will they be treated under the new regime? The Bill leaves many questions unanswered. I am sure that we shall take it to pieces in Committee, clause by clause. There are 10,000 objectors and many of the organisations that represent them are not automatically friends of the Labour party, despite what Conservative Members have said. Instead, they are organisations that care about housing. We must ensure that we provide housing to meet the needs of society into the next century.
  My hon. Friends have raised many of the matters to which I wished to draw attention. I hope that there will be the opportunity to examine them in more detail. Rightly, we have had a major debate that has focused on the rights of individuals to be properly housed. A Labour Government will be the only vehicle to ensure that people get what they deserve.
  9 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to be able to speak in this important debate. The Bill is yet another example to prove that the Government still have positive policies for the future. When I asked the hon. Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) what their policies were, how many social homes they would provide and how much money they would spend, neither of them—they are Opposition party spokesmen—was able to give me a positive answer.
  The Government are making positive decisions. They have introduced a major Bill with many provisions that are designed to improve the plight of all those who want a roof over their head. During the 17 years that a Conservative Government have been in power, we have enabled and empowered people to make choices about their own lives. As a result, 78 per cent. of the population own their own home. That is a creditable achievement. Given a reasonable economic improvement in the housing market, I am sure that we shall see further increases in owner-occupation.
  We are concerned also about the private rented sector. I am delighted that there are provisions in the Bill to encourage it still further. During the currency of the Labour Government in the 1970s, they regulated out of existence 400,000 private rented sector homes. Instead, this Conservative Government wish to encourage that sector. I welcome further deregulation, which will encourage more landlords to let their houses.
  A sector that should be especially encouraged is homes over shops. There have been several initiatives to do so. In every small market town—there are many in my constituency—there are homes that could be let by the private rented sector. They are not let because of fear of Labour Government regulation. At the end of the 1960s and into the 1970s the Labour Government introduced a penal regime. A future Labour Government might return to it, so we should not become complacent. Rental income was classed as unearned income and taxed at a staggering 98 per cent. If the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) is proud of that record, what else is he proud of? That penal regime was a disgrace. That is why 400,000 houses were regulated out of the market.
  Mrs. Maddock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have less than 10 minutes now, but I shall let the hon. Lady intervene briefly. After that, I shall not give way.
  Mrs. Maddock: How many flats over shops would the hon. Gentleman like to see come into use? How much money would he like to see the Government make available for such a scheme?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: As I said, I shall not give way again because I have only a short time available to me.
  The answer to the hon. Lady's question is that not every issue can be addressed by money. There must be confidence in the private rented sector. Liberal and Labour Members are not doing much to bring that about by their speeches.
  There are many parts of the Bill that I welcome, including the formation of a housing investment trust. It will be an excellent vehicle to enable the Government to

  731
  lever in money in addition to the £18 billion a year that they are spending in the housing market. I am delighted that the private sector is playing its part. I do not know why the hon. Member for Greenwich laughs, because I thought that the Labour party would be even more pleased to provide more homes and to let the private—
  Mr. Raynsford rose—
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am not giving way, as I have only 10 minutes.
  I thought that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased that the private rented sector would be spending more and more on providing social housing. I wish that the Government would go further and allow, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), the private sector to take part in the housing investment programme grants, so that it could take some of the risk of producing social housing as well. I urge the Government to go further and faster in that respect.
  There are many other areas of the Bill that I warmly welcome. As has been said many times, we all have surgery cases involving obnoxious next-door neighbours who cannot be evicted by the council or the housing association. I warmly welcome the fact that the Government are acting in that respect. If those obnoxious neighbours are given a temporary house, I urge that if they misbehave still further, they should end up with lower and lower-quality housing. That is what they deserve.
  The Evening Standard ran a campaign on bad landlords. Nobody would support bad landlords under the leasehold system, and I warmly welcome measures in the Bill that will clarify some of the misunderstood provisions in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, particularly in relation to the scam that has been perpetrated by a small minority of leaseholders who have been creating flying freeholds. It is a disgrace that they have used loopholes to get round the provisions of the Act, although I do not particularly approve of it. I welcome the fact that the Government, through the Bill, have filled those loopholes.
  As a chartered surveyor, I warmly welcome the valuation provisions that the Bill includes in relation to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act, because they will clarify the role of the valuer and precisely how he is to value marriage value and so on. It is wrong that we have not had an ombudsman who could cover housing trusts. The fact that he will be given powers to decide difficult cases must be warmly welcomed.
  The Government are courageous to introduce the Bill. The major area of contention, as has been mentioned this evening, is that of the allocation of housing lists. For too long, it has been politically incorrect to talk about the categories of people who are entitled to be housed in local authority housing.
  I shall give the House an idea of the gift that we give people in public sector housing. Let me quote some figures that I unearthed today. A typical rent for a one-bedroom house in the Cotswold district council area today is £45 per week. I went to a leading building society to obtain a mortgage cost to cover £40,000, and found that a typical repayment mortgage over 25 years was £67 a week. If one had to buy an annuity after tax, the difference would be a staggering £18,000. So in effect every single housing association and local authority that
  732
  allows a tenant to come into a one-bedroom house, built at a cost of £40,000 of taxpayers' money, is getting a capital gift of £18,000. That is why it must be right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) said, that where there is a finite amount of public sector housing, we should encourage greater mobility in that sector. I asked the council how many tenants it encouraged last year, because of declining requirements in their older age, to move into a smaller house. I was told that the answer was six—three of whom have written to me—so we are not getting the mobility in the public sector that we deserve.
  I warmly welcome the Bill. The paucity of policies that both Opposition parties displayed this evening is a disgrace. Every single person should be reminded of that time and again until we discover how much the Opposition parties will spend on their housing policies. Will it be more than the £18 billion that we are currently spending? If so, by how much? The Opposition parties can laugh, but the people are entitled to know the answer to that question as soon as possible.
  I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I shall take a very different line from the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown).
  In his opening speech, the Secretary of State said, in connection with part II—which deals with houses in multiple occupation—that he already intended to introduce amendments to a Bill that was printed as recently as 18 January. It is incredible that the Government should wish to amend their own Bill before it has even been given a Second Reading. I accept that the Government may well be moving in the right direction, but—unlike Conservative Members—I want to see all the implications, and all the loopholes, in print before I support the legislation.
  Conservative Members should bear it in mind that numerous attempts have been made to control the appalling problems that we are discussing, although we accept that regulation is needed to deal with those problems. I say "regulation"; given that Conservative Members constantly speak of deregulation, it is surprising that they should now recognise that regulation is necessary to make such houses safe for people to live in. I stress the word "safe".
  Part V deals with the conduct of tenants, a subject that is likely to provoke considerable debate during the Bill's later stages. Hon. Members on both sides of the House want to ensure that council tenants can live in peace and quiet without being disturbed by the life styles of others, but we should not allow that to be seen as merely a council estate problem. I am told, in writing and by those who visit my advice bureau, that the problem is on the increase: it is a sign of the times, and it now affects many areas of Burnley. It may be easier to control it by means of legislation applying to council estates, but we should ensure that those living elsewhere can also live peaceful lives.
  Chapter II of part III makes "minor amendments" to the leasehold reform provisions in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. During the passage of that legislation, we repeatedly told the Government that they were not tackling the problem

  733
  properly, but I do not believe that the minor amendments contained in the Bill deal with outstanding major leasehold reform issues. The hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) mentioned commonhold; I know that that is not a matter for the Department of the Environment, but some people want the difficulties to be resolved once and for all.
  The Secretary of State referred to the consultation document on the allocation of accommodation by local authorities that was recently issued. A response is demanded by no later than Monday 25 March. It is no use our being able to discuss what the Government say in the document in Committee and on Report; we need to know what responses are forthcoming, and what the Government intend to do.
  Opposition Members have said several times that the Bill does nothing to deal with real housing problems. A monthly snapshot survey that is produced by the National Council of Building Material Producers underlines the problem. Sixty-one per cent. of respondents say that order volumes have decreased. To the question:
  "Are you working at a satisfactory level of capacity utilisation?"
  100 per cent. say no. Zero per cent. say that business confidence has increased and 39 per cent. say that it has decreased. Those are the latest figures, published in December. What an appalling reflection it is of what those people feel about the position.
  In 1979, there were 8,649 council and new town dwelling starts in the north-west; last year, there were three. What has the Tory party done on housing since it won the election in 1979? Homelessness was a big city and a London problem; the Conservative party made it a national problem. In every town, we now have homelessness.
  Like other councils, Burnley council did away with its points system and had an open waiting list. Other than for people wanting specific houses of a specific nature, there was no problem. It had a surplus of houses in 1979; it now has a waiting list and has had to go back to a points system.
  The Government do not deal with housing grants in the Bill, as they had originally planned. I believe, however, that that will be done in the other Bill that will go to the other place. The Minister knows that every council cannot apply the mandatory grant system in the way that they are supposed to because they do not have the money.
  Homelessness has been created. There are not enough houses because we are not building them. I want local authorities to be the main provider of housing to rent, but if the Government favoured housing associations and were to let them meet the need, I would accept the position. However, they are not doing that. We know that every independent body says that we need to build about 100,000 houses to rent a year, but we are not building half of that, which is appalling.
  The Churches' response to the Bill is presented by Church Action on Poverty, the Catholic Housing Aid Society and the Churches National Housing Coalition. Their view, which is reflected by Shelter and by almost every independent body, is that the Bill's proposals on homelessness are wrong. Their briefing states:
  "The Government has accused homeless people of 'queue-jumping' and maintains that the changes will be fairer to people on the waiting list. Yet this claim is refuted by housing
  734
  departments and organisations across the country. None of the local authority associations believe there is a need for change. No evidence for this 'queue jumping' has ever been produced by the Department of the Environment. The argument is further undermined by Government commissioned research showing that 74 per cent. of households accepted as homeless are already on the waiting list."
  The Bill will create more problems than it solves. It tackles the problem and tries to do away with homelessness by saying that people should go into temporary accommodation. The Government need to provide resources now to ensure that there are houses for people to rent before it is too late and they are kicked out of office.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I was the sponsor of an early-day motion on rural housing in the previous Parliament, which led to the successful policy specifically dealing with the particular problems of rural areas. The early-day motion was a precursor to the change in Government policy leading to local authorities being able to grant planning permission for low-cost homes to be tenanted by local people on low incomes, on land outside the village envelope, provided by sympathetic landowners at less than the market value for building land. I welcome the fact that the right to buy will not apply to settlements of fewer than 3,000 people, although I understand that it will be necessary now for the Government to designate individual parishes accordingly.
  In some cases, that may lead to a certain amount of disillusionment and disappointment in instances where there are communities of more than 3,000 souls, but which regard themselves as essentially rural communities. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister therefore to adopt maximum flexibility in the matter so as not to prejudice the success of a policy that has been introduced to deal with a specific problem and is working well, with a fund of good will from all sides. There is good will from the people who provide the land and from the planners and, of course, the policy has been welcomed by the beneficiaries.
  I remind the Minister that South Shropshire district council in my Ludlow constituency is one of the relatively few local authorities to have implemented large-scale voluntary transfers of council houses to housing associations. I urge my hon. Friend to study the effect that that has had upon the finances of that authority and to look sympathetically at the consequences.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: I declare an interest, which is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. I am a consultant to HACAS, the social housing consultancy.
  We are considering the Government's second Bill on housing during this Parliament. The first became the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, and it was announced shortly after the 1992 general election. The current Bill represents the Government's last realistic opportunity to legislate before the coming general election. What are we to make of their two legislative offerings in this Parliament, and how do they match Conservative party promises that were put before the electorate in 1992?

  735
  An analysis of the contents of the 1993 Act and of the Bill is an instructive and revealing exercise, especially when the contents are contrasted with the Government's promises to the electorate and placed in the context of what has been happening to housing in Britain over the past four years. They have been grim years for people in every tenure. Home owners have endured continuing problems of mortgage debt, repossession and negative equity on scales that have never before been experienced. No wonder they feel betrayed by a Government who promised to help home owners but who turned their backs on them when the going got rough.
  The Government promised to maintain mortgage tax relief but cut it twice. They have compounded insecurity in the market by cutting the income support safety net. They are led by a Prime Minister who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, claimed in January 1992 to have stopped repossessions, but who has not lifted a finger to help the 200,000 householders who have had their homes repossessed since then.
  I understand that the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), the chairman of the Conservative party, has recently launched what he calls a "hypocrisy watch". He could make no better start than by comparing the glib promises that his party and the Prime Minister made in 1992 about helping home owners with the systematic and cynical betrayal of home owners that has characterised the Government's actions over the past four years.
  In case any Conservative Member has a doubt on the subject, I remind the House that, in the week when the latest repossession figures are due to be announced—they are expected to show repossessions continuing at the appalling rate of 1,000 every week—we are considering a Bill that contains nothing for home owners in difficulty, nothing to ease their fears, nothing to help to restore confidence in the market, and nothing to reduce the tide of repossessions which, according to the Prime Minister, was supposed to have stopped four years ago.
  All that the Bill offers to home owners in difficulty is the prospect, if they have their homes repossessed, of even harsher treatment as homeless families. They are more likely to be refused help under the broader definition of intentional homelessness. Even if they are accepted by local authorities, they will be condemned to linger in temporary accommodation because the Government intend—although the Secretary of State revealed earlier that he was a little confused on the issue—to prohibit councils from rehousing homeless families directly into permanent housing. Home owners have been betrayed by the Government and the Bill compounds that betrayal.
  Leaseholders have suffered an equally raw deal over recent years. Many leaseholders in former council properties have found themselves trapped with no prospect of selling their homes, or have been confronted with huge repair bills that they simply have not the means to pay.
  Private leaseholders have every reason to feel betrayed by the Government, for the Tories promised them the chance to enfranchise their homes. Indeed, that was supposed to have been one of the main purposes of the 1993 Act. As we warned at the time, the Act was so riddled with complexities and loopholes it proved only too easy for landlords to frustrate the hopes of leaseholders. Consequently, very few leaseholders in flats have been able to buy the freehold of their homes.
  736
  The 1993 Act was of course the third attempt by the Tory Government to legislate on leasehold reform. Their previous attempts in 1985 and 1987 had equally failed to provide effective remedies for leaseholders confronted with incompetent or unprincipled freeholders or managing agents. In the course of the past year, we have seen all too many examples of that—some from supposedly reputable bodies, such as Smith's Charity, which sold the freehold of its estate over the heads of its leaseholders in breach of the 1987 Act, and got away with it because the Act contained no penalties against defaulting landlords.
  Other examples have arisen in less illustrious quarters, including a certain Harold Bebington, mentioned by name by the Secretary of State, and his accomplices Malthouse and Chevalier, who have been terrorising leaseholders all over London with unreasonable demands backed by threats of forfeiture. We should be quite clear about who is responsible for this deplorable state of affairs. Responsibility lies fairly and squarely with the Government, who promised to help leaseholders but failed them—not just once but three times.
  Nor can the Government plead ignorance. We warned them time and again when the 1993 Act was going through the House that it would not work. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) pointed out, he warned them too in the late 1980s about the failure of measures to provide proper redress for leaseholders. They ignored our warnings and they have only themselves to blame for creating this mess. Sadly, all too many leaseholders have had to pay a heavy price for the Government's stubborn incompetence.
  The reason for the Government's failure to give effective help to leaseholders is all too clear. The Tories dare not act decisively in the interests of leaseholders because they are beholden to the big landowners who have contributed large sums of money to Tory funds. The hypocrisy watch, if the right hon. Member for Peterborough is serious about it, could well find a great deal of interesting evidence on that particular issue. That is why we are sceptical of the promises emanating from the Secretary of State about the measures in the Bill that are supposed to give redress to leaseholders.
  Although the Secretary of State does not look the part, he has all the hallmarks of the second-hand car salesman, whose firm has already conned an unfortunate motorist with not one but three successive dud vehicles, none of which worked. Now he is trying to convince the unfortunate buyer that the fourth old banger that he is offering will turn out to be a top-class, high-performance vehicle. Like any such salesman, he is not giving the potential victim the opportunity to inspect the vehicle or take it for a test run. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) pointed out, the Secretary of State is promising clauses that are not in the Bill, yet it was published only 10 days ago.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hypocrisy watch could still apply to the hon. Gentleman because his party tried this line of leasehold enfranchisement in 1968, yet did nothing about it during its time in office in the 1970s, because it realised how complicated the matter was.
  Mr. Raynsford: On the contrary, the Leasehold Reform Act 1967—not 1968—was the one and only successful piece of legislation. It has helped hundreds of

  737
  thousands of leaseholders to enfranchise. It did work, it was a Labour Act, and the contrast between it and the Tory efforts of the 1980s and 1990s is very interesting.
  The Bill's proposals for leasehold reform are quite inadequate, and the Government admit as much. They acknowledge that the clauses in part III, chapter II involve only "minor amendments" to the 1993 Act. The Secretary of State is promising to introduce more clauses as the Bill progresses, but he is still refusing to countenance a right to manage for leaseholders, which would give them a powerful means of redress against rogue landlords.
  Against a background of intensifying threats of forfeiture and scandalous demands for large service charges, the Secretary of State has not even bothered to reply to the urgent request that I made of him a week ago for a short emergency Bill to provide immediate protection against forfeiture, providing cover for leaseholders throughout the period—it will be a long one--that this long, complex and controversial legislation will take to wind its way through Parliament. Why is the Secretary of State so reluctant to act decisively? Once again, it is difficult not to suspect the influence of the big landowners.
  What about more fundamental reforms, including the introduction of commonhold—supported by two Conservative Members in this debate—which was promised in the 1992 Conservative manifesto but not delivered? That is yet one more broken promise. Leaseholders, like home owners, have every reason to feel betrayed by the Government.
  Tenants in all tenures—private, council and housing association—have equally good grounds to complain about the Government's record. They have seen their rents forced up deliberately by Government policy by between two and three times the rate of inflation. When tenants and Labour Members complained, Tory Ministers repeatedly told us not to worry because, in the felicitous phrase much used by the current Secretary of State for Transport, then the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction:
  "Housing Benefit would take the strain."
  What a con that was.
  Millions of tenants were forced deeper into benefit dependency and the poverty trap and when, inevitably, the housing benefit bill went through the roof, the Department of Social Security cried, "Halt." The outcome is an appalling mess in which large sums of public money have been expended on housing benefit, with not all of it, by any means, going to people in need or to bona fide claimants, while investment in new housing has fallen—as many of my hon. Friends have emphasised in this debate—to the lowest level for 50 years.
  During the past five years, we have on average started only 35,000 new rented homes a year, compared with more than 130,000 rented homes on average each year under the previous Labour Government. Is it any wonder that we face such a crisis today? Is it any wonder that the level of homelessness is double what it was when Labour was last in power? Is it any wonder that families are consigned to long periods in bed-and-breakfast hotels, or that young, single people are sleeping and begging on our streets? They are the sad symbols of the failure of Tory housing policies during the past 17 years.
  738
  The Bill will do nothing to remove those symbols from our society. It will do nothing to stimulate a new building programme, which is so desperately required. That programme could be kick-started today if only the Government had the will, and the imagination to release local authority capital receipts. That programme would help our hard-pressed house building industry and get thousands of unemployed building workers back to work. It is a programme which everyone in the country other than the Government knows makes economic and social sense.
  Instead of decisive action to get more homes built, the Bill gives us more tinkering from the people who, in their previous housing Bill, gave us the remarkable rents-to-mortgages scheme. I am sure that Ministers would like to forget that little episode and draw a veil over it, but they cannot because it was the flagship of part II of their 1993 legislation and their main offering to tenants in the social rented sector. We warned them at the time that the rents-to-mortgages scheme was a non-starter but, as with their flawed leasehold measures in part I, the Tories stubbornly pressed ahead, insisting on the merits of their proposals.
  What has happened? As we predicted, the scheme has proved a hopeless flop. The Minister was forced to admit in a parliamentary answer last autumn that, to date, despite 13 clauses in legislation and more than £140,000 in promotional expenditure, there have been only 13 takers in the whole country. I may be doing the Government an injustice—perhaps the number of takers has increased in the past two to three months. If so, I will happily give way to the Minister to allow him to announce the number of tenants who have taken up the rents-to-mortgages scheme. He might perhaps even add a few thoughts on the cost-effectiveness of the whole exercise.
  The Bill comes from the very same stable—from the same Government who botched three previous attempts at leasehold reform and gave us the rents-to-mortgages scheme. Is it any wonder that the Government are so mistrusted?
  Tenants in the private rented sector in particular will be alarmed by the latest Tory legislative offering. Not only does part III further weaken the already very limited safeguards available for tenants seeking private rented housing, but part II lets down large numbers of tenants living in bedsits in what are known as houses in multiple occupation. Ministers are well aware of the concentration of problems in such properties—the high incidence of unfitness and serious disrepair, the squalid conditions that too many bedsit tenants have to endure and the often life-threatening hazards that are sickeningly brought to our attention time and time again when fires or defective gas appliances kill innocent people week after week, month after month, year after year. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) highlighted one particularly tragic case that occurred in that town two years ago.
  The Government know all about that dreadful toll. They issued a consultation paper a year ago that admitted the existence of problems, and they saw the evidence that was presented in response. Three quarters of the respondents told the Government what was needed, and a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House have given the Government the same message this evening. We need a national licensing scheme to ensure that there are proper standards in all such accommodation in all parts of the

  739
  country, but the Government will not listen, and they will not act. They have put their ideological hostility to regulation ahead of their responsibility for safeguarding the lives of tenants. They have tried to cover their tracks by tinkering with the existing local authority powers to register some types of multi-occupied housing, but they know that that will not be adequate. Some Tory Members have said that tonight also.
  Perhaps the most telling comment on the Bill's proposals is the contrast between the powers given to the Secretary of State to fix the maximum level of fee that can be charged for registering a property, as against the restriction preventing a local authority from registering houses containing four or fewer bedsitting rooms, even though those properties are known to be death-traps. The interests of the landlord and his freedom to let squalid property count for more with today's Tory party than the lives and well-being of tenants. There can be no more shameful example of the dereliction of duty of this discredited Government.
  While the Bill manifestly fails to meet the country's pressing housing needs—in many respects, it will make a bad situation worse—it is not entirely devoid of worthwhile measures. On the old principle of an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters eventually composing "King Lear", it would have been surprising if the Government, having spent so long on working up such a lengthy package, had not managed to hit on at least one or two sensible proposals.
  We support—indeed, we originated—the concept of local housing companies proposed in part I, although we are looking for a rather different framework to give more safeguards to tenants and to the local authority that decides to set up a company. We support—indeed, we advocated several years ago—the establishment of an independent housing ombudsman, and we shall back that proposal. We support—indeed, we have campaigned for—more effective measures to deal with anti-social behaviour. Again, we want to see proper safeguards in place to avoid the innocent being caught up.
  We must also nail the pernicious lie that implies that only tenants are guilty of such behaviour. It is sadly symptomatic of the Government's attitude that part V, which addresses this issue, is headed "Conduct of Tenants". I spell this out to the House—anti-social behaviour is unacceptable, whether it is perpetrated by tenants, owners or anyone else. It must be stopped, whoever is responsible.
  We also support the principle of voluntary purchase grant and the right to buy for housing association tenants. Once again, however, we are looking for safeguards to ensure that the benefit for those who are able to buy their homes is not at the expense of others who depend on a good supply of affordable rented housing.
  Those rays of light are sadly eclipsed by the main thrust of the Bill, which is profoundly misconceived and will do immense damage. It is hardly surprising that the Government's attack on the homeless is relegated to the end. The fact that it comes in parts VI and VII is perhaps a sign of the embarrassment that the Government should feel about these mean-spirited proposals, which have rightly been condemned by the overwhelming majority of people who have examined them.
  The 10,000 people who responded to the first consultation two years ago were almost unanimous in calling on the Government to abandon the planned
  740
  changes to the existing legislation. The housing profession, local authority associations, the housing association movement, the voluntary organisations representing and working with homeless people, and the Churches—plus all of the signatories to today's advertisement in The Times—have spoken with one voice in calling for the Government to think again. Only a Government as stubborn, stupid and out of touch as this one could still press ahead regardless. Everyone else is out of step except our little Johnny, is presumably the sad attitude that they are taking.
  What the Government are proposing in parts V and VI is wrong. If it were to be enacted, it would put the clock back to the era of "Cathy Come Home", when homeless families were all too often trapped in a destructive, downward spiral of insecurity, recurring homelessness and desperation. The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, introduced as a private Member's Bill with support from both sides of the House, except for right-wing Tories, broke that cycle. It is a sign of how far today's Tory party has lurched to the right that the Government are proposing to attack the 1977 legislation, which was reviewed by the Deputy Prime Minister, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment in the early 1980s, by the late Lord Ridley and by the Governor of Hong Kong, when they were Secretaries of State in the late 1980s. The latter said:
  "The present terms of the Act strike a reasonable balance between the interests of the genuinely homeless and others in housing need."—[Official Report, 15 November 1989; Vol. 160, c. 243.]
  Now, with no material change of circumstance in the meantime and with the numbers of homeless exactly the same as in 1989, today's Tory party proposes to scrap that framework. The Government have no justification for what they are planning, no electoral mandate and no support outside their own ranks.
  We shall vote against the Bill because those and other measures in it are wrong and damaging. We shall fight it tooth and nail through every stage of the parliamentary process. We shall do all in our power to stop the Bill in its present form reaching the statute book.
  9.40 pm
  The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) for indicating his support for a large part of the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) said in his very sane speech that the measures should be put into some form of strategic context. It might help the House if I outline that context.
  We have to face a background in which new social patterns are emerging. It does not matter whether we like it or not, it is a fact and policy must address itself to it. The multiplication of households and the changes in families are matters that we must note. There is pressure everywhere, in all advanced industrial states— [Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members cackling—their Treasury spokesman has recognised that pressure.
  There is pressure on public expenditure and pressure in all industrial societies to redefine the frontiers between a legitimate demand on public expenditure and what people

  741
  ought to assume as their own responsibilities. That is inescapable and it is the broad context in which the Bill must be seen.
  For example, we want—I want it in particular, given my responsibilities—housing to be seen much more in the context of regeneration. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, touched on that theme in what I thought were perfectly sensible remarks.
  We want diversification of tenure, for example. That is why the right to buy will enable housing association tenants to buy their existing homes and to anchor home ownership and diversity in the same neighbourhood. My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South and the House will be interested to know that more than 120 housing associations, from the very large to the very small, have already shown an interest in taking up the voluntary conditions that we will offer when the Bill becomes law.
  Mr. Turner: Is not the Minister being hypocritical? Why is there no proper provision in the Bill for housing co-operatives? Why have the Government given them such a terrible deal in the past four years? How can he stand at the Dispatch Box and say that he is interested in diversity of tenure, when he has a report before him telling him that housing co-operatives have the best added value and security of tenure that one could ask for? He has a report from Price Waterhouse telling him that. Why does he not act on it?
  Mr. Curry: For someone who has only just arrived in the Chamber, that was a marathon performance—and irrelevant to the Bill. The hon. Gentleman should have been here for longer.
  Secondly, we want to develop the idea of estate renewal for the same purpose of helping some of the worst estates. Thirdly, we want to establish housing companies to open the way for private investment in housing. That is part of the process of diversification.
  We want to achieve a better balance in the housing market. I have constantly said that I do not believe that a sort of apartheid division of the housing market between owner-occupation and social housing is satisfactory. There must be a more vigorous private rented sector. That is why there are measures in this Bill and in the Finance Bill to deliver it.
  We also need sustainable home ownership, because there are young people who want to start their lives, when they are getting established, in a property with a flexible form of tenure. That is important as part of a sustainable agenda. We want communities to be more able to sustain themselves. That is why we are going to take action against tenants who behave badly—the victims are always their neighbours who live on the estate. We must deal with houses in multiple occupation so that people have security without a mammoth amount of regulation such as the hon. Member for Greenwich promises.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Curry: I have given way once and it was a mistake that I am not going to repeat.
  Mr. Turner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish that the Minister would answer my question.
  Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Curry: We have to tackle abuses by freeholders exercised against leaseholders. That is the framework in which we are bringing the Bill forward.
  Finally, and importantly—although it is by no means the dominant part of the Bill—there is the fair allocation of resources, which brings us to the duty to the homeless. Bringing new players, expertise and resources into a sector that, until now, has depended heavily on public expenditure and must seek new sources of supply, is the strategic purpose of the Bill. It is worth setting that out.
  I realise that many hon. Members are concerned about the homelessness provisions, though, to judge by their remarks, I doubt whether many of them understand the provisions, which have to be read alongside the proposals on allocations that we issued at the end of last week for consultation. The present legal situation is that, under the House of Lords ruling on the Awua case, there is no safety net and the duty to the homeless can be discharged in as little as 28 days. It does not matter what most authorities do; that is the obligation on them.
  We intend to create a fair system of allocation while preserving the safety net so that people are treated equally. We intend to spell out the effect of the provisions in guidance, a draft of which we published for consultation last week. When a homeless family presents itself for housing, it will be placed in temporary accommodation that must be appropriate to its needs and affordable. That could be in local authority housing, housing association property or the private rented sector. If the family meets the criteria set out in the guidance—the allocations have been framed to take special account of the needs of children—it will be able to receive permanent accommodation as a priority through the housing register criteria.
  Mr. Betts: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Curry: No. That could include housing in the same local authority or housing association property used for temporary accommodation. Very few families will still in be in temporary accommodation after two years.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Curry: I shall not give way because I have important ground to cover. I am interested in one thing only: setting out a fair system of allocating housing to those in need according to their need. I am not in the business of doing down the homeless or of persecuting or rescuing fallen women or anyone else. My concern is to meet need and not to pass judgment on people's life styles. I want those with needs to know that they have a fair chance to get housing. I want to ensure that the genuinely homeless family with long-term social needs is housed and that the family struggling to make do, to make ends meet and hang on, will also have its needs recognised.
  Homelessness is not a single circumstance. Our basic allocation rules go back to the Housing Act 1935. That is when the criteria for insanitary and overcrowded housing,

  743
  and large families in unsatisfactory housing, were set down. Those are physical conditions. We must now bring that legislation up to date and recognise the new social needs that have arisen from the changes in society to which I referred earlier, and the fragmentation which many of us may not like but which policy must address. That is what our allocation criteria and consultation try to do.
  Some people become homeless because they have long-term social needs, and they will receive priority. Others become homeless because of shorter-term circumstances—perhaps economic circumstances that can be -changed. It is not reasonable that everyone who is declared homeless, irrespective of whether it is short or long-term homelessness, should necessarily enjoy a route to permanent accommodation, with all the rights that that brings, including the right to buy and, in some circumstances, virtually the right of succession. That is at the heart of our argument on homelessness.
  Our guidance recognises the needs of people with temporary or insecure tenure, families with dependent children or expecting a child, households with a special need for settled accommodation, and households with limited opportunities to secure accommodation. The Bill is about need, not morality; it is about fairness, not discrimination; and it is about openness in allocation, not fixing.
  I respect the local government history of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) and the sincerity that he brings to this debate. He asked me a specific question to which I shall reply. The Government oppose one local authority being able to transfer to a second authority its homelessness duty to rehouse after 12 months. We shall consult local authorities on how long it is reasonable to maintain that responsibility and the housing benefit charge with the placing authority.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) was wrong to say that there would be exclusions from advice. It is a complicated measure in the Bill, so I shall write and give her chapter and verse to sustain the statement that I have just made.
  As one or two hon. Members mentioned it towards the end of their speeches, it might be sensible if I discuss the rough sleepers initiative. It has been a successful programme. We have built new accommodation units and many people who are taken off the streets by the outreach agencies are then placed in permanent accommodation. Anyone who considers this matter for more than a second, however, will realise that it is wrong to say that people's problems, no matter what they are, can be solved by giving them a roof over their heads. We know that we face increasing problems of drink, drugs, mental illness and ordinary illness and we must find the means to help those people in a much more specialist way. That is why we are moving towards a new phase of the rough sleepers initiative. We have collected the replies to the consultation document and are studying them now. They follow the broad lines of the Government's ideas and I hope shortly to lay down the route that we intend to take to advance that important initiative.
  Many hon. Members mentioned the housing association right to buy. Let me make it clear what we are doing. Rural areas will be exempt for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave. Housing associations can opt in, in respect of their existing housing, but can withhold property built with charitable
  744
  donations, property whose sale price will not meet the debt on the property, and a wide range of special needs housing. We have designed the measure as a practical response and it is fair to say that it has been welcomed by the National Federation of Housing Associations, and more than 120 housing associations have already shown an interest in taking it up. The hon. Member for Greenwich said that he supported the broad principle of the measure. We want to anchor different sorts of tenure in the local community so that we do not have ghettos of home ownership, social housing or any other sort of housing. We want to create communities that work because that is the essence of regeneration.
  I recognise the urgency with which some of my hon. Friends want action on houses in multiple occupation. The work of my hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) and for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) in mobilising opinion on that matter has been important. My hon. Friends with south coast constituencies have also experienced difficulties. I accept that the problems are considerable and that they must be addressed. The provision of hostel accommodation must be placed alongside the needs of the local community and the requirement to maintain a mixed community. There is no point having benefit hostels if the jobs that are sought migrate because of the damage done to the reputation of the towns by the establishment of the hostels.
  Local authorities must have clear and enforceable rules on safety. They must be able to say "enough is enough" when it comes to approving new establishments and closing those which are not managed effectively and responsibly. It is stated on the face of the Bill that the registration and control scheme can be refused if the owner is not a fit person to manage the establishment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) mentioned the issue of self-contained flats. They are within the scope of the definition of houses in multiple occupation and they are excluded from the scope of the registration schemes.
  Our measures on anti-social behaviour received an equally warm welcome. I recognise that nobody will formulate a perfect solution to that problem, but we have a duty to assist local authorities when they are determined to tackle it. I think that that determination is shared by most hon. Members. I am sure that we have all had the experience of visiting local housing estates and speaking with tenant groups, perhaps in the local church hall or at the local library. They tell us how a handful of people, and perhaps their children, have made life a misery and how they intimidate witnesses. It is very difficult to get prosecutions and there is a downward cycle of intimidation and fear on the estates.
  We do not have a perfect answer any more than the hon. Member for Greenwich does, but I promise that we shall seek to collaborate in Committee to find measures that will address that problem. It is an urgent issue which is related to quality of life and to making communities work effectively. We are determined to deal with the intimidation and fear which many people—particularly the elderly—in those circumstances face.
  I am grateful for the support shown for the measures dealing with leaseholders. Housing for private sector development is not in the Bill because we had to make room for the leaseholders issue, which is an extremely urgent matter. The Bill already contained more than 180

  745
  clauses and, while I may have a number of unrealistic ambitions, the ambition to be in charge of the largest Bill ever to be introduced in this place is one that I can forgo without any great sense of self-sacrifice. A second housing Bill, which will contain the Latham proposals, will be introduced in the other place. We shall deal with the leasehold measures; it is an urgent matter and we are committed to bringing proposals forward.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned her commitment to phase out mortgage interest relief coupled with mortgage benefit. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, she has no doubt read her party's submission to its Whips Office. Under the heading "Lib-Dem Weaknesses" it states:
  "our intention to phase out MIRAS will cripple mortgage payers and exacerbate negative equity…
  our policy on helping home owners suffering from negative equity is expensive and ill-thought out".
  If the hon. Lady had read the document produced by someone who is described as "Political Warfare Officer", no doubt she would have been better informed for the debate.
  As for the Labour party, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) may have inadvertently picked up the speech that he intends to deliver on Wednesday in the revenue support grant debate. If I know him, I suspect that parts of his speech today will be largely interchangeable with that speech. However, the Labour party has not said what it intends to do. We know that old Labour wants to build council houses. Labour Members say continually that we must build more council houses, but they will not say how they would pay for them.
  Labour Members recite the magic incantation, "We will release capital receipts"; that is the magic abracadabra of the Labour party's policy. However, Labour Members will not say how many or over what period. They will not reveal their mechanism for redistribution due to the inconvenient fact that the receipts are not where they are needed. In other words, all we have is a slogan which is devoid of any substance. As my right hon. Friend said, we have been promised a blinding revelation in that area for months, but it has not come.
  I think that Labour is acting out a charade. Is it opposed to the creation of housing companies in the private sector? The answer is no. Is it opposed, in principle, to the housing association right to buy? The answer is no. Is it at odds with us over helping local authorities deal with anti-social behaviour? The answer is no. Is it disputing the need to develop the private rented sector to provide real choice in housing? Again, the answer is no. Is it contesting the need to help leaseholders who suffer exploitation by bad landlords? No. It is a matter of degree, not direction. Is it against the need to improve the quality of regulating HMOs? No. It is a question of degree. Even on homelessness, I suspect that Labour agrees that we need a single route towards housing.
  It is all hypocrisy and humbug. The Opposition have no housing policy. It is constantly promised and never delivered. We have a surrogate opposition to our measure. They have no measures of their own and I commend ours to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 259.

  Division No. 37]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Dicks, Terry

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Dover, Den

  Alexander, Richard

  Duncan, Alan

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Dunn, Bob

  Amess, David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dykes, Hugh

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Eletson, Harold

  Ashby, David

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Baldry, Tony

  Evennett, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Faber, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bellingham, Henry

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forman, Nigel

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Eric

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Booth, Hartley

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Boswell, Tim

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  French, Douglas

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gale, Roger

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bowls, John

  Garel-Jones, R Hon Tristan

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Garnier, Edward

  Brazier, Julian

  Gill, Christopher

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Butcher, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Butler, Peter

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald (Epson and Ewell)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Cash, William

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hannarn, Sir John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Harris, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  aarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hayes, Jerry

  Colvin, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Congdon, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Conway, Derek

  Hendry, Charles

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hicks, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Couchman, James

  Horam, John

  Cran, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Day, Stephen

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  747

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Richards, Rod

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Riddick, Graham

  Jessel, Toby

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jones, Gwilyrn (Cardiff N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Key, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Scott Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

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

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sims, Roger

  Legg, Barry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Lord, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sproat, Iain

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Steen, Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stem, Michael

  Madel, Sir David

  Streeter, Gary

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sumberg, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mans, Keith

  Sykes, John

  Mariand, Paul

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Thomason, Roy

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mills, lain

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Tracey, Richard

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Tredinnick, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trend, Michael

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waller, Gary

  Norris, Steve

  Ward, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Wadle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waterson, Nigel

  Ottaway, Richard

  Watts, John

  Page, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Paice, James

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Patrick, Sir Irvine

  Whitney, Ray

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Whittingdale, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Pawsey, James

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wilkinson, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Willetts, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wilshire, David

  748

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Yeo, Tim

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Ainger, Nick

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Allen, Graham

  Redd, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fisher, Mark

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Flynn, Paul

  Ashton, Joe

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Austin-Walker, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Foulkes, George

  Barnes, Harry

  Galloway, George

  Battle, John

  Gapes, Mike

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Garrett, John

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  George, Bruce

  Bell, Stuart

  Gerrard, Neil

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godsiff, Roger

  Berry, Roger

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Betts, Clive

  Gordon, Mildred

  Blunkett, David

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Boateng, Paul

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bradley, Keith

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gunnell, John

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

  Hain, Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hall, Mike

  Burden, Richard

  Hanson, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Hardy, Peter

  Callaghan, Jim

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Heppell, John

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cann, Jarnie

  Hodge, Margaret

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hoey, Kate

  Chidgey, David

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Horne Robertson, John

  Church, Judith

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clapham, Michael

  Howarth, Alan (Strarrd-on-A)

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hutton, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Illsley, Eric

  Cox, Tom

  Ingram, Adam

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Janner, Greville

  Dafis, Cynog

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham Ctral)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

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

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Denham, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dewar, Donald

  Keen, Alan

  Dixon, Don

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Dobson, Frank

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

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dowd, Jim

  Kffoyle, Peter

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Litherland, Robert

  Eastham, Ken

  Livingstone, Ken

  Etherington, Bill

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  749

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Reid, Dr John

  McAllion, John

  Rendel, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  McCartney, Ian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rogers, Allan

  McLeish, Henry

  Rooker, Jeff

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rowlands, Ted

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ruddock, Joan

  MacShane, Denis

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Madden, Max

  Sheerman, Barry

  Maddock, Diana

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mahon, Alice

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mandelson, Peter

  Short, Clare

  Marek, Dr John

  Simpson, Alan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

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

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Maxton, John

  Snape, Peter

  Meacher, Michael

  Soley, Clive

  Meale, Alan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michael, Alun

  Spellar, John

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Milbum, Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stott, Roger

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Straw, Jack

  Morley, Elliot

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wynshawe)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Timms, Stephen

  Mudie, George

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mullin, Chris

  Touhig, Don

  Murphy, Paul

  Turner, Dennis

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tyler, Paul

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Walley, Joan

  O'Hara, Edward Olner, Bill

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wareing, Robert N

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Welsh, Andrew

  Pearson, Ian

  VVigley, Dafydd

  Pendry, Tom

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SWn W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Pike, Peter

  Wilson, Brian

  L Pope, Greg

  Winnick, David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wise, Audrey

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Worthington, Tony

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Purchase, Ken

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Ms Janet Anderson and

  Radice, Giles

  Mr. Joe Benton.

  Randall, Stuart

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  HOUSING BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session resulting from the Housing Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (i) any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the Act, and

  (ii) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment;

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of the National Loans Fund under any other enactment; and

  (c) the payment into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund of any sums received under or by virtue of the Act—[Mr. Streeter.]

  Question agreed to.

  COMPANIES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft Companies Act 1985 (Miscellaneous Accounting Amendments) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 16th January, be approved—[Mr. Streeter.]
  Question agreed to.

  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94H(1) (Scottish Grand Committee (Sittings)),
  That—

  (1) in respect of the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in the Highland Regional Council Buildings, Inverness, on Monday 5th February, the Order of the House [11th December] shall have effect with the substitution of the words 'half-past Eleven o'clock' for the words 'half-past Ten o'clock' and the Chairman shall interrupt the proceedings at Two o'clock, and—

  (2) the Chairman shall interrupt the proceedings at One o'clock at the subsequent meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee specified in paragraphs 4 to 12 of the said Order.—[Mr. Streeter.]

  Question agreed to.

  Roundgrant Ltd.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Streeter.]
  10.16 pm
  Mr. William Powell: One of the features of social life of which one can feel most proud is the amount of money that is given by our fellow citizens to charity. There is an extraordinarily wide range of charities and large sums are raised by a variety of purposes. Nothing that I wish to say is designed to get round the fact that it is my belief that 99.9 per cent. of our charities are magnificent institutions and deserve the general support of our fellow countrymen. There are, however, a few that amount to nothing more and nothing less than a criminal scam.
  Nearly all our charities are of credit and renown. Their work deserves our attention and support. Whether at home or abroad their activities are an essential part of civilised life. This evening, however, I shall raise the issue of bogus charities and a criminal scam that demean all outstanding charitable institutions and whose activities insult the public. Let the message go forth from the House that we must all be vigilant against fraudsters, tricksters and criminals who pretend that they are raising money for charity.
  In September 1993, Roundgrant Ltd. of 285 Welland road, Peterborough, the directors being Mr. Ian Irwin of that address and Mr. Terence Wyre of 64 Lavender crescent, Dogsthorpe, Peterborough, was incorporated. At the same time the Roundgrant Society was established from the same address. Some promotional literature was prepared, in which it was claimed that the Roundgrant Society would cover East Anglia, the midlands, Lincolnshire, London, Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Essex, Surrey, Leicestershire, Cambridgeshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. It was then claimed that
  "at the moment we are planning to expand down to the south coast."
  Roundgrant Ltd. also prepared a pamphlet, which was given to those who responded to the buckets that were held out for street collection, and £1 would provide the donor with a copy. On page three of the edition that I have—this is issue No. 5, and there have been a number of editions—it thanks the public for supporting Roundgrant Ltd., which, it says
  "is a non profit making company. Formed within Government guidelines to raise funds for the Roundgrant Society."
  If I may pause for a moment, the Government guidelines referred to are a mystery to me, and I think that they would be a mystery to anybody reading this document, which continues:
  "Our aim is to help as many people as we can regain the independence which is rightly theirs…Of course as every fund raising company Roundgrant Ltd. has its expenses, from time to time its directors will be paid remuneration which will be calculated on the basis of what in the directors opinion is reasonable, taking into account the time spent by the directors in managing Roundgrant's affairs, and the level of the funds Roundgrant is successful in raising.
  We are not like so many so called fund-raising companies who give as little as possible to their said cause. All the net profits of Roundgrant Ltd. will go to the Roundgrant Society to enable them to do as much as possible."
  The rest of the document contains a recipe for chicken and ham loaf and for raspberry and banana trifle; a number of advertisements, including advertisements for
  752
  medical supplies; a couple of crosswords; a page entitled "humour and laughter" and other matters. The really important part of what it had to say was that it was not like so many so-called fund-raising companies.
  Roundgrant Ltd. was formed in 1993 as a limited company. Unfortunately, almost no documents have been lodged in Companies House about its activities, but there is in Companies House a set of accounts that were prepared for Roundgrant Ltd. up to 31 August 1994. They show that a gross income of some £43,748.38 was raised in a period up to that date. Roundgrant Ltd. continued long after 31 August 1994 and no subsequent accounts have been lodged. The breakdown shows that directors' fees and pensions amounted to some £10,620, and that commissions payable—I surmise mostly to the directors and their nearest and dearest and those whom they could control—amounted to some £14,859.48.
  There are a number of other mysterious items in the breakdown, all of which suggest that the amount that was taken by the directors in one form or another by way of fees, pensions, commissions or whatever was an astonishing proportion of the total. Indeed, at the bottom of the accounts, Roundgrant Ltd. claims that the amount that was transferred to the Roundgrant Society, which, of course, would be using the money for the purposes of providing equipment for the disabled, was only some £2,000. About £43,000 was raised, but only £2,000 apparently was distributed. The essence of the fund raising was the holding out of a bucket so that people could put in £1 coins. There is absolutely no guarantee that those coins were not transferred into the pockets of those who were collecting or the pockets of the directors behind them, without appearing in the accounts at all.
  There are those who have considered the matter closely and have assisted me in the preparation of my evidence tonight who believe that the true sum that was raised by and on behalf of Roundgrant Ltd. over 18 months—a wider period than that covered by the accounts to which I have referred—was not less than £100,000, and I have heard it suggested by responsible people in Northamptonshire that the sum raised might be substantially in excess of £100,000. We know that the only claim that it makes for what was transferred to the Roundgrant Society, the body that had the power to make sums available for equipment for the disabled, was only about £2,000. It is well within the realms of everyone's imagination that the sums in the accounts could have been understated, but it would be impossible to imagine that the amount passed on to the Roundgrant Society has been overstated. If it had wanted to, it could have entered a much larger sum without anyone being able to check up.
  We know that the Roundgrant Society and those acting on behalf of it operated in a number of counties: Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk. It is likely that they also operated in a number of other areas, and that that occurred over 18 months. It came to my attention last autumn that people acting on behalf of Roundgrant had made a number of visits to Oundle, near Peterborough—in my constituency—in July and August, and had held out collecting buckets. It is beyond doubt that all those who put money into the buckets thought that they were giving to charity. They received, if they wanted it, a copy of the pamphlet to which I have referred. Of course, almost none of the money went to charity.

  753
  A number of my constituents were approached during that period. I have copies of witness statements from them, prepared by and on behalf of Oundle town council and for the environmental health office of East Northampton district council, which suggest that constituents of mine—some of whom I know personally—were approached and gave money in the belief that it would go to charity, although it did not. That happened on a continuing basis, and we know that similar collections were made on a continuing basis in Kings Lynn, Breckland, south Holland, east Cambridgeshire, Peterborough, south Kesteven, Cambridge, Nottinghamshire, Boston and Hemel Hempstead. It is not surprising, therefore, that substantial sums were raised.
  I contend that that was a criminal scam, and that the directors and those running Roundgrant knew exactly what they were doing. They realised that it was a good wheeze that would enable them to hoodwink the public and persuade people to give money, ostensibly to charity. My constituents were told that the money would be used to help the disabled, specifically those in Oundle, and that it would be allocated with the assistance of the social services department. Needless to say, the Northamptonshire social services department did not know about this; nor did local doctors, whose advice would allegedly be used by Roundgrant in the distribution of the money.
  By early autumn last year, it was obvious that something serious was going on. As a result, on 3 November 1995, the Northamptonshire police, East Northampton district council and Oundle town council issued a news release, stating that they were
  "investigating and warning the public about the operation of an organisation which has been selling brochures on the streets of Oundle at £1 a copy."
  The news release went on:
  "The organisation is based outside the county and operates in a similar manner in other areas of Northamptonshire and a number of other counties.
  Sales of the brochure are promoted on the grounds that funds are being raised for the disabled and the brochure claims the organisation to be charitable.
  Members of the public making donations are misled by the cover of the brochure and by the sales pitch of the collectors into believing they are giving money to a charitable organisation for the disabled. However, this is not supported by the contents of the brochure or by the facts which are now becoming evident.
  Not only are the public being misled, but it is feared the operation of the organisation could well have a detrimental effect on the fund-raising activities of bona fide groups who are raising money for charity.
  Members of the public are advised to be on their guard against this type of deception and when making any donation should question what proportion of the money is going to the stated good cause."
  It is important to underline that money that the public thought they were giving to charity, but that was not going to charitable organisations, was being denied to other bona fide charities that deserved the public's support.
  By September, it was clear that, in all probability, a number of breaches of the Companies Act 1989 had been committed because the necessary documentation required for a limited company had not been lodged at Companies House. One of the things that I ask of my hon. Friend the
  754
  Minister is that he draws those possible breaches of the law to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  It is likely that the people who were raising money were in breach of social security law. In particular, employment records by Roundgrant are hard to find. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for Social Security possible breaches of the law in relation to employment records and social security that may have occurred. Because of all that, a working group was formed from the various local authorities and from police from a number of counties. The Charity Commission was involved and a number of meetings of that group were held in Oundle, the most important of which was on 6 November. The minutes of that meeting state that Mr. Larkin of the Charity Commission advised the group that
  "when operations such as Roundgrant were constituted they formed two distinct and autonomous organisations, in this case, Roundgrant Ltd. and Roundgrant Society. The purpose of Roundgrant Limited was to raise funds specifically for the Roundgrant Society, and under the Charities Acts of 1992 and 1993 it was necessary for a legal agreement to exist determining the financial arrangement between the limited company and the society. It was the view of the Charity Commissioners that the legislation which determined the terms of agreement was in the case of Roundgrant not being met. Legal advisers to the Charity Commission had therefore concluded that Roundgrant were trading illegally. Mr. Larkin advised that the Charity Commissioners would be issuing an order restricting the transactions and payments of the Roundgrant Society accounts on the 7 November 1995 which would effectively in law, stop Roundgrant trading … should Roundgrant continue to trade once the order had been issued the Charity Commission would have the power to treat this action as contempt of a High Court order."
  Those orders were issued to Mr. Irwin, one of the directors to whom I have referred, at 285 Welland road, to Mrs. O'Brien, also of that address, to Mr. Dennis Tomlin of Moorview, Bondleigh, North Tawton in Devon, and to Mr. Horace Gilson of 3 Aboyne avenue, Orton Waterville in Peterborough.
  I note the interest of Mr. Tomlin in Devon. I contend—and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of this important point—that, in relation to charitable collections, breaches of the Theft Act 1968 by organised criminals are taking place across the country, and that they are not confined purely to Roundgrant Ltd. and to activities in the eastern counties. I merely use Roundgrant, whose activities I now believe have ceased as a result of the interest that I and others have shown in its activities, as an example. I believe them to be illustrative of what is taking place much more widely throughout the country. It may be that in Devon, as well as in the eastern counties, serious breaches have been taking place.
  The statutory notices forbidding any further activity by Roundgrant Ltd. and the Roundgrant Society were issued, and the meeting on 6 November was advised that any breach of them would be a breach of a High Court order. I have evidence that further breaches occurred in November in south Lincolnshire and Ely. The Charity Commission was advised by the relevant local authorities that Roundgrant had made further collections in breach of the statutory notices.
  In view of what happened, the Charity Commission should have acted at once to take this matter to the High Court. It did not, and continued to investigate the matter. I deplore the fact that it did not take instant action, and I hope that in future, as soon as evidence from reputable

  755
  sources becomes available—and the evidence in this case was from East Cambridgeshire district council and the South Holland district council—action will be taken. In this instance action should have been taken in the High Court against those who were in breach of the statutory notices.
  As soon as I became aware of these events in different counties, 1 approached the Director of Public Prosecutions and suggested that some kind of co-ordinating activity should take place involving the police, because it was apparent to me that whatever the breaches of legislation in relation to street collections, there was in all likelihood a serious breach of the Theft Act 1968, section 15 of which provides that obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception is a serious criminal offence. In this case the pecuniary advantage consists of the £1 coins being dropped into the buckets, and the deception is that those who dropped them in were led to believe that they were giving money to charity when they were not. Not only would there be breaches of section 15 of the 1968 Act but there would be possible charges of conspiracy.
  Alas, the Director of Public Prosecutions, as is her wont—and I have found this on other occasions—was not at all helpful, unlike her predecessor who would certainly have ordered a police inquiry and a report to him of what happened. I drew the correspondence to the attention of the various chief constables. The chief constables of Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire responded, but it is a matter of some regret to me that the chief constables of Cambridgeshire and Nottinghamshire did not. I hope that the Minister will draw these matters to their attention.
  In this case there is ample evidence of serious breaches of the criminal law, and it is likely that the people behind those breaches are serious professional criminals who deserve a long time in the stammer. Certainly, most of my constituents hope that they go there as soon as possible in view of what is abundantly plain. I hope that the Minister will draw not only my remarks but the whole background of the case to the attention of the various Government Departments and chief constables to ensure that wherever this kind of danger exists in future action is taken to prevent substantial sums being raised for purposes quite different from those that the donors intended.
  10.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) on raising this matter. I certainly confirm that I take it extremely seriously, and that his words will be drawn to the attention of the various agencies he mentioned.
  As my hon. Friend said, charities have a very special place in our national life. They probably raise some £14 billion a year, and that shows a great deal of generosity. Overall, the voluntary sector thrives, and it depends on trust and good will, and on action that is motivated by generosity to others. When things go wrong, and particularly when it appears that the public's generosity is being exploited, it is a matter for considerable concern.
  Through its support and investigative division, the Charity Commission aims to identify those areas of concern and take action. In many cases, that means helping those concerned to rectify errors, but the commission also has powers to investigate abuse of
  756
  charity funds and to protect those funds when they appear to be at risk. I shall give a résumé of what is known to me about the case that my hon. Friend has raised.
  I understand that there are two parties: Roundgrant Ltd., a commercial company, as my hon. Friend has described, which was selling magazines with a representation that some parts of the proceeds would benefit a charity, the second party, the Roundgrant Society. The Charity Commission has taken a very close interest in the matter, together with the relevant local authorities and the police.
  Having written to the charity inquiring about the amount of money reaching it from the sale of magazines and having not received a satisfactory reply, the Charity Commission took action early in November. It served on the charity trustees an order prohibiting them from entering into transactions on behalf of the charity, from raising any funds for the charity, and from making payments in the administration of the charity. The order was copied to the charity's bank, effectively freezing the charity's fund.
  As I understand it, only some £3,500 out of the declared £43,700 sales by the company reached the charity. While each case must be treated on its merits—such margins may be appropriate in cases where the public are buying an item that represents fair value—I understand that in this case a very insubstantial publication, which my hon. Friend has already described, was being sold, representing almost no value for the £1 purchase price.
  In those circumstances, I certainly share my hon. Friend's view that the venture may indeed be nothing more than one for private gain falsely masquerading as a charitable venture. If that is indeed the case, I share my hon. Friend's view of what those involved have been up to, and I am horrified to hear that the fraud has been perpetrated on the public.
  As well as writing to the charity, the Charity Commission wrote to Roundgrant Ltd. drawing its attention to the new requirements of the Charities Act 1992, pointing out that, before selling magazines with a representation that part of the purchase price will benefit a particular charity, it must have a written agreement satisfying conditions prescribed in the Charitable Institutions (Fund-Raising) Regulations. The commission pointed out that the company's existing agreement did not meet those requirements, and that the company would be unable to obtain a new agreement, because the Charity Commission's order prevented the trustees of the Roundgrant Society from entering into any agreement.
  Since then, the commission has become aware that the company appears to be selling an amended version of the magazine, collecting for general charitable purposes. Given what went before, that new activity obviously raised further alarm. The commission therefore wrote to the company seeking details of the new arrangements. Not having received a reply, the Charity Commission invoked its powers under the Charities Act 1993 late last week, and issued a direction to Roundgrant Ltd. demanding details of its finances.
  Further steps depend on what action the company takes and what information is forthcoming, but the commission has extensive powers. Should the company be unwise enough to ignore the direction that it has just received, the Charity Commission can issue a further order, and, if necessary, seek its enforcement through the High Court,

  757
  where possible sanctions include imprisonment. The commission is also maintaining its liaison with the police and local authorities.
  We await developments with interest. My hon. Friend may, however, be interested to hear that the company's initial response has been to telephone the Charity Commission to inform the commissioners that it intends to close down its operation. Even if that is indeed so, the Charity Commission will have a continuing interest in the distribution of charitable funds that the company has raised.
  I can reassure my hon. Friend that all concerned will be looking carefully at the case and the implications stemming from it. The new investigative powers of the commission and the new controls on professional and commercial involvement in charitable fund-raising have made an important contribution, and have enabled the commission to take a more proactive role.
  I know from what my hon. Friend has said that he is critical of the degree of enforcement in this case, andperhaps—of the powers and safeguards available. As to the law relating to charities, however, I hope that he will appreciate the difficulty of framing legislation which gives the greatest possible obstruction to bogus fund-raising, but which helps bona fide charities to raise
  758
  the funds they need with the minimum of inconvenience and expense. We will, of course, keep this difficult balance under review.
  Co-operation among the various agencies involved is essential, as such cases can involve several interests, and can require co-ordinated action to be taken. To strengthen such co-operation, it is our intention to issue a circular to the police, local authorities and others, summarising the new charities, legislation, drawing to the attention of all those agencies the role of the Charity Commission and encouraging practical co-operation where that can be of use. These steps also emphasise the importance of vigilance and continued choice by the public.
  Clearly, the message that must go out is that people should be willing to give to genuine causes but be wary of propositions that seem doubtful. If one is in doubt, one should ask the collector or seller for more information or decline to give. If it is thought appropriate, one should refer the matter to the police, the Charity Commission or the local authority.
  My hon. Friend will agree that the case that he has brought to the House's attention is in the minority, but it is important that we have and exercise powers to investigate, and that we act as quickly as possible.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Aerial Advertising
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations his Department held with representatives of astronomical groups in the process of drawing up the Civil Aviation (Aerial Advertising) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 2943). [10367]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if an environmental impact assessment in accordance with European Union procedures of the implications of the Civil Aviation (Aerial Advertising) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 2943) was carried out. [10363]

  Mr. Norris
  No. Environmental impact assessments are required only for certain development projects. They are not appropriate for policy changes regarding advertising.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make it his policy to exempt national parks from the Civil Aviation (Aerial Advertising) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 2943); [10364]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to exempt areas of outstanding natural beauty from the Civil Aviation (Aerial Advertising) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 2943). [10366]

  Mr. Norris
  No.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers are available to local authorities to control aerial advertising in their areas. [10365]

  Mr. Norris
  Under the provisions in class A to schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992, a person may display an advertisement on the side of a tethered balloon, subject to certain restrictions, on any site for a maximum of 10 days in any year. Any display which exceeds this period requires the express consent of the local planning authority under those regulations. However, this form of advertising is prohibited in national parks, the Broads, areas of outstanding natural beauty, conservation areas or areas of special control of advertisements.

  Advertisements on vehicles, including aircraft and airships, which are normally used as moving vehicles, are permitted under the regulations.

  Royal Train
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles the royal train travelled in 1994–95 on official business; and how often the royal train was used by those other than members of the royal family. [11570]
  484
  Mr. Watts
  Between 1 April 1994 and 31 March 1995, the royal train travelled 14,246 miles to enable members of the royal family to carry out official engagements. The train was not used by anyone other than members of the royal family during this period.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 22 January 1996,Official Report, column 34, which members of the royal family other than Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales used the royal train in 1995. [12085]

  Mr. Watts
  The Duke of Edinburgh, the Princess Royal and the Duchess of Kent.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the royal train is used by members of the royal family for travel unconnected with official duties. [12015]

  Mr. Watts
  The royal train is used by members of the royal family for travel only in connection with their public duties.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 22 January 1996,Official Report, column 34, if he will list the starting point and destination of each of the journeys in the royal train undertaken by (a) Her Majesty the Queen, (b) HRH the Prince of Wales and (c) the other members of the royal family. [12011]

  Mr. Watts
  The information requested is as follows:

  Her Majesty the Queen

  Start point

  Destination

  Paddington

  Cheltenham Spa

  Slough

  Southampton Eastern Docks and return

  Slough

  Coventry

  Paddington

  Exeter St. David's

  Euston

  Crewe

  Windsor and Eton Riverside

  Tattenham Corner

  Euston

  Stockton

  Euston

  Stoke on Trent

  His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales

  Start Point

  Destination

  Paddington

  Worcester Shrub Hill

  Paddington

  Tiverton Parkway

  Euston

  Glasgow Queen Street

  Perth

  Euston

  Euston

  Aberdeen

  Kemble

  St. Bees

  Gatwick Airport

  Victoria

  Kemble

  Hull

  Cambridge

  Lairg

  Aberdeen

  Euston

  Euston

  Perth

  Paddington

  Newport

  Kemble

  Penzance

  Euston

  Runcorn

  Other members of the Royal Family

  Start point

  Destination

  Euston

  Leeds

  Euston

  St. Helen's Junction

  Euston

  Liverpool Lime Street and return

  485

  Other members of the Royal Family

  Start point

  Destination

  Euston

  Jordanhill (Glasgow)

  Stroud

  Nairn

  Gatwick Airport

  Victoria

  Euston

  Annan

  Paddington

  Truro and return to Euston

  Euston

  Manchester and return twice

  Road Salting
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will examine alternatives to the use of salt, with special reference to urea, in de-icing on roads; and if he will make a statement. [11646]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]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 29 January 1996 The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking what alternatives he has examined to the use of salt, with special reference to urea in de-icing on roads.
  The Highways Agency has studied the value of salt as an anti-icing agent in relation to a variety of alternatives. These have included acetate, glycol and alcohol based materials as well as urea.
  The studies, carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory have consistently shown that salt is a very effective anti-icing agent in virtually all conditions experienced in Britain. It also offers good value for money, even after taking account of the corrosive impact on structures.
  Urea is an alternative agent, although some six or seven times more expensive than salt, which is used in some areas particularly susceptible to corrosion such as the original Severn crossing and the Midland Links Viaducts where its less corrosive properties have been considered particularly important. However, it is less effective as an anti-icing agent at times of particularly low temperatures and has environmental disadvantages in so far as it oxidises when in solution with water, giving off ammonia. This ammonia can pose a considerable threat to aquatic life especially in smaller water courses.
  The Highways Agency remains alert to the possibility of using alternative de-icers, but at present salt remains the most effective agent giving good value for money.

  Trunk Road Programme
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received following the publication of "Managing the Trunk Road Programme" on 28 November 1995 from(a) hon. Members, (b) local authorities and (c) other organisations and individuals. [12386]

  Mr. Watts
  We have received many representations about trunk roads following the publication of "Managing the Trunk Road Programme." The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  British Rail Central Printing Unit
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many (a) inquiries and (b) bids were received from companies or individuals interested in purchasing the British Rail central printing unit at York; how many employees work in the unit at present; what was the unit's turnover in 1995; when the unit is due to close; what will 486
  happen to its staff; and what consideration led to the decision not to sell the unit as a going concern. [11677]

  Mr. Watts
  The central printing unit employs 10 staff and currently forms part of BR's York facilities management group. Its turnover is not separately identified within the group. The future of the unit—which is a management matter for the BR board—is currently under consideration.

  Interlogic Control Engineering
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date and for what reasons the contracts of employment of the(a) managing director, (b) production director, (c) finance director, (d) personnel director and (e) commercial director of Interlogic Control Engineering were terminated by the British Railways Board; and what severance terms they were offered. [11678]

  Mr. Watts
  These are management matters for the British railways board. Severance terms are a matter for BR and the individuals concerned in accordance with the terms of their contracts of employment.

  Air Quality Monitoring
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to extend and improve the effectiveness of the monitoring of air quality in towns and cities in the United Kingdom. [11040]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department of the Environment currently monitors air pollutants at over 1,500 non-automatic sites and more than 50 automatic sites across the United Kingdom. The Government intend to expand the automatic monitoring network further by completing the main multi-pollutant urban network and integrating national and local systems, to form a national automatic network of at least 80 sites by the end of 1996.

TREASURY

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will withdraw the guidelines issued to officers of the Customs and Excise Department regarding the charging of value added tax on computer equipment for the specific use of registered disabled people. [11695]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. While items of computer equipment are undoubtedly useful to disabled people, they cannot be supplied tax free under VAT law unless designed solely for their use. However VAT is not chargeable on the service of adapting computer equipment so that it is easier for disabled people to use.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he now defines and assesses risk to both the public and private sectors within the private finance initiative. [4925]
  487
  Mr. Jack
  Guidance on the definition and assessment of risk is contained in the recent publication "Private Opportunity, Public Benefit", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the costs have exceeded projections in respect of extending the period over which trading losses could be carried back to set against corporation tax liabilities from one year to three years; and what impact this has had on Government revenues. [8311]

  Mr. Jack
  The "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1991-92" estimated the net cost of extending loss carry back for companies from one year to three years as £250 million in 1992–93.

  However, the net cost cannot be measured precisely. Repayments of corporation tax in 1992–93 are estimated to include £350 million from the extension of loss carry hack to three years, but the consequent changes to group relief surrendered and losses carried forward, which would reduce the cost, cannot be measured.

  Higher Rate Tax
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the numbers brought into the higher rate tax for each year since 1989–90 when the Government did not increased tax thresholds in line with(a) inflation and (b) earnings; [8307]

  (2) what is the percentage change in the number of higher rate taxpayers since 1989–90; and what have been the changes in respect of the numbers of people paying the higher rate since 1989–90. [8306]

  Mr. Jack
  Estimated taxpayer numbers under independent taxation for years from 1990–91 are given in the table. Under the 1989–90 income tax regime indexed to allow for changes in the retail prices index there would be 1.5 million higher rate taxpayers in 1996–97. Equivalent estimates for all intervening years could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Statutory indexation of tax thresholds is expressed in terms of price rather than earnings movements.

  Estimated taxpayer numbers1

  Millions

  Number of lower rate taxpayers

  Number of basic rate taxpayers

  Number of higher rate taxpayers

  1990–91

  —

  24.4

  1.70

  1991–92

  —

  24.1

  1,62

  1992–93

  4.24

  19.4

  1.72

  Standard rate of basic rate

  £ per annum

  Personal allowance Age under 65

  Age allowance Age 65–74

  Age allowance Age 75 or more

  Standard rate of basic retirement pension Under 80

  80 or more

  1979–80

  1,165

  1,540

  1,540

  1,094

  1,107

  1980–81

  1,375

  1,820

  1,820

  1,285

  1,298

  1981–82

  1.375

  1,820

  1,820

  1.458

  1.471

  1982–83

  1,565

  2.070

  2,070

  1,601

  1,614

  488

  Estimated taxpayer numbers1

  Millions

  Number of lower rate taxpayers

  Number of basic rate taxpayers

  Number of higher rate taxpayers

  1993–94

  5.17

  18.1

  1.74

  1994–952

  5.00

  18.3

  2.10

  1995–962

  5.40

  18.1

  2.20

  1996–97

  6.30

  17.3

  2.20

  1Figures for 1989–90 are in terms of joint taxation, figures for later years include individuals under independent taxation and are therefore not directly comparable. It is estimated that there were about 20 million single people and married couples liable to tax at the basic rate only and 1.5 million liable at the higher rate.

  2Provisional.

  Taxation
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the tax threshold as a per cent. of average earnings for each year since 1966 for(a) a single person, (b) a single-wage married couple, (c) a two-wage married couple and (d) a single-wage married couple with two children aged eight and 12 years. [9316]

  Mr. Jack
  Available information giving a historical series of tax thresholds as a percentage of average earnings is in appendix C of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1992" for earlier years and table 2.6 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1995" for recent years.

  Latest estimates for years from 1994–95, based on the 1994–95 "New Earnings Survey", are in the table. Additional information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tax threshold as a percentage of average earnings1 for all occupations

  Single person

  Married man without children

  1994–95

  17.9

  26.9

  1995–962

  17.7

  24.2

  1996–972

  18.2

  24.7

  1Full time males paid at adult rates working a full week.

  2Provisional.

  Retired People (Earnings)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of earnings for retired people, above the limit of the state pension, was free of income tax, in each year since 1979. [10642]

  Mr. Jack
  The amount of the personal allowance, age allowances and the standard rate of basic state retirement pension received by a single person, for each year since 1979–80, is given in the table.
  489

  Standard rate of basic rate

  £ per annum

  Personal allowance Age under 65

  Age allowance Age 65–74

  Age allowance Age 75 or more

  Standard rate of basic retirement pension Under 80

  80 or more

  1983–84

  1,785

  2,360

  2,360

  1,765

  1,778

  1984–85

  2,005

  2,490

  2,490

  1,804

  1,817

  1985–86

  2,205

  2,690

  2,690

  1,909

  1,922

  1986–87

  2,335

  2,850

  2,850

  2,006

  2,019

  1987–88

  2,425

  12,960

  13,070

  2,054

  2,067

  1988–89

  2,605

  13,180

  13,310

  2,140

  2,153

  1989–90

  2,785

  3,400

  3,540

  2,267

  2,280

  1990–91

  3,005

  3,670

  3,820

  2,439

  2,452

  1991–92

  3,295

  4,020

  4,180

  2,704

  2,717

  1992–93

  3,445

  4,200

  4,370

  2,816

  2,829

  1993–94

  3,445

  4,200

  4,370

  2,917

  2,930

  1994–95

  3,445

  4,200

  4,370

  2,995

  3,008

  1995–96

  3,525

  4,630

  4,800

  3,060

  3,073

  1996–97

  3,765

  4,910

  5,090

  3,180

  3,193

  1Lower age allowance for people aged 65–80, higher age allowance for people aged 80 or over.

  Charities (Tax)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total tax paid by all United Kingdom domiciled charities for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1990–91 and (c) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement on the taxation of charities and the implications for charities of the changed balance of taxation between direct and indirect. [11320]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]For 1994–95, it is estimated that charities paid the following tax:

  £ million

  Income and capital taxes

  1neg

  VAT

  350

  National non-domestic rates

  100

  1 "neg" = negligible (under £3 million).

  Estimates of the excise duties paid by charities are not readily available, nor are comparable figures for the earlier years.

  The Government value the work of charities and encourage charitable activities through the tax system. Charities are exempt from tax on most of their income and gains.

  Since 1979, the Government have done a great deal to extend and improve the tax incentives to give to charity by deed of covenant and under the gift aid and payroll giving schemes. In 1994–95, tax reliefs for charities totalled £1.5 billion, of which £900 million related to direct taxation, £200 million to indirect taxation and £400 million to rate relief.

  The Government's overall tax policy is aimed at leaving people with more money to spend as they choose. That choice includes the possibility of giving more to charity.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much corporation tax in 1995 prices has been 490
  received from Scottish Nuclear and Nuclear Electric since 1990. [12471]

  Mr. Jack
  Details of the tax affairs of identified taxpayers are confidential.

  British Energy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates have been made of the net present value of corporate tax to be received by the Exchequer from British Energy post-privatisation. [12472]

  Mr. Jack
  Details of the tax affairs of identified taxpayers are confidential.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Deregulation
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what new initiatives he will advance in the next year to deregulate industry; and if he will make a statement. [9990]

  Mr. Freeman
  This year we hope to make considerable progress on the merger of the administrative procedures for PAYE and national insurance which should benefit small businesses.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what analysis he has made of the effects of deregulation on the protection of the individual at work. [9994]

  Mr. Freeman
  Deregulation is aimed at achieving better regulation without removing necessary protection, whether for employees, consumers, the environment, or the public at large. Ministers responsible for orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 must demonstrate that any necessary protection under existing legislation will be maintained.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the annual costs of the office of the Deputy
  491
  Prime Minister when that title was held by the two previous incumbents; and what is the estimated annual cost of running the office currently. [9991]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The estimated annual cost of my office is £470,000. The two previous incumbents to whom the hon. Gentleman refers held other posts at the same time, and it is not therefore possible to identify comparable costs.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  14. Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what changes have taken place in his role since his appointment; and if he will make a statement. [9992]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  My role is unchanged.

  Ministerial Office (Cost-benefit Analysis)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of his office's functions for the first six months of its operation. [9993]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when proposals for the privatisation of the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency will be published. [9995]

  Mr. Willetts
  Recruitment and Assessment Services will be sold as a single viable business by trade sale. Expressions of interest in RAS have been invited and an information memorandum will be made available to prospective bidders.

  Departmental Objectives
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what objectives he has set for his Department for the forthcoming year. [9997]

  Mr. Willetts
  To promote the competitiveness agenda, the deregulation initiative and the effective administration of the services for which my Department is responsible.

  Quangos
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of public expenditure was taken up by quangos in 1979; and what percentage of public expenditure they take up now. [9998]

  Mr. Willetts
  Expenditure by non-departmental public bodies funded by Government was 4 per cent. of general Government expenditure in 1978–79 and 6 per cent. in 1994–95. Almost two-thirds of expenditure on non-departmental public bodies is accounted for by a very small number of executive bodies, such as the Housing Corporation, Legal Aid board and Higher and Further Education councils, which are responsible for the distribution of funds and provide important services.

  Public Safety
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made on the effects of deregulation on public safety. [10000]
  492
  Mr. Freeman
  I am satisfied that deregulation does not diminish public safety. We have included safeguards in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which ensures that any necessary protection under existing legislation will be maintained.

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what changes took place in his responsibilities for chairing Cabinet Committees and presenting Government policies consequent on the appointment of the Deputy Prime Minister. [10001]

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend and I took up our current posts at the same time as the reorganisation of Cabinet Committee memberships confirmed in a written answer on Tuesday 18 July 1995.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what are his responsibilities in relation to the consequences of the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. [10003]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  None.

  Government Policy
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what has been the principal Government policy with which he has had to work during the current week. [10004]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have continued to work on a full range of those Government policies for which I am responsible.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the co-ordination of Government policy. [10006]

  Mr. Willetts
  Government policies are co-ordinated to pursue economic prosperity and security for all, based on an enterprise economy; creating a nation of opportunity reflecting the Government's values of choice, ownership and reward; upholding decent commonsense values in the pursuit of law and order and justice; providing the people of Britain with first class public services; and reflecting pride in our nation and its place in the world.

  Crown Copyright
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy after the privatisation of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, to leave the administration of Crown copyright with the residual HMSO and located in Norwich. [10005]

  Mr. Freeman
  I can confirm that the administration of Crown copyright will remain a function of the residual HMSO. Ten staff currently work in this area, and there are no plans at present to relocate them away from Norwich.

  F16 Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with(a) the Prime Minister and (b) the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the proposed leasing of American F16 aircraft. [12126]
  493
  The Deputy Prime Minister
  All discussions between Ministers are confidential.

  Departmental Policy
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what priority he accords to representations from(a) members of the public and (b) hon. Members in formulating his Department's policy. [9984]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I take such representations fully into account.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Second Church Estates Commissioner
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, when the Church Commissioners last discussed the parliamentary duties of the Second Church Commissioner; and if he will make a statement. [10019]

  Mr. Alison
  The role of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, and of the other Church commissioners, has been commented on the recent report of the Archbishops' Commission on the Organisation of the Church of England—"Working as One Body". This report is currently the subject of discussion and refinement within the Church; the next major debate about its recommendations will take place during the February group of sessions of the General Synod.

  Bishops' Palaces
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the current cost of maintaining bishops' palaces; how many of them there are; what were the figures(a) 10 and (b) 20 years ago in (i) real and (ii) cash terms; and if he will make a statement. [10020]

  Mr. Alison
  The total expenditure, both capital and revenue, on diocesan bishops' houses in 1994—the last year for which figures are currently available—was £2,347,000. There are 45 houses, including the Archbishop of Canterbury's London base, Lambeth palace. Only 11 can properly be described as palaces. They include not only domestic accommodation but a chapel, meeting rooms and office accommodation. The figures include expenditure on furnishings and gardens and staff accommodation, and are net of any income.

  In real and comparable terms the total expenditure in 1984 was £1,822,000 and in the year to March 1975 £1,665,000.

  Expenditure each year varies depending on the turnover in episcopal appointments and the incidence of major repairs. The most recent survey of expenditure shows the average expenditure on diocesan bishops' houses was £39,496 per annum over a 10-year period.

  The commissioners are currently reviewing the suitability of all See houses, and steps are being taken to keep maintenance costs to a minimum. It has recently been decided to replace the Portsmouth See house by one which will he cheaper to maintain.

  Pension Fund
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what estimate the Church Commissioners have made of the ability of the pension fund to meet the needs of clergy and staff and to ensure that they receive increases at least in line with inflation in the future. [10021]

  Mr. Alison
  Under current proposals, the Church Commissioners will meet the cost of clergy pensions earned up to 1998 and they have confirmed their continuing commitment to meet that cost, including pension increments. They have assessed the likely costs with actuarial advice and their financial projections allow for pension increments in line with the existing formula, which links them to stipend.

  From 1998 onwards, subject to legislation, it is proposed that the cost of pensions will be met by contributions from dioceses and parishes into a new scheme administered by the Church of England pensions board. The board is discussing with dioceses estimated contribution rates, advised by actuaries; these allow for increases at least in line with limited price indexation. The commissioners would give short term support to dioceses as they make the transition to paying pension contributions in full.

  The legislation will also enable a funded scheme for staff pensions to be established. Staff are contractually entitled to pension benefits in line with those of civil servants.

PRIME MINISTER

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) 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; [10979]

  (2) 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. [10978]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]I refer the hon. Member to the replies given on Friday 26 January, by my hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury,Official Report, columns 418–19.

  Advertising and Publicity
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list breaches, by Department and Minister, of conventions on ministerial advertising and publicity since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [12253]

  The Prime Minister
  In all cases Government Departments seek to observe the conventions.
  495
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Cabinet Office last circulated its guidelines to Ministers on central Government conventions on publicity and advertising and what measures it takes to ensure the guidelines are adhered to. [11955]

  The Prime Minister
  An updated version of the guidance on Government publicity and advertising was circulated by the Cabinet Office to Departments this month and I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House. This document makes clear that Departments are responsible for ensuring that the conventions on propriety are observed and that value for money is achieved.

  No. 10 Downing Street (Chandelier)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received urging him to return a chandelier in No. 10 Downing street to the former Argyll Motor Works building in Alexandria. [12300]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, none.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Trafalgar Square (Northern Ireland Demonstration)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to revise the decision announced in 1972 to refuse to grant permission for any demonstration on the issue of Northern Ireland in Trafalgar square. [12815]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My ministerial colleagues and I have reviewed the 1972 ban and decided that in future any application to use Trafalgar square for demonstrations on the issue of Northern Ireland will be treated in the same way as applications in respect of other demonstrations. My Department will continue to apply the rules which restrict all demonstrations on Trafalgar square to weekends, and will continue to consult the local police, Westminster city councils and others, and to consider each application on its merits.

  Register of Conditionality Exempt Works of Art
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures have been taken by her Department to improve publicity for the register of conditionally exempt works of art. [11221]

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  The register has been computerised, and is updated on a quarterly basis. Each update is announced in an Inland Revenue press release which explains the public's right to view the items included in the register, and how copies of it in computer-readable format may he purchased. The most recent press release was issued on 16 January. Inland revenue is also considering the possibility of placing this information on the Internet.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Maintenance Orders
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many maintenance orders 496
  were pursued in each year by (a) the Lord Chancellor and (b) the Secretary of State for the Home Department under schedule 2, section 6 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (Hague Convention Countries) Order 1993. [12204]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Section 6 of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972, as modified by paragraph 6 of schedule 2 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (Hague Convention Countries) Order 1993, allows the Lord Chancellor to receive an order from a Hague convention country for registration in a magistrates court in England and Wales. For the period 1 May 1994 to 31 December 1994, 29 such cases were received; and during 1995, 53 such cases were received. I regret that figures before 1 May 1994 are not available.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Strangeways Prison
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the final cost of rebuilding Strangeways prison. [10030]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. John Spellar, dated 29 January 1996 The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the final cost of rebuilding Strangeways prison.
  The costs of rebuilding Manchester prison are given in the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General which was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 14 July 1994. The project was completed in September 1993 at a cost of £89 million.
  This overall cost included £1.8 million which was spent on temporary housing arrangements for prisoners in K-wing which was required because of the high number of prisoners in police cells at that time.
  After the completion of the main project, further work was carried out to bring K-wing and its perimeter up to modern standards in terms 'of security, control and sanitation at a cost of £5.6 million.
  The overall cost of rebuilding the prison was therefore around £95 million.

  Prison Contracts
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a one year break in contract clause is currently being considered for inclusion in(a) the contracts for the new prison at Fazakerly on Merseyside and (b) the contracts for the running of the five new secure training centres for children aged between 12 and 14 years. [10523]

  Miss Widdecombe
  A number of options relating to termination are under consideration in respect of the contract for the first two secure training centres, but as these are still under negotiation the terms are commercially confidential. Responsibility for replying in respect of the contract for the new prison at Fazakerley has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  497
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 29 January 1996 The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the inclusion of a one-year break in contract clause in the contract for a new prison at Fazakerley.
  The contract for Fazakerley allows the Prison Service the option of terminating the contract, at will, any time from five years after the contractual opening date.

  Strip Searches
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present policy in relation to the strip searching of visitors to prisons; if access to prisons is being denied to visitors who refuse to remove their clothes in front of prison officers; and if strip searches are conducted in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its relevant codes. [10325]

  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 Alan Walker to Mr. George Howarth, dated 29 January 1996 The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about strip searching of visitors to prisons.
  The instructions for searching visitors to prisons, including strip searches are contained in the Manual on Security, copies of which are held in the library of the House. The following is a summary:
  Rule 86 (1) allows the governor to authorise a search of any person seeking to enter a prison. This is a search with consent, but it is only reasonable that those who refuse to be searched should be denied access to the prison, since they may be put under pressure to smuggle in escape equipment, weapons or drugs. However, in certain circumstances it may be possible to allow a closed visit.
  It is not our policy to conduct strip searches of visitors, with or without consent, unless other legislation gives us the right to conduct the search without consent. Officers of the prison have the power to conduct searches without consent, including strip-searches, using their powers of a constable under section 8 of the Prison Act 1952, as modified by the Police And Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, in the following circumstances:

  1. If there is reason to believe the visitor is in possession of a class A, B or C controlled drug (section 23 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971).

  2. If there is reason to believe she or he is in possession of a firearm (section 47 Firearms Act 1968).

  3. Following arrest of the visitor in the circumstances set out in section 32 of PACE 1984.

  It is our policy that governors will only authorise a strip-search if the police are unwilling or unable to attend. Officers of the prison may, if they have lawful grounds for doing so, arrest and caution the visitor pending arrival of the police.

  Miss Elaine Connolly
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct the acting Director General of the Prison Service to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen of 4 December 1995 about the case of Miss Elaine Connolly. [11315]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The temporary Director General replied to the letter from the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen on 24 January.

  Community Officers
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which areas are currently covered by a community officer; and how many of these officers are currently operating in each area of the country. [11853]

  Mr. Maclean
  All police forces in England and Wales have community liaison departments and deploy community police officers.

  Mrs. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what ways he is monitoring the effectiveness of the community officer programme. [11854]

  Mr. Maclean
  Community liaison activities in police forces are monitored by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary.

  Holloway Prison
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pregnant women are currently in custody at Holloway prison. [11682]

  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 Ms Janet Anderson, dated 29 January 1996 The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent question about the number of pregnant women currently in custody at Holloway prison.
  The number of women known to be pregnant at Holloway on 24 January 1996 was 18.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total expenditure each year since 1990 on education at HMP Holloway; and if he will make a statement. [11641]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 29 January 1996 The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the expenditure on education at Holloway prison.
  The total expenditure each year since 1990 on education at Holloway is given in the attached table.

  Salaries

  Materials (VT, CIT, Pre-release)

  Education Capital

  £

  £

  £

  1990–91

  285,525

  53,122

  7,535

  1991–92

  403,129

  87,634

  32,534

  1992–93

  343,837

  67,553

  18,136

  1993–94

  321,817

  68,406

  nil

  1994–95

  383,871

  47,967

  9,967

  1995–96

  348,000

  58,900

  2,000

  Homicide Convictions
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) males and

  499
  (b) females are currently serving in Her Majesty's prisons following conviction for (i) murder, (ii) manslaughter and (iii) other homicide convictions. [11719]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to 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. William Powell, dated 29 January 1996 The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, how many (a) males and (b) females are currently serving in Her Majesty's prisons following convictions for (i) murder, (ii) manslaughter, and (iii) other homicide convictions.
  The latest available information is for 31 December 1995 and is given in the attached table.

  Population under sentence in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for murder, manslaughter and other homicide, by sex, on 31 December 19951

  Offence

  Males

  Females

  Murder

  2,705

  110

  Manslaughter

  210

  13

  Other homicide and attempted homicide

  997

  35

  Total

  3,912

  158

  1Provisional figures.

  Positive about Disabled People Symbol
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [11912]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office and all its agencies use the Employment Service's disability symbol both for external recruitment and for internal selection and promotion.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home 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. [11384]

  Mr. Howard
  Publicity expenditure is committed when there is a need to advise the public or inform them of their rights. Assessment takes account of policy objectives and prioritisation within available resources.

  Advertising and press office staff, accommodation and administration costs for my Department are as follows for 1979–80 to 1988–89:

  Year

  Advertising

  Press

  1979–80

  2,904,671

  283,140

  1980–81

  1,649,605

  392,532

  1981–82

  1,834,476

  381,799

  500

  Year

  Advertising

  Press

  1982–83

  1,957,304

  424,290

  1983–84

  2,760,681

  516,632

  1984–85

  3,262,700

  560,512

  1985–86

  3,306,391

  606,996

  1986–87

  5,000,000

  548,136

  1987–88

  4,700,000

  599,282

  1988–89

  5,400,000

  674,945

  From 1989–90 onwards, recording systems were improved to identify advertising and other publicity material such as publications, videos, exhibitions and posters:

  Year

  Advertising

  Other publicity material

  Press

  1989–90

  5,500,000

  3,088,065

  715,646

  1990–91

  5,728,000

  4,323,476

  786,519

  1991–92

  7,275,940

  3,600,288

  792,125

  1992–93

  7,334,635

  5,638,982

  835,441

  1993–94

  9,090,222

  5,062,327

  847,632

  1994–95

  10,912,008

  3,190,350

  899,084

  1995–961

  7,398,629

  1,387,550

  727,169

  1995–962

  7,398,629'

  3,387,550

  969,560

  1996–972

  4,150,000

  3,750,000

  993,799

  1Year to date

  2Forecast

  Press and publicity expenditure by my Department's Agencies was as follows:

  Agency/Year

  Advertising and publicity material

  Press

  Prison Service

  1993–94

  206,900

  304,800

  1994–95

  200,500

  594,900

  1995–96 forecast

  228,400

  319,900

  1996–97 forecast

  213,300

  318,200

  Fire Service College

  1992–93

  89,300

  —

  1993–94

  55,700

  —

  1994–95

  34,600

  —

  1995–96 forecast

  24,370

  6,000

  1996–97 forecast

  30,000

  6,000

  Passport Agency

  1991–92

  70,357

  62,492

  1992–93

  67,454

  56,880

  1993–94

  70,945

  68,981

  1994–95

  127,040

  256,693

  1995–96 forecast

  94,814

  160,701

  1996–97

  Budgets not yet decided

  Forensic Science Service

  Under the Forensic Science Service agency's framework, document, press and publicity services are provided by the Home Office. These are marginal and are included in the Departmental spend.

  It has not been possible in the time available for agencies to provide precise 1995–96 year to date figures, but they expect no substantial divergence from forecast.

  I shall write to the hon. Member concerning publicity and press expenditure by my Department's non-departmental public bodies.

  Frankland Prison
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 54, what steps have been taken to recover the cell key lost at Frankland prison. [12023]

  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. Gerry Steinberg, dated 29 January 1996 The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the loss of a cell key at Frankland prison.
  Following the loss of the cell key, an investigation was mounted and this is still continuing. The replacement of the locks at the prison has rendered the lost key ineffective.

  Women Prisoners (Hospital Treatment)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women prisoners in each year since 1990 have escaped from escort while attending hospital for antenatal care, childbirth or post-natal care; if he will list the circumstances of their escape; and from which prisons they were attending the hospital. [7539]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter front Richard Tilt to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 29 January 1996 The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many women prisoners in each year since 1990 have escaped from escort while attending hospital for antenatal care, childbirth or post-natal care, giving the circumstances of their escape and from which prisons they were attending hospital.
  In this period there have been seven escapes from hospital for the stated reasons. The information is shown in the attached table.
  Since 1990 there is one recorded case of a pregnant woman (32 weeks) attempting to escape from a hospital escort (Risley prison). There is another where a pregnant woman attempted to escape from a hospital escort, the pregnancy was not the reason for the hospital visit. On two occasions there were attempted escapes where the reason for the hospital visit is not known.

  Date

  Establishment

  Details

  1990

  17 July 1990

  Holloway

  Escaped leaving new born child while uncuffed

  1991

  Nil

  —

  —

  1992

  19 February 1992

  Holloway

  Espaced through we window while uncuffed

  29 August 1992

  Holloway

  Escaped when a male prisoner impeded staff while uncuffed

  502

  Date

  Establishment

  Details

  1993

  6 May 1993

  Pucklechurch

  Escaped when aided by man armed with hurling stick while uncuffed

  19 May 1993

  Styal

  Escaped from staff supervision, while uncuffed

  5 June 1993

  Styal

  Escaped from staff supervision, while uncuffed

  26 August 1993

  Styal

  Escaped when two males impeded escorting staff, while uncuffed

  1994

  Nil

  —

  —

  1995

  Nil

  —

  —

  1996 (to 7 January)

  Nil

  —

  —

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid Budget
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the size of the overseas aid budget in 1996–97. [10007]

  Mr. Hanley
  We always receive a number of representations from hon. Members and the general public and this year is no exception.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with non-governmental organisations concerned with the use of overseas aid, regarding the consequences of the reduction of the overseas aid budget. [10014]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and Noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development and her officials have frequent contact with NGOs on a wide range of policy-related issues, including the size of the aid budget. We have informed the NGO's that the joint funding scheme will be increased in 1996–97 to over £36 million from £34 million this year.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary met chief executives from major NGOs on 23 January.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of the total overseas aid budget for the current year is devoted to educational purposes. [10016]

  Mr. Hanley
  Expenditure on education from the bilateral aid programme is identifiable only up to 1994–95. In that year a total of £227 million was spent on educational activities, which was 20 per cent. of the total bilateral aid expenditure.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent changes he has made to the aid budget to Nigeria. [10013]

  Mr. Hanley
  Bilateral aid spending will be about £6.4 million in 1995–96 compared with an estimated £7.9 million before the EU measures taken in December 1995. EC aid is limited to tackling poverty through non-governmental organisations.

  Private Capital
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will commission studies into the role of private capital in fostering economic development. [10015]

  Mr. Hanley
  I am pleased to inform the hon. Member that the Overseas Development Administration is in the process of commissioning a major research programme on the policy options facing developing countries in attracting private capital.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the delays experienced by non-governmental organisations delivering aid in Bosnia as a result of customs and other procedures required by the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Herceg-Bosnan authorities; what is his assessment of the effect of these delays on

  Details of ODA funded training provided in the United Kingdom for Nigerian police officers between 1990–91 and 1994–95

  Year

  Name

  Rank

  Cost £

  Duration

  Where training provided

  1990–91

  Mr. B. Madake

  Deputy Superintendent

  2,601

  6 weeks

  Greater Manchester Police Force

  1990–91

  Mr. B. D. Odigie

  Deputy Superintendent

  2,601

  6 weeks

  Greater Manchester Police Force

  1991–92

  Mr. Salami

  Chief Superintendent

  2,400

  6 weeks

  Greater Manchester Police Force

  1991–92

  Mr. Adeoye

  Chief Superintendent

  11,306

  3 months

  Overseas Command Course, Bramshill

  1992–93

  Mr. N. L. Hussein

  Superintendent

  5,783

  6 weeks

  Hendon Police College

  1993–94

  Mr. B. Benjamin

  Assistant Superintendent

  2,915

  2 weeks

  Central Planning and Training Unit—Harrogate

  1993–94

  Mr. T Chenbap

  Assistant Superintendent

  2,915

  2 weeks

  Central Planning and Training Unit—Harrogate

  1993–94

  Ms H. Ugochukwi

  Assistant Superintendent

  2,915

  2 weeks

  Central Planning and Training Unit—Harrogate

  1993–94

  Mr. S. Gambo

  Assistant Superintendent

  2,915

  2 weeks

  Central Planning and Training Unit—Harrogate

  1993–94

  Mr. K. Gwarzo

  Assistant Superintendent

  2,915

  2 weeks

  Central Planning and Training Unit—Harrogate

  1993–94

  Mr. L. Oki

  Assistant Superintendent

  2,915

  2 weeks

  Central Planning and Training Unit—Harrogate

  1993–94

  Mr. U. Ntenborg

  Assistant Superintendent

  2,915

  2 weeks

  Central Planning and Training Unit—Harrogate

  1993–94

  Mr. A. Yahaya

  Assistant Superintendent

  2,915

  2 weeks

  Central Planning and Training Unit—Harrogate

  1993–94

  Mr. P. Ukoyono

  Assistant Superintendent

  2,915

  2 weeks

  Central Planning and Training Unit—Harrogate

  1994–95

  Mr. P. Ebo

  Assistant Commissioner

  4,482

  4 weeks

  West Midlands Fraud Squad—Birmingham

  1994–95

  Mr. S. F. Abdullahi

  Deputy Superintendent

  4,482

  4 weeks

  West Midlands Fraud Squad—Birmingham

  1994–95

  Mr. M Isa-Adejo

  Detective

  4,482

  4 weeks

  West Midlands Fraud Squad—Birmingham

  1994–95

  Mr. M. Yakubu

  Detective

  4,482

  4 weeks

  West Midlands Fraud Squad—Birmingham

  1994–95

  Mr. Onyeguiri

  Deputy Superintendent

  4,482

  4 weeks

  West Midlands Fraud Squad—Birmingham

  1994–95

  Mr. A. Dikko

  Deputy Superintendent

  4,482

  4 weeks

  West Midlands Fraud Squad—Birmingham

  1994–95

  Mr. O. J. Ekama

  Deputy Commissioner

  1,650

  1 week

  Bramshill, Harrogate, Ryton

  UN Aid Target
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to increase Her Majesty's Government spending on overseas aid to the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product. [11984]
  504
  deliveries of aid in Bosnia; and if he will ask the Bosnian authorities to minimise such restrictions. [10860]

  Mr. Hanley
  We know from running our own ODA aid programmes in Bosnia of the delays caused to aid organisations by complicated local customs procedures. Aid organisations registered with the Croatian and Bosnian Governments find that advance clearance from the relevant Ministries usually takes about six days. Further customs checks en-route lengthen aid journeys. We recognise the rights of the Croatian and Bosnian Governments to exercise proper customs controls but have asked them to apply them as efficiently as possible or to relax them for aid. In the new conditions following the Dayton peace agreement access is much improved but we will continue to urge the local authorities to apply customs controls on aid as lightly as possible.

  Nigerian Police Training
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Nigerian police officers have received police training in the United Kingdom in each year since 1990; and if he will list(a) the names and ranks of the trainees, (b) the cost and duration of each officer's training, (c) which United Kingdom police forces provided the training and (d) which Government department provided the funding for the training. [11576]

  Mr. Hanley
  Twenty-one Nigerian police officers have received training in the United Kingdom since 1990, funded by the Overseas Development Administration. The further details requested have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on 19 January,Official Report, column 787.

  Nepal
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made
  505
  of the future of his Department's funding for the Lumle agricultural research centre in Nepal; and what plans he has for aid to Nepal in research into disease-resistant crops such as peas, cold tolerant rice and broad leaf mustard. [11735]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government will decide later this year on the extent and nature of further aid support for hill agricultural research in Nepal, including the Lumle 506
  agricultural research centre, in the light of progress on the present foundation year project.

  Research into disease-resistant crops is an important component of current British aid to agricultural research in Nepal. The Lumle agricultural research centre has already successfully produced a cold-tolerant variety of rice, and research into disease resistant tomatoes, wheat, rice, potatoes and maize is currently being undertaken.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 17 January 1995,Official Report, column 628, if he will list the research mentioned in his reply. [11808]

  Mr. Lang
  Among the studies considered are the following:

  (i) UK Studies on the link between pay and jobs at national level:

  HM Treasury, (1985) "The Relationship Between Employment and Wages". London: HMSO. [This is the most comprehensive survey of the evidence on the link between pay and jobs at a national level.]

  Wells, W. (1983). "The Relative Pay and Employment of Young People", Department of Employment Research Paper No. 42.

  (ii) UK Studies on the employment effects of proposals for a national minimum wage:

  Bazen, S. (1990) "On the Employment Effects of Introducing a National Minimum Wage in the UK", British Journal of Industrial Relations, 1990.

  Bazen, S. (1991) "Minimum Wage, an Analysis of the Issues", Institute of Personnel Management.

  Dennison, S.R. and Forrest D. (1984. "Low Pay or No Pay; A Review of the Theory and Practice of Minimum Wage Laws", Institute of Economic Affairs, Hobart Paper No. 101.

  Gregg, P. (1992). "National Minimum Wage", in the National Institute Economic Review, February 1992.

  Minford, P. (1989). "The Effects in the UK of EEC Wage Proposals in the Social Charter", in the Liverpool Quarterly Economic Bulletin, December 1989.

  UBS Phillips and Drew (1991). Economic Briefing, June 1991.

  James Capel Economic Research Unit (1991) in "Is Labour a Threat?"

  Kleinwort Benson, (1995): "Window on the Economy". UK Economics, Third Quarter 1995.

  (iii) Studies of the employment effects of the wages boards and councils:

  Canning, D. And Tarling, R. (1985). "A Report on the Department of Employment's Study "Wages Floors in the Clothing Industry, 1950–1981", Department of Applied Economics, Cambridge 1985.

  Craig, C. And Wilkinson, F. (1986). "Pay and Employment in Four Retail Trades", Department of Employment Research Paper No. 51.

  Kaufman, R. (1989). "The Effects of Statutory Minimum Rates of Pay on Employment in Great Britain". Economic Journal, December 1989.

  Lund, P., Morris, T., Temple, J., Watson, J. (1982). "Wages and Employment in Agriculture, 1960–1980", GES Working Paper No. 52.

  Machin, S. and Manning, A. (1992). "Minimum Wages, Wages Dispersion and Employment: Evidence from the UK Wages Councils", LSE Working Paper No. 221.

  Morgan, P., Paterson, D. and Barrie, R. (1986). "Wage Floors in the Clothing Industry, 1950–1981", Department of Employment Research Paper No. 52.

  Neuburger, H. (1984). "From the Dole Queue to the Sweatshop", London Low Pay Unit.

  (iv) Studies on the employment effects of the United States minimum wage:

  508

  Brown, C., Gilroy, C., Kohen, A. (1982). "The Effect of the Minimum Wage on Employment and Unemployment." Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. xx [This contains a survey of the US evidence.]

  Card, D. (1991). "Do Minimum Wages Reduce Employment? A Case Study of California, 1987–1989." NBER Working Paper No. 3710.

  Castillo Freeman, A. and Freeman, R. B. (1991). "Minimum Wages in Puerto Rico", NBER Working Paper No. 3759.

  Katz, L. and Kreuger, A. (1991). "The Effect of the New Minimum Wage Law in a Low Wage Labour Market", Princetown University Working Paper, No. 379.

  Newmark, D., and Wascher, W. (1991). "Evidence on Employment Effects of Minimum Wages and Subminimum Wage Provisions from Panel Data on State Minimum Wage Laws". NBER Working Paper No. 3859.

  Card, D. and Kreuger, A. (1994). "Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania", American Economic Review, Vol. 84, No. 4.

  Card, D. and Kreuger, A. (1995). "Myth and Measurement—The New Economics of the Minimum Wage", Princetown University Press, 1995.

  Katz, L. and Kreuger, A. (1992). "The Effects of the Minimum Wage on the Fast-Food Industry", Industrial and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 46, No.1.

  Neumark, D. and Wascher, W. (1995). "The Effect of New Jersey's Minimum Wage Increase on Fast-Food Eemployment: A Re-Evaluation Using Payroll Data", National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 5224.

  Report of the Minimum Wage Study Commission (1981). Vol. 1. [This report contains an assessment of the Federal minimum based on a large number of studies.]

  Walsh, K. (1991). "A Comparative Review of Minimum Wage Systems" in "Minimum Wage—An Analysis of the Issues". Institute for Personnel Management.

  Vedder, R. and Gallaway, L. (1995). "Minimum Wages Cost Jobs".

  (v) Studies of the employment effects of the minimum wage in EU member states:

  Ducos, and Plassard (1991). "Young People's Employment and the Minimum Wage".

  Van Soest, A. (1994)"Youth Minimum Wage Rates: The Dutch Experience".

  (vi) References to international evidence of the employment effects of minimum wage legislation in work conducted by the ILO and the OECD:

  ILO (1992). "Minimum Wages, Wage Fixing Machinery, Application and Supervision", International Labour Office.

  OECD, (1991). "1990–91 OECD Economic Surveys, France".

  OECD, (1989). "1988–89 Economic Surveys, Netherlands".

  OECD, (1990). "Labour Market Policies for the 1990s".

  OECD, (1994). "The Jobs Study: Evidence and Explanations Part Two". OECD, Paris, 1994.

  Starr, G. (1981). "Minimum Wage Fixing", International Labour Office.

  Bazen, S. and Martin (1991). "Impact of the Minimum Wage on Earnings and Employment in France", OECD Economic Studies No. 16.

  (vii) Other articles and correspondence concerning the debate about the employment effects of the wages councils, and minimum wages. For example, a recent Fabian Society pamphlet by Fred Bayliss; various publications by the Low Pay Unit; and New Economy, Winter 1995, Vol. 2, Issue 4.

  Positive about Disabled People Symbol
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. [11919]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The DTI does not use the symbol for external or internal recruitment, or for promotion. However, it is kept under review as the Department develops its programme of action on staff with disabilities.

  I have asked the chief executives of the DTI's agencies to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 29 January 1996:
  I am replying to your written question on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency.
  Question: To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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.
  The Radiocommunications Agency does not use the Employment Services Positive about Disabled People symbol for either external recruitment or internal recruitment and promotion.
  However the Agency only assumed responsibility for equality of opportunity matters from the Department of Trade and Industry in October 1994. The Agency produces an annual Action Programme. One of the actions in the 1996 Action Programme is to consider the use of the Employment Services Disability Symbol. I expect that the Agency will make a decision later in the year on whether or not to use the symbol for both external recruitment and internal recruitment and promotion.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 29 January 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question and about use of the Employment Service's Positive about Disabled People symbol. This Agency does not currently make use of this symbol.

  Letter from R. D. Worswick to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 25 January 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question on behalf of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, an executive agency of DTI.
  The Laboratory does not use the Employment Service's Positive about Disabled People symbol for either a) external recruitment or b) internal recruitment and promotion.
  However, recruitment advertisements contain a statement that LGC is an equal opportunities employer whether directed at external or internal applicants.

  Letter from David Durham to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 29 January 1996:
  I have been asked to respond as Chief Executive of Companies House Executive Agency. to your question to the President of the Board of Trade regarding the use of the Employment Service's Positive about Disabled People symbol. I can confirm that we have been pleased to advertise our commitment in this way.
  The symbol is used for both external and internal recruitment purposes and, as you can see below, is publicised on all recruitment correspondence issued by our Personnel Section.
  I hope this is helpful.
  510
  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 29 January 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about using the Employment Service's Positive about Disabled People symbol.
  The Insolvency Service does not currently use the symbol for either external recruitment or internal recruitment and promotion. However following discussions with the Employment Service, it is in the process of applying for permission to use it on all its recruitment, promotion and training literature.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 29 January 1996:
  I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade about use of the Employment Service's Positive about Disabled People symbol. In recent external recruitment exercises we have used either the symbol, or text making it clear that we welcome applications from those with disabilities. In internal recruitment or promotion we rely on a statement of our Equal Opportunities Policy we have issued to all staff which makes it clear that discrimination on grounds of disability is unacceptable. We have also established a Disabled Forum which can raise with management any point of concern.

  Companies Acts
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many DTI inspectors are working upon investigations in accordance with powers conferred by the Companies Acts. [12208]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are currently 15 inspectors undertaking inspections into the affairs and/or membership of nine companies under the investigative powers conferred by the Companies Acts.

  Departmental Staff (Energy Matters)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff in his Department work on press and publicity and public relations; and how many of them deal with energy-related matters. [12483]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Sixty-three staff are employed in the Department's information division either directly on, or in support of, publicity, press and other media relations work. Of these, seven spend 50 per cent. or more of their time on energy-related matters.

  Nuclear Industry (Privatisation)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his latest estimate of the date for nuclear power generation privatisation; and if he will suspend his Department's plans pending publication by the Trade and Industry Committee of its report into nuclear privatisation. [12226]

  Mr. Lang
  Privatisation of the nuclear power generation industry is on track for the summer of this year and will not be suspended pending the issue by the Trade and Industry Committee of its report.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 10 January,Official Report, column 227, what was the total expenditure on management, financial and other consultants employed by his Department to advise on the sale of Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear in each year since 1988–89. [12225]
  511
  Mr. Lang
  There was no expenditure on the sale of Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear in the years 1988–89 to 1994–95. Pursuant to my answer of 10 January,Official Report, columns 226–27, actual expenditure for the year to 31 March 1996 will be reported to Parliament in the normal way through the appropriation account.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total amount of money raised by the non-fossil fuel obligation; and how much of those proceeds have been distributed to Nuclear Electric. [11252]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]: The fossil fuel levy was introduced on 1 April 1990. The information requested is:

  Year

  Fossil fuel levy receipts

  Payments from levy to Nuclear Electric £million

  1990–91

  1,175

  1,135

  1991–92

  1,324

  1,281

  1992–93

  1,348

  1,291

  1993–94

  1,234

  1,139

  1994–95

  1,205

  1,081

  Sources:

  Office of Electricity Regulation (amounts raised) and Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency Ltd. (Payments).

  The balance of levy receipts is used to finance payments to British Nuclear Fuels plc and to renewables generators, and to cover certain other costs such as administration costs.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what amount of money is estimated to be raised from the privatisation of Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear in terms of(a) unspent non-fossil fuel obligation moneys and (b) cash surpluses at the time of the sale. [11309]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]: The proceeds of the sale of British Energy will depend on a variety of factors, including market conditions at the time of sale. It is not possible to put a fixed estimate on proceeds in advance of sale.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what amount of money has been spent on redundancy payments for staff in(a) Nuclear Electric and (b) Scottish Nuclear in each of the last five years; and how much is estimated to be spent in 1996–97. [11310]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]: Information on staff redundancy costs is given in the annual report and accounts of Nuclear Electric plc. Information for 1995–96 and beyond will be published in the accounts of the relevant companies for those years. Questions on Scottish Nuclear Ltd. are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to retain the non-fossil fuel obligation after privatisation of British Energy; what is its estimated level; and if he will make a statement. [11254]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]: Under the non-fossil fuel obligation, NFFO, the regional electricity companies, RECs, are required to make arrangements to secure the availability of specified
  512
  amounts of non-fossil—nuclear and renewables—sourced electricity generating capacity. The fossil fuel levy recovers the above-market costs to the RECs of securing this capacity. The nuclear NFFO will continue until 1998, but the element of the fossil fuel levy that is attributable to Nuclear Electric will end at the time of privatisation, subject to the recovery of outstanding moneys. The levy will continue to cover renewables and British Nuclear Fuels plc. We cannot give a figure for the reduced rate at this time, as it will depend on a number of factors that are still uncertain.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much of the non-fossil fuel obligation distributed to Nuclear Electric(a) remains as cash surplus, (b) has been used for decommissioning, (c) has been used for waste reprocessing, (d) has been invested in capital assets and (e) has been spent elsewhere. [11253]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]: Details of nuclear premium received by Nuclear Electric under the NFFO arrangements and of their expenditure are contained in Nuclear Electric's annual report and accounts. The nuclear premium forms part of their overall income.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answers of 10 January,Official Report, columns 226–27, to whom the expenditure provision for restructuring and privatisation of the nuclear power generation industry will be given in 1995–96; and what is the value of the contacts with the companies advising his Department on the sale. [11311]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]: Pursuant to my answers of 10 January 1996, Official Report, columns 226–27, expenditure in 1995–96 on restructuring and privatisation of the nuclear power generation industry will be in respect of the companies advising the Government during that financial year. Actual expenditure will be reported to Parliament in the normal way through the appropriation account. The value of individual contracts with companies is commercially confidential.

  Competition Policy, Birmingham
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the impact of competition policy on Birmingham. [9996]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government believe that competition is good for competitiveness by making business compete more effectively and thus benefiting both customers and producers—in Birmingham as in the rest of the UK.

  EU Funding
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how much in(a) ecu and (b) pounds by standard region and in total the United Kingdom received under the European Thermie programmes and its predecessor programmes over the last available five years; [11662]

  (2) how much in (a) ecu and (b) pounds by standard region and in total is allocated to the United Kingdom from the European Thermie programme under the current financial perspectives. [11663]
  513
  Mr. Page
  Payment from European expenditure programmes are not allocated to members states in the legislation supporting the programmes. The Thermie programme supports projects selected following an open call for proposals. It is not possible to predict the outcome of future calls, but in the last five years UK led projects have received:

  Year

  kecu

  £ thousands1

  1991

  19,507

  15,996

  1992

  21,111

  17,311

  1993

  26,053

  18,903

  1994

  37,250

  30,545

  1995

  21,541

  17,663

  11 ecu = £0.82.

  A breakdown of these figures on a regional basis is not available.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how much in(a) ecus and (b) pounds by standard region and in total is allocated to the United Kingdom from the European Altener programme under the present structural funds agreement; [11667]

  (2) how much in (a) ecus and (b) pounds by standard region and in total the United Kingdom received under the European Altener programme and its predecessor programmes over the last available five-year period. [11666]

  Mr. Page
  The Altener programme for the promotion of renewable energy sources in the Community is not part of the structural funds. Payment from European expenditure programmes are not allocated to member states in the legislation supporting the programmes. The Altener programme started in 1993 and UK-led projects have received:

  Year

  kecu

  £ thousand1

  1993

  272

  223

  1994

  1,609

  1,071

  1995

  2,101

  1,723

  11 ecu = £0.82.

  A breakdown of these figures on a regional basis is not available.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much in(a) ecu and (b) pounds by standard region and in total the United Kingdom received from European Commission research and development programmes over the last available five years. [11668]

  Mr. Taylor
  Information on receipts for the European Union research and development programmes which have to be collected from the recipients is available only for 1993–94:

  1993–94

  Region

  £million

  MECU

  South East

  97.76

  125.57

  South West

  36.06

  46.32

  514

  1993–94

  Region

  £million

  MECU

  East Anglia

  12.76

  16.39

  East Midlands

  10.79

  13.86

  West Midlands

  6.01

  7.71

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  6.00

  7.70

  North

  4.63

  5 95

  North-West

  17.57

  22.57

  Wales

  7.77

  9.98

  Scotland

  17.26

  22.17

  Northern Ireland

  5.40

  6.93

  UK Total

  222.01

  285.17

  These totals do not include funds received by the non-profit sector or the new universities.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much in(a) Ecus and (b) pounds by standard region and in total is allocated to the United Kingdom from the European Commission research and development programmes under the current financial perspectives. [11669]

  Mr. Taylor
  Payments from European Community expenditure programmes are not allocated to member states in the legislation supporting the programmes.

  Framework programme IV, which runs from 1994–98, is the EU's main research and development programme. It supports collaborative research aimed at promoting industrial competitiveness and the quality of life. It has a budget of 13.1 billion ecu?approximately £10.9 billion. It is administered by the European Commission, which receives applications and manages the project selection process. The budget is not pre-allocated in any way among member states. Projects are selected on the basis of scientific excellence. UK researchers have participated strongly in successive framework programmes.

  Post Office
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the Post Office. [10002]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Government's plans for the future of the Post Office were set out in a statement on 11 May 1995 by my right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade.

  Small Firms
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the outcome of the recent review of the small firms loan guarantee scheme; and what changes he proposes to make to the rules. [12816]

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

  Departmental Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions his Department has held with other Government Departments following the publishing of the figures showing percentages of hills paid late in 1994–95. [12224]
  515
  Mr. Page
  My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is responsible for issuing guidance on monitoring methods and payment policies to Government Departments.

  As Minister for Small Business, I have also stressed the importance of prompt payment at meetings with all the small firms Ministers across the Government and shall continue to do so.

  In addition, this Department has substantially improved its payment performance over the past year. I recognise the need to build on this improvement and this Department will re-examine payment procedures and checking systems will be made even more comprehensive.

  Business Links
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many inquiries business links handled in the last year for which figures are available. [11962]

  Mr. Page
  During the period October 1994 to September 1995, business links provided advice and information to the following numbers of companies:

  October?December 1994: 26,624

  January?March 1995: 33,035

  April?June 1995: 41,222

  July?September 1995: 51,931

  Each company is counted only once each quarter. To the extent that some companies may seek information and advice more than once in each quarter the total number of inquiries dealt with will be higher than above.

  British Gas
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will hold discussions with the Office of Gas Supply about the measures which should be taken to ensure that the cost of take and pay contracts entered into by British Gas is not passed on to gas consumers. [11498]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government have decided not to include a provision in the standard conditions of the gas shippers licences to recover the costs of "take or pay" contracts. Regulation of prices in the tariff market is, and always has been, the responsibility of the independent Director General of Gas Supply.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many businesses(a) registered and (b) deregistered for VAT in (i) the north-west and (ii) Pendle in 1994 and 1995. [12598]

  Mr. Page
  The latest available figures are for 1994 and are as follows:

  VAT registrations and deregistrations in 1994

  Registrations

  Deregistrations

  North-West

  17,375

  17,751

  Pendle

  261

  246

  516
  The above estimates include adjustments for the effects of the changes in the VAT threshold in November 1993, and hence differ from those published elsewhere by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. [11876]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: In forwarding 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 a matter for the individuals concerned.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. [11877]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: 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.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. [11387]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: The value of contracts let centrally to external consultants including management consultants for 1993–94 was £24.17 million, for 1994–95 it was £6.66 million, and for 1995–96 to date it is £3.96 million. Other information on central expenditure can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on savings is not collected centrally and estimates can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Information in respect of non-departmental public bodies is not kept centrally and could not be compiled without disproportionate cost.

  The above information excludes external consultancies let independently by the Department's executive agencies. I have asked agency chief executives to reply separately.
  517
  Letter from R. D. Worswick to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 24 January 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the use of management consultants by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist (LGC), an executive agency of the DTI.
  From time-to-time we have used consultants to help review or improve internal management functions (including the provision of information technology). They are engaged against "value-for-money" criteria, and only when they can bring particular skills or knowledge not available from within LGC; particular examples are in training, the selection and implementation of accounting systems, and operational review.
  Over the last six years LGC has spent the following amounts on management consultants:

  Year

  £ thousand (including VAT)

  1991–92

  25

  1992–93

  103

  1993–94

  11

  1994–95

  277

  1995–96 (to date)

  46

  1995–96 (estimate to year end)

  120

  I am afraid that information on earlier years can only be provided at disproportionate cost. Forecasts for 1996/97 are not available.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 29 January 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply, in relation to the Patent Office, to your Question about the use of external consultants.
  The Patent Office made no use of external consultants in 1992/93, 1993/94 and 1994/95. In 1995/96 expenditure to the 31st December 1995 is £113,204 with the full year estimated at £130,000. In 1996/97 provision has been made for £100,000 as continuation of existing work aimed at identifying scope for savings in activities such as marketing and use of computer services. Figures relating to 1979/80, 1989/90 and 1991/92 are not available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  The savings accruing to the Office from this work will depend on the extent to which better value for money can be obtained while preserving the current quality of service.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 29 January 1996:
  I have been asked by the President of the Board of Trade to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question concerning expenditure on external consultants.
  I regret that information is not available for 1979–80, but the figures for the years since 1989 are as follows:

  £ thousand

  1989–90

  Nil

  1990–91

  2

  1991–92

  10

  1992–93

  22

  1993–94

  58

  1994–95

  22

  1995–96 (to date)

  30

  Cost including VAT

  Organisation

  Purpose

  1993–94£

  1994–95£

  1995–96 to date £

  1995–96 estimated total £

  coopers and Lybrand

  Accountancy support

  —

  60,000

  —

  —

  KPMG

  Market test

  445,000

  —

  —

  —

  518

  £ thousand

  1995–96 (full year estimate)

  35

  1996–97 (estimate)

  30

  The consultants employed have provided exclusively technical advice, mostly related to accounting changes and the development of the Agency's quality system. It is therefore impossible to estimate what savings, if any, may have accrued as a result.

  Letter from David Durham to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 29 January 1996:
  Mr John Taylor MP has asked me to reply in respect of Companies House Executive Agency to your question to the President of the Board of Trade on the expenditure of external consultants; and the estimated savings derived from the use of consultants by Companies House Executive Agency, for certain years since 1979.
  The information you sought is as follows:

  Expenditure on Consultants

  Year

  £ thousand

  1993–94

  172

  1994–95

  122

  1995–96 (to date)

  167

  1995–96 (full year forecast)

  279

  The expected expenditure for 1996–97 is not available at this stage, as Companies House is still next year.

  Information on earlier years can only be provided at disproportionate costs.

  There are no direct savings attributed to the above consultancy costs, since the consultants were employed by Companies House to provide technical advice on matters such as structural building repairs and IT system design and implementation.

  I trust you will find this information helpful.

  Letter from Michael Goddard to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 29 January 1996:
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Competition and Consumer Affairs, has asked me to reply to your Question about expenditure on external consultants.
  2. The Agency did not assume responsibility for letting its own contracts until 1994. Expenditure on external consultants. including management consultants, in FY 94–95 amounted to £237,207, and to date in FY 95–96 to £247,377, Expenditure in earlier years is covered in Mr. Taylor's reply to your question. Planned expenditure in FY 96–97 is unlikely to exceed the level of previous years.
  3. All the expenditure in FY 94–95 and FY 95–96 involved the provision of strategic advice. Savings resulting from decisions taken in response to such advice will not be quantifiable for some time. When engaging external consultants "value for money" is the Agency's prime consideration.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 29 January, 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about expenditure on external consultants and the estimated savings resulting from their employment by The Insolvency Service.
  Details of the costs associated with external consultants engaged by The Service are:
  519

  Cost including VAT

  Organisation

  Purpose

  1993–94£

  1994–95£

  1995–96 to date £

  1995–96 estimated total £

  Ernst and Young

  Market test and accountancy support

  107,800

  13,100

  —

  —

  Price Waterhouse

  User survey

  —

  124,800

  —

  —

  Stoy Hayward

  Contracting out and management Consultancy

  76,670

  94,150

  —

  —

  Shreeveport Ltd.

  Contracting out

  —

  129,000

  421,100

  506,400

  Bevan Ashford

  Contracting out

  —

  —

  26,465

  36,500

  Bond Pearce

  Contracting out

  —

  10,100

  —

  10,000

  Total

  229,470

  431,150

  447,565

  552,900

  Prior to 1994 contracts for consultants were let by the Department of Trade and Industry, and information in relation to 1992 and 1993 was provided in a Parliamentary Question No. 146 for Ms Diane Abbott MP dated 25 January 1994, Columns 211–217. Information on consultancies prior to 1992–93 can only now be provided at disproportionate cost.

  The Service has also used outside private sector organisations for advice on, development of and delivery in relation to specialist areas such as training, design and information technology systems. Details of the organisations concerned, the payments made to them and any estimate of savings accrued could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  The £60,000 payment to Coopers and Lybrand for accountancy support for the Agency was in and about the setting up of systems to enable it to produce commercial style accounts.

  Ernst and Young were engaged in 1993–94 to prepare a specification for the market test of The Service's Central Accounting Unit and to assist with the evaluation of the bids at a cost of £107,800. KPMG were engaged to assist the in-house bid team in the preparation of their bid at a cost of £45,000. The annual saving in the overall cost of the activities market tested is approximately £85,000 in each of the five years of the resulting Service Level Agreement.

  Ernst and Young were also engaged in 1995 on accounting reconciliation work for the Central Accounting Unit at a cost of £13,100. This did not produce direct savings but provided independent professional assurance that financial data had been properly transferred to the CAU's new computer system(BANCS).

  Consultants have been engaged by The Service throughout the period of the current contracting out exercise which has yet to reach its conclusion. Any estimate of savings accrued as a result could only be determined once the decision has been taken on contracting out.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Globe Europe Network
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the benefits that have accrued from the United Kingdom financial support through the know-how fund for the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment-Globe Europe Network; and what financial commitments have been made for further funding of the Globe Europe Network. [12002]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The know-how fund has not previously provided any direct support to the Globe Europe network. However, it has pledged a sum of up to 35,868 ecu—approximately £20,000–20 per cent. of the total cost of a project to be started in 1996.
  520
  The details are still under negotiation. However, the project aims to promote among parliamentarians in central and eastern Europe understanding of parliamentary procedures and techniques with particular emphasis on environmental policy-making. The project will consist of some preliminary research into environmental concerns in the Central and Eastern Europe region; two international seminars at which parliamentarians will be invited to discuss related issues with experts in the environmental field; the implementation of joint initiatives based upon findings and examples of successful co-operation between parliaments and NGOs; and a campaign aimed to publicise the initiatives and their results.

  The benefit likely to accrue from know-how fund support for this programme is the formation of constructive policy work in the environmental field as parliamentarians are encouraged to forge practical policies.

  Ceremonial Dress
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 690–91, if he will give details of the ceremonial dress expected to he worn by Her Majesty's representatives in (a) Japan, (b) the Cayman Islands and (c) Swaziland. [11571]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The ceremonial dress expected to be worn by Her Majesty's representatives in Japan is full dress uniform comprising coatee and trousers, cocked hat with feathers, sword and accessories, boots, black braces and white gloves.

  The ceremonial dress expected to be worn by Her Majesty's Representative in the Cayman Islands arid Swaziland is tropical uniform which comprises white drill and trousers, collar, sword and accessories, braces, white gloves, boots and embroidered cap.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 691, if he will give details of the uniform expected to be worn by Her Majesty's representatives to the Holy See; when that post was last held by a man; and what was the then cost. [11572]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The last male Her Majesty's representative to the Holy See was accredited between 1991–1995. The cost of his diplomatic uniform was
  521
  £3,193 and consisted of coatee and trousers, cocked hat topped with feathers, sword and accessories, boots, braces and white gloves.

  Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 692, what was the total cost of the Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps; how many staff are employed; and what are the principal duties of the Marshal. [11624]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The marshal occupies official accommodation for which he makes a contribution from his salary. The direct costs of his office borne by Buckingham palace and the FCO in 1994–95 were £70,995.35.

  The marshal's staff consists of a secretary and the services of an office cleaner.

  His principle duties are to make arrangements for heads of diplomatic missions on state and official occasions.

  War Crimes, Bosnia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) Serbs, (b) Croats, and (c) Moslems have been indicted for war crimes by the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal. [11847]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To date, 45 Serbs, seven Croats, and no Moslems have been indicted by the international war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

  Military Personnel (Training)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what has been the cost to public funds of United Kingdom military personnel providing training assistance between 1 January 1991 and 31 December 1995 in(a) Gambia, (b) Indonesia, (c) Nigeria and (d) Saudi Arabia. [12125]

  (2) how many military personnel from (a) Indonesia, (b) Saudi Arabia, (c) Sierra Leone, (d) Gambia, (e) Sudan and (f) Nigeria were given training in the United Kingdom between 1 January 1991 and 31 December 1995; and what has been the cost to public funds in each case. [12124]

  Mr. David Davis
  The details of training given under the United Kingdom military training assistance scheme are confidential between Governments.

  Kenya
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Kenya concerning their intention to introduce the Press Council and Mass Media Commission Bills, especially insofar as they affect foreign correspondents. [12118]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have maintained a dialogue at senior level with the Kenyan authorities on the draft legislation 522
  in question, in which we have emphasised the importance we attach to freedom of the press in Kenya.

  Zanzibar
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the presidential elections held in Zanzibar in October 1995. [10618]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]: Together with other participants in the international monitoring exercise we have called on the Zanzibari and Tanzanian authorities to take appropriate action following concerns about discrepancies in the compilation of votes for the presidency of Zanzibar.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [11381]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not collect statistics on absenteeism rates. Though we believe non-sick-related absences to be minimal. Therefore, the information requested by the hon. Member can he provided only at disproportionate cost.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Chocolate Directive
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the European Commission to publish its new draft directive on chocolate; and if he will make it his policy to oppose proposals from the Commission to(a) reduce the proportion of vegetable fat currently permitted in United Kingdom chocolate and (b) require chocolate manufactured in the United Kingdom to be described on its packaging as anything other than chocolate. [9949]

  Mrs. Browning
  I understand that the European Commission hopes to issue soon a formal proposal to replace the 1973 Cocoa and Chocolate Products Directive.

  British manufacturers make a wide variety of high quality chocolate products, many of which include a small addition of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter, so as to meet the full range of consumer tastes and expectations both in this country and elsewhere. This has had the effect of expanding the chocolate market, securing jobs at home and increasing demand for cocoa and other products on which the economies of many developing countries are heavily dependent.

  The Government will therefore vigorously oppose any proposal which seeks to reduce the diversity of chocolate formulations which may he marketed freely within the European Community or which seeks to prohibit the use

  523
  of the name chocolate on products containing the traditional mixture of cocoa butter and other vegetable fats.

  Monofilament Nets
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what length of(a) monofilament netting and (b) other fishing gear is estimated to have been lost or discarded in United Kingdom waters in each year since 1990; and what measure he has taken to (i) monitor and (ii) regulate the loss and discard of monofilament netting. [11573]

  Mr. Baldry
  No information is held centrally on the loss or discard of fishing gear. Under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 it is an offence to discard into the sea any fishing gear, including netting, for which the penalty may be a substantial fine or even imprisonment. The Ministry will not hesitate to prosecute in such cases where sufficient evidence is considered to be available.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sea mammals have been trapped in monofilament nets in(a) United Kingdom waters and (b) Scottish waters, since 1980. [11574]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Ministry does not hold the information requested. However, since 1980 there have been no recorded cases of sea mammals becoming trapped in monofilament nets in Scottish inshore waters, where the carriage of such nets is prohibited. The Ministry has commissioned the sea mammal research unit to undertake a two-year study to evaluate the extent of cetacean by-catch in the bottom-set gill net fishery in the North sea. Some of the nets involved are likely to be monofilament.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels currently use monofilament nets in United Kingdom waters; and in what areas they operate. [11575]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Ministry does not hold information on the number of fishing vessels currently using monofilament nets in United Kingdom waters. Such nets may be used in United Kingdom waters apart from Scottish inshore waters where their carriage has been prohibited since 1986.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 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. [11353]

  Mr. Boswell
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, selected aggregated data on sickness absence in respect of calendar years has been available since 1985, in the form of reports from Her Majesty's Treasury and more recently the Civil Service Occupational Health and
  524
  Safety Agency (OHSA). Figures for the Department based on these data,(and which necessarily include some of the agencies in the period 1990 to 1994), are as follows:

  Year

  Average number of days sick absence per staff year

  19891

  6.3

  19902

  7.5

  1991

  8.7

  1992

  8.0

  1993

  8.4

  1994

  7.4

  1Figures are based on a 10 per cent. sample.

  2Figures are based on a 20 per cent. sample.

  Spanish Fishing Vessels
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, dated 9 January, which countries or organisations were party to the negotiations following which 22 Spanish fishing vessels gained access to the Norwegian exclusive economic zone in 1994; and if he will make a statement. [11031]

  Mr. Baldry
  The negotiations for a free trade area between the EC and EFTA culminated in the European economic area agreement which came into effect in 1994. Inter alia this negotiation involved an increase in fishing opportunities in Norwegian waters in recognition of a substantial reduction in tariff barriers for fish products. This gave limited access to Spain, Portugal and Ireland as well as a substantial increase in United Kingdom quotas.

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many rainbow trout fattening ponds there are in Northern Ireland; if they require a culture licence; what chemicals they use; and if they may discharge chemicals without consent into a watercourse. [10665]

  Mr. Ancram
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are 104 ponds at which small-scale production of not more than 500 rainbow trout per year is authorised. All sites where trout are artificially fed require a fish culture licence under section 1 I of the Fisheries Act (NI) 1966. Chemical treatment is not a feature of fish husbandry at these sites. Chemicals may not be discharged into a watercourse without consent.

  EU Funding
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much in(a) ecus and (b) pounds by standard region and in total the United Kingdom received under the European financial instrument for fishery guidance over the last available five years. [11656]

  Mr. Baldry
  The European financial instrument for fisheries guidance was introduced on 1 January 1994. Allocations are not made on a regional basis as awards are made according to how they meet selection criteria.
  525
  No central records of awards by standard regions is therefore kept. However, payments made in financial year 1994–95 and for the first half of 1995–96 were as follows:

  1994–95

  1995–96 (up to September)

  Mecu

  £ million

  Mecu

  £ million

  Scotland (Objective 1)

  (Highlands and Islands)

  0.97

  0.79

  0.86

  0.72

  Northern Ireland

  (Objective 1)

  0.95

  0.78

  0.04

  0.035

  Non-Objective 1 areas

  (England, Wales and the

  remainder of Scotland)

  4.3

  3.54

  0.47

  0.395

  Total

  6.22

  5.11

  1.37

  1.15

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much in(a) ecus and (b) pounds by standard region and in total is allocated to the United Kingdom from the European financial instrument for fishery guidance under the present structural funds agreement. [11657]

  Mr. Baldry
  The European financial instrument for fisheries guidance was introduced on 1 January 1994. Allocations are not made on a regional basis as awards are made according to how projects meet selection criteria. Allocations of Community funds under the United Kingdom's sectoral plan for 1994–99 are in the table.

  Mecu

  £ million

  Scotland (Objective 1)

  (Highlands and Islands)

  19.8

  16.5

  Northern Ireland (Objective 1)

  15.12

  12.6

  Non-Objective 1 areas

  (England, Wales and the remainder of Scotland)

  88.7

  73.92

  Total

  123.62

  103.02

  A further 8.35 mecu—some £7 million has been allocated to the United Kingdom from FIFG under the PESCA Community initiative. Allocations of Community funds under the UK PESCA programme for the period 1995–1999 are:

  Mecu

  £ million

  Objective 1 areas

  Scotland (Highland and Islands)

  2.53

  2.11

  Northern Ireland

  0.26

  0.21

  Non-Objective 1 areas

  England

  3.69

  3.08

  Wales

  0.07

  0.06

  Scotland

  1.80

  1.50

  Total

  8.35

  6.96

  Further PESCA funding is due to he awarded to the United Kingdom from the Commission's Community Initiative reserve. Details are awaited from the Commission.

HEALTH

  Rubella Vaccination
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the rubella vaccination programme with particular reference to the vaccination of schoolgirls between the age of 10 and 14 years. [10742]

  Mr. Horman
  When the measles, mumps and rubella—MMR—vaccine was introduced into the routine pre-school childhood immunisation schedule in 1988, it was accepted that a continuingly high uptake of the vaccine would mean that it would be possible, in due course, to stop routinely immunising schoolgirls against rubella. It was also acknowledged when planning the measles/rubella immunisation campaign conducted in schools in November 1994, that a successful campaign would make it possible to bring forward the end of the schoolgirl rubella programme. Vaccine uptake in the measles/rubella campaign was very high at around 92 per cent. and uptake of MMR vaccine in infants is also consistently high at 92 per cent. In the light of the success of both the ongoing MMR programme and the measles/rubella campaign, the independent joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation concluded that immunisation levels against rubella among children were sufficiently high and advised that the routine immunisation of girls between 10 and 14 was no longer appropriate.

  Ministers accepted the committee's recommendation and health authorities and all doctors were told in October 1995 that the routine immunisation of schoolgirls against rubella should be ended.

  The policy of providing protection against rubella remains unchanged. In announcing the decision to end the routine immunisation programme, the Departments stressed that health authorities should continue with their other existing rubella screening and immunisation programmes. Health authorities should both continue to ensure that MMR vaccine is offered to any children of school leaving age who have not been immunised and also maintain their procedures to ensure that, where and when appropriate, women of childbearing age arc both screened for rubella antibodies and offered immunisation. This will ensure that both girls and boys receive rubella vaccine if missed before.

  Copies of the appropriate executive letter and Chief Medical Officer's update are available in the Library.

  Northern and Yorkshire Outpost
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the location and address of the site for the new headquarters of the Northern and Yorkshire outpost of the NHS executive. [11112]

  Mr. Malone
  A new headquarters building for the national health service executive Northern and Yorkshire regional office is being constructed at the Mountjoy science park in Durham. The postal address for the new building has not been finalised.

  Personal Information
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many instances of unauthorised access to identifiable
  527
  personal health information have been recorded in each of the last three years; and how many of these were by access through IT equipment or NHS networks. [11474]

  Mr. Horam
  There is no central collection of statistics on recorded instances of unauthorised access to identifiable personal health information, whether via computer systems or paper records.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the NHS HealthNet network to meet the demands of healthcare professionals for the effective protection of identifiable patient health data; [11470]

  (2) what progress his Department has made towards developing for NHS staff a code of guidance for protecting identifiable personal health information transmitted on NHS networks; and if he will make a statement; [11468]

  (3) if he will place in the Library details of the security policy and technical specifications proposed for the new NHS HealthNet network. [11469]

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in developing policy on the secure management of identifiable personal health data to be transmitted on HealthNet. [11188]

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for health (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that the confidentiality and integrity of patient data transmitted on the proposed HealthNet network will be maintained; [11680]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that bodies within the NHS implement security policies which protect the confidentiality of patients' personal health information transmitted on computer networks. [11681]

  Mr. Horam
  Over the past two years the Department of Health sought advice from security experts and from representatives of the clinical professions, following which the national health service chief executive wrote to all health authorities and trusts in December 1995 enclosing the networking security policy, codes of connection and the security guide, EL (95) 108, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The papers explain the measures taken to protect information when it is passing over the networking system. They also state that these measures must be matched by secure handling of patient information locally. The Department of Health will issue further guidance in the near future, covering both the protection and use of patient information, and the secure management of computer systems.

  Yorkshire RHA
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on repairs, maintenance and improvement of the former Yorkshire regional health authority headquarters at Park parade, Harrogate, since January 1986; who owns the building; when it will be vacated; and what receipts from the sale of the lease or freehold on this building will be passed to the NHS. [11114]
  528
  Mr. Malone
  Spending on repairs, maintenance and improvement of the former Yorkshire regional health authority headquarters at Park parade, Harrogate for the financial years from 1986–87 onwards is shown in the table.

  Financial year

  Expenditure £

  1986–87

  54.000

  1987–88

  30,000

  1988–89

  1,400,000

  1989–90

  1,400.000

  1990–91

  46,000

  1991–92

  371,000

  1992–93

  88.000

  1993–94

  56,000

  The building is currently owned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, but on its vacation by the national health service executive regional office, ownership will pass to Dysart Developments Ltd, the developer of the new headquarters for the regional office at Durham. Receipts from the sale of the building will be £2.825 million, which will be added to allocations to health authorities in the region to invest in services for patients.

  HIV-associated Dementia
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he is taking to improve awareness among general practitioners of HIV-associated dementia; [11743]

  (2) if he will list all specialist services for HIV-associated dementia; [11741]

  (3) what research he has commissioned into HIV-associated dementia; [11745]

  (4) how many cases of HIV-associated dementia have been identified in each year since 1990; [11744]

  (5) what action he is taking to improve the co-ordination of care for people with HIV-associated dementia. [11742]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health commissioned a study in 1991, covering the period 1991–1994, into the epidemiology of HIV-associated dementia in the Thames regional health authorities. This has concluded that previous studies had over-estimated the size of the problem and suggests a lower prevalence of HIV-associated dementia in people with AIDS of under 10 per cent. The report will be published shortly and copies will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Information is not available nationally on the number of cases of HIV-associated dementia or on specialist services for people with HIV dementia.

  The Department has issued a comprehensive training pack for general practitioners which covers the whole spectrum of HIV disease, including HIV dementia. Guidance to health authorities on HIV/AIDS has stressed the need for shared care arrangements between specialist AIDS facilities and general practitioners. The Department has also issued guidance to both health and local

  529
  authorities on the need to carry out population needs assessments in their localities to establish local priorities for service commissioning.

  Disability
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [11918]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health and its agencies submitted an application for the award of the disability symbol to the Employment Service on 19 January 1996. We intend to use the disability symbol on all external and internal advertisements, including promotions.

  Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what circulars or other information or directives have been sent to social service departments of local authorities regarding the implementation of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995. [11825]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has prepared a circular giving detailed policy and practice guidance to local and health authorities on implementing the Act, which comes into force on 1 April 1996. We recently consulted interested parties on the draft guidance, and we shall shortly be issuing the final document to local and health authorities.

  Tobacco Sales (Minors)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to restrict the advertising, sponsorship and promotion of tobacco and to strengthen the legislation on illegal sales to minors. [12101]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government are already committed to ensuring that there are effective controls on tobacco advertising, sponsorship and promotion. This is achieved by voluntary agreements between the Government and the tobacco industry. The voluntary agreements were strengthened in a number of key areas at the end of 1994. The law relating to illegal sales to minors has also been strengthened significantly by virtue of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 and regulations made under it.

  Community Hospital, Orsett
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to his oral answer of 16 January,Official Report, column 528, if he will make a statement on the (a) size, (b) scale and (c) services that are planned to be made available at the community hospital at Orsett to which he referred; [10781]

  (2) pursuant to his oral answer of 16 January, Official Report, column 528, when the new minor injuries unit he announced for Orsett hospital will be opened; [10782]

  (3) pursuant to his oral answer of 16 January, Official Report, column 528, which operations it is planned will continue to be conducted at the day surgery at Orsett hospital. [10738]
  530
  Mr. Horam
  These are matters for the South Essex health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. David Micklem, the chairman, for details.

  Hospitals, Greater Manchester
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what dates between 1 December 1995 and 14 January 1996, and at what hospitals in the Greater Manchester area, accident and emergency facilities were closed to new admissions. [11176]

  Mr. Horam
  Greater Manchester ambulance service has a policy of not accepting any requests to divert and takes emergency patients to the nearest accident and emergency department as a matter of course.

  Sun Healthcare
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports he has received in respect of the activities in the United Kingdom of the United States company Sun Healthcare; and if he will make a statement. [12449]

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Fraud
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of fraud and corruption for each year since 1979. [12451]

  Mr. Horam
  The costs of fraud and corruption in the national health service are not identified separately from other losses in returns to the Department. However, the Audit Commission publication "Ensuring Probity in the NHS" reported in December 1994 that proven fraud was small. It estimated that losses through the misuse of taxpayers' money over a three year period when NHS expenditure totalled £80 billion were £6 million—about one penny for every £100 spent in the NHS.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to monitor fraud in community care provision. [12452]

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authority social service departments should build suitable fraud prevention measures into their financial management procedures. Any evidence of fraud should be referred direct to the police who are the appropriate investigating authority for such matters.

  Private Sector Providers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which agency monitors health authority contracts with private sector providers; [12453]

  (2) if he will list the number, type and value of contracts issued by health authorities to the private sector for nursing home beds. [12455]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is the responsibility of health authorities to place contracts with providers for health care services, including continuing in-patient care, and to monitor those contracts.

  Special Transitional Grant
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those local authorities which failed to spend
  531
  85 per cent. of the special transitional grant for 1994–95 in the independent sector. [12450]

  Mr. Bowis
  Audited returns detailing community care spending in the independent sector by local authorities in 1994–95 were due to be submitted to the Department by 31 December 1995. Some returns are still outstanding and are being followed up through the Audit Commission.

  Local Authority Contracts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which agency monitors local authority contracts with private sector providers. [12454]

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities are responsible for monitoring contracts with providers.

  Residential and Nursing Care
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number, type and value of contracts issued by local authorities to the private sector for nursing and care home beds. [12456]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on contracts between local authorities and independent sector providers of residential and nursing care beds is not collected centrally.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many small independent pharmacies there are in the United Kingdom; how many there were in 1992; and what estimate he has made of how many supermarkets have opened pharmacies since 1992. [12120]

  Mr. Malone
  It is not possible to give the information in the form requested. In the financial year 1992–93 there were 6,579 independent pharmacies in England. The comparable figure for 1994–95 was 6,330. Independent pharmacies are defined as including chains of four or less and exclude pharmacies in health centres, for which a breakdown is not available. No information is available centrally on supermarkets which have opened pharmacies. Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the total cost for himself and other departmental Ministers for each year since 1991–92, including the current year of(a) overseas travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers and their advisers, (b) car and chauffeuring costs of Ministers, (c) ministerial security costs and (d) domestic travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers. [6382]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of overseas visits by Ministers in my Department were set out in the answer of 19 July given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to the hon. Member for Knowsley North (Mr. Howarth),Official Report, columns 1369–75. The
  532
  costs of visits overseas by Ministers falling to my Department since then, including the cost of officials where they can be identified, are as follows:

  Secretary of State for Defence:

  £64,830

  Minister of State for the Armed Forces:

  £95.228

  Minister of State for Defence Procurement:

  £26,359

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence:

  £2.735

  The cost of domestic visits by Ministers in each financial year since 1991–92 could be identified only at disproportionate cost. Costs falling to my Department since 1 April last year have been identified, however, and are as follows:

  Secretary of State for Defence:

  £17,670

  Minister of State for the Armed Forces:

  £14,702

  Minister of State for Defence Procurement:

  £8,362

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence:

  £7,469

  Note: Figures include overseas and domestic visits undertaken up to 20 December 1995.

  The cost to my Department of ministerial security is not separately identifiable. Ministerial protection is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Information on the cost of ministerial cars and chauffeurs was set out in the letter of 28 November 1995 from my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the cost of running his departmental office, and that of his predecessor, for each year since 1990–91 including the current year, broken down into(a) telephone bills, (b) total staff costs, (c) press and communications, (d) entertainment, (e) alcoholic drinks, (f) non-alcoholic drinks, (g) stationery, (h) office refurbishment and (i) other. [6381]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of the cost of running my right hon. Friend's departmental office are not held in a form which would allow them to he identified separately for each financial year since 1991–92. The costs which have been identified for the last and present financial years are as follows:

  1994–95 £

  1995–961 £

  Telephone

  1,757

  1.083

  Staff

  649,474

  383,961

  Newspapers (including periodicals)

  1,017

  508

  Stationery

  4,957

  7.653

  Entertainment (including alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks)

  1,911

  461

  1To 31 October 1995.

  The cost of refurbishing my right hon. Friend's own office in each of the financial years in question is as follows:

  1990–91: Nil

  1991–92: £380

  1992–93: £881

  1993–94: Nil

  1994–95: Nil

  1995–96: Nil1

  1to 31 October 1995.

  Royal Yacht
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 582, if he will list for the 35 days of royal duties carried out by the royal yacht (a) the destinations, (b) the period spent at sea and (c) the members of the royal family conveyed. [11563]

  Mr. Soames
  I regret that whilst preparing the answer to this parliamentary Question, my officials found that my earlier answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 582, contained an error. In 1995 members of the royal family were embarked aboard Her Majesty's Yacht Britannia for 36 days, not 35 as previously stated.

  In 1995, Britannia carried out royal duties on the following occasions:

  Member(s) of the Royal Family Embarked

  Date

  Location

  19–21 March

  Capetown

  Her Majesty the Queen

  HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

  24–25 March

  Capetown

  Her Majesty the Queen

  HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

  31 May–2 June

  Falmouth/Avonmouth

  Her Majesty the Queen

  HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

  12–13 June

  Portsmouth

  HRH The Princess Royal

  15 June

  Portsmouth

  HRH The Duke of York

  19–21 June

  Kiel

  HRH The Duke and Duchess of Kent

  26–27 June

  Dundee

  HRH The Prince of Wales

  28 July–2 August

  Cowes

  HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

  4–14 August

  Western Isles

  Her Majesty the Queen

  HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

  18–20 August

  London

  Her Majesty the Queen

  HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, columns 582, how much was received by his Department in (a) 1994 and (b) 1995 for the use of the royal yacht for trade promotion; and from where the payments were received. [11568]

  Mr. Soames
  Charges for the use of Britannia are not levied on the sponsors of commercial events when she is used to promote British exports and attract inward investment to the United Kingdom. However, all additional costs incurred, over and above normal running costs, are paid for by the Government Departments and organisations concerned.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, columns 582, what duties were carried out by the
  534
  royal yacht in 1995 during the period she was at sea but not on royal duties or trade promotion. [11569]

  Mr. Soames
  In 1995, HMY Britannia was engaged in the following activities during the period she was in transit to or from royal duties or trade promotion:

  Date

  Location

  Event

  14 March

  Walvis Bay

  Her Majesty's High Commission, Namibia (lunchtime reception)

  1—10 April

  Simon's Town

  Self maintenance period

  10 April

  Simon's Town

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (lunch)

  21 April

  Tema

  Overseas Development Agency (seminar and lunch)

  4 October

  Pireaus

  Her Majesty's Ambassador (evening reception)

  26 October

  Lisbon

  Her Majesty's Ambassador and the right hon. Douglas Hurd (dinner and evening reception)

  HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when(a) HMS Fearless and (b) HMS Intrepid (i) last put to sea and (ii) will next engage in military manoeuvres.

  Mr. Soames
  HMS Fearless was last at sea on 9 June 1995. She is currently in dock at Portsmouth undergoing routine maintenance and is scheduled to return to operational duties at the end of March. She is next planned to participate in military exercises at the end of April.

  HMS Intrepid was last at sea on 8 November 1990. She is currently in a state of extended readiness at Portsmouth, available for operations at longer notice if required.

  Small Arms Maintenance Contract
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement on the award of the small arms maintenance contract. [11872]

  Mr. Soames
  Small arms repair support for the Army and some units of the other armed services is provided by the Army base repair organisation ABRO has no plans to award a maintenance contract. However, some of the work does form part of a market test competition which commenced in October 1995. It is anticipated that the results of this competition will be known by early 1997.

  European Security
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will define the European Union's contribution to wider European security referred to at paragraph 5 of the memorandum appended to the 10th report from the Defence Committee 1994–95, HC824; and if he will make a statement. [11718]

  Mr. Soames
  The EU makes an important contribution to wider European security by promoting economic stability and democratic practices, and through initiatives in the framework of the Common foreign and security policy, such as the joint action in support of the stability pact implemented in the course of last year.

  Married Quarters (Sales)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings have been sold under the married quarters discounted sales in each year since its introduction. [11873]

  Mr. Soames
  The married quarter discounted sales scheme began in December 1983 with the first sales being completed in financial year 1984–85. The number of sales completed in each financial year is in the table.

  Financial Year

  Number Sold

  1984–85

  not available

  1985–86

  308

  1986–87

  438

  1987–88

  452

  1988–89

  562

  1989–90

  862

  1990–91

  726

  1991–92

  494

  1992–93

  346

  1993–94

  116

  1994–95

  361

  1995–961

  289

  1Up to 30 November 1995

  Bosnia
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is his policy that the British contingent in IFOR should continue the UNPROFOR practice of assisting non-governmental organisations aid convoys in Bosnia. [12197]

  Mr. Soames
  IFOR's primary mission in Bosnia is to implement the military aspects of the peace agreement. Although it does not provide direct support to aid convoys, its efforts are helping to create an environment in which the civilian agencies operating under the peace agreement can accomplish their missions.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if IFOR is continuing the level of joint patrols as previously conducted by UNPROFOR with BiH—Bosnian Government Armed Forces—and HVO—Bosnian Croat Armed Forces—forces along former confrontation lines. [12198]

  Mr. Soames
  IFOR has been well received in theatre and, although it does not conduct joint patrols, it is continuing to work closely with all of the former warring factions as part of the peace implementation process. This includes joint operations to monitor mine clearance and to clear and maintain routes.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to reduce the incidence of low flying by RAF jets over the Dwyfor and Arfon areas. [11976]

  Mr. Soames
  It is our policy to spread military low flying as widely as practicable across the United Kingdom so as to reduce the disturbance over any one area. Restricting the amount of low flying conducted over the areas suggested by the hon. Member would run counter to this policy and concentrate activity over surrounding communities.

  Royal Irish Regiment Base (Fire)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the report of the inquest held on the deaths in the fire at the Royal Irish Regiment base in Magherafelt; and if he will make a statement. [12151]

  Mr. Soames
  The coroner sent his report to the chief fire officer at headquarters Northern Ireland on 22 January 1996. Many of the matters he raises match those identified in the provisional findings of the Army board of inquiry and are already being addressed. We are anxious that any lessons from this tragic incident are fully carried through. The coroner's observations and recommendations will he closely studied and the appropriate action taken.

  Operational Sea Training
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish details of the savings to the Defence budget from transferring operational sea training from Portland to Plymouth. [12010]

  Mr. Soames
  The cost of transferring operational sea training from Portland to Plymouth totalled about £9 million in capital costs. This was part of the overall programme of closing Portland naval base which is expected to realise savings of some £11 million per annum in running costs.

  HMS Fearless
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the current condition of HMS Fearless. [12196]

  Mr. Soames
  HMS Fearless is currently in dock at Portsmouth undergoing routine maintenance. This has shown the ship to be in a material state normal for her age. She is scheduled to return to operational duties at the end of March, on completion of the current work.

  Equerries
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 581, what are the principal duties of the equerries; how they are chosen for the post; what is the normal term of duty. [11567]

  Mr. Soames
  Equerries are chosen from candidates nominated by the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force. The equerry to Her Majesty the Queen serves for three years; the others serve for two years.

  The equerries provide support to their royal highnesses in arranging and planning visits and engagements both at home and abroad. In addition, they attend on their royal highnesses at official engagements, host guests at private and public functions and deal with routine correspondence.

  Thomson Training and Simulation Ltd.
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts his Department currently hold with Thomson Training and Simulation Ltd.; if contracts placed with this company are cost plus; and what checks his Department carries out to ensure that value for money is achieved. [12123]
  537
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The central data maintained by my Department's Procurement Executive and the Defence Research and Evaluation Agency shows there are approximately 70 contracts currently open with the company. Of these, only 10 per cent. have been placed on what is commonly known as "cost plus" terms, and only one of these has been placed during the last five years). These figures include a number of contracts originally placed with different companies, for example Link-Miles Ltd., which have subsequently been subsumed into Thomson Training and Simulation Ltd. as the result of acquisition and organisation.

  Where contracts are placed resulting from competition, then market forces ensure value for money. In other cases, including "cost plus", then contractors have to provide cost certificates and satisfy Ministry contracts officers and/or the pricing and quality services directorate as to their validity before final payments may be made.

  HMS Gannet
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, on what occasions Sea King helicopters from HMS "Gannet" have been grounded because of technical or other faults in each of the past three years and in this year to the current date; what caused the grounding and delay of the helicopter in the search for Sinclair Cadzow on 19 February; what action is being taken to rectify the problems; and if he will make a statement. [12119]

  Mr. Soames
  Provision of data specifying the occasions when Sea King helicopters from HMS Gannet have been grounded for technical or other faults in each of the past three years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The search and rescue aircraft and HMS Gannet scrambled on 19 January at the request of the rescue co-ordinating centre suffered a gearbox fault in transit to the search area which necessitated an emergency landing near Cairnryan. An RAF search and rescue aircraft from Boulmer was then tasked to assist in the search.

  Third Parachute Regiment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the future of the Third Parachute Regiment. [12121]

  Mr. Soames
  We are currently considering the optimum deployment of manpower within our airborne forces. There are no plans to disband the Third Battalion, the Parachute Regiment.

  Type 23 Frigates
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects to announce his decision on the award of the contract for the next batch of type 23 frigates; [12318]

  (2) how many type 23 frigates he proposes to order; and to fulfil what function. [12427]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Tenders are being assessed for a batch of up to three type 23 frigates which are highly capable, modern general purpose frigates, optimised for anti-submarine warfare. An announcement will be made as soon as the decision has been taken.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Arms Surrender
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary if State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress towards the surrender of arms and explosives held by the Provisional IRA. [10622]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which my right hon. and learned Friend gave on 25 January to by hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink),Official Report, column 466.

  Motorway
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the M2 motorway development in respect of(a) the land recently sold to Ronany Ltd. for private commercial development, (b) the funds expended on the land purchase, (c) the construction of engineering work required including, bridges, (d) the level of traffic in its traffic catchment area, (e) the extension of Londonderry, (f) its status as a Euro-route and claims for expansion within the European Union road transportation strategy and (g) the provision for the repurchase from Ronany Ltd. of the land now being disposed of to that company when the time comes for the construction of the additional traffic lanes. [10718]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) and (b) While the Department has not sold any land near the M2 motorway to Ronany Ltd., arrangements are being made to lease a portion of the motorway hard shoulder and verge to the company to facilitate the provision of a service area;

  (c) Responsibility for undertaking the necessary engineering works will rest with Ronany Ltd.—no bridges are proposed;

  (d) Traffic flows on the section of motorway in question are as follows:

  (i) northbound carriageway—approximately 14,000 vehicles per day, and

  (ii) southbound carriageway—approximately 15,600 vehicles per day;

  (e) There are no plans to extend the M2 motorway to Londonderry;

  (f) The Belfast?Londonderry route (M2/M22/A6) forms part of the European Union's trans-european network—TEN—adopted in 1993; and

  (g) While there are no proposals to widen this section of the M2 motorway, provision to cover an eventuality will he made in the arrangements finally agreed with the company.

  Benefits (Claimants)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the numbers of claimants and the amounts paid in respect of(a) each social security benefit and (b) housing benefit in Northern Ireland. [11202]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is as follows:
  539

  Estimated average number of claimants in receipt of the main benefits1 at any one time and expenditure in Northern Ireland, 1994–95

  Benefit

  Average number (000s) 1994–95

  Expenditure (£'000)

  Retirement Pension

  219.6

  631,200

  Widows' Benefit

  11.6

  36,400

  Unemployment Benefit

  14.7

  33,000

  Sickness Benefit

  5.4

  15,500

  Invalidity Benefit

  72.9

  308,100

  Maternity Allowance

  0.5

  1,200

  Guardian's Allowance and Child's Special Allowance

  0.2

  100

  Non-Contributory Retirement Pension

  2.6

  2,619

  Attendance Allowance

  56.9

  108,823

  Invalid Care Allowance

  19.6

  38,960

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  14.6

  30,993

  Industrial Injuries Benefits

  11

  21,658

  Disability Living Allowance

  83.7

  201,732

  Disability Working Allowance

  0.2

  424

  Income Support

  227.2

  649,573

  Child Benefit (number of children)

  467

  221,110

  One Parent Benefit (number of families)

  32

  10,023

  Family Credit

  22

  61,901

  Housing Benefit

  Rent Rebate

  108.6

  165,000

  Rent Allowance

  28.6

  55,199

  Rates Rebate

  181.7

  23,148

  Social Fund

  Budgeting Loans

  73.2

  18,413

  Crisis Loans

  27

  2,319

  Community Care Grants

  38.8

  9,638

  Maternity Payments

  8.4

  839

  Funeral Payments

  3.9

  3,524

  Cold Weather Payments

  0

  0

  Statutory Sick Pay and Statutory

  Maternity Pay

  n/a

  18,700

  Independent Living (Extension) Fund

  1.6

  5,344

  Independent Living (1993) Fund

  2

  102

  Transitional Payments

  2

  7

  1Beneficiaries may be receiving more than one benefit at any one time.

  2Indicates fewer than 50 claimants in receipt.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his current estimate of the population of Northern Ireland(a) up to age 15 and (b) aged 16 years and over. [11200]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information, taken from the 1994 mid-year estimates of population, is as follows:

  Age in years

  Population

  0–15

  419,163

  16 and over

  1,222,548

  Rail Privatisation
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to publish the study on 540
  the proposed privatisation of rail services in Northern Ireland. [11240]

  Mr. Moss
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 11 January 1995,Official Report, column 146. I have no plans to publish the report.

  Ms Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to make a decision on the timetable for the franchising of rail services in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [11239]

  Mr. Moss
  Steps are being taken to introduce a private element into the management operation and capital programme of Northern Ireland Railways through a series of measures including market testing, contracting out, the sale of non-core businesses and the private finance initiative. I will keep the question of franchising under review.

  Action for Community Employment (ACE)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reductions he proposes to make in respect of ACE funding; and what considerations underlie their magnitude. [11107]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 23 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your questions about the Action for Community Employment (ACE) programme.
  The situation regarding the level of reduction in next year's ACE budget and the considerations underlining their magnitude remain as I outlined in my letter to you of 16 January. As I indicated, the reduction in the ACE budget was set against a background of the encouraging performance of the Northern Ireland economy which includes the creation of almost 11,000 additional jobs in the year ending September 1995 and a reduction of 5,500 in the number of people unemployed for more than 1 year.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which sites of special scientific interest in Northern Ireland will be affected by trunk road and motorway schemes for which preferred routes have been announced. [11231]

  Mr. Moss
  No sites of special scientific interest will be affected.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many current national insurance numbers are allocated to people normally resident in Northern Ireland. [11201]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  541
  Letter from Alec Wylie to Mr. Jim Dowd, dated 24 January 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question relating to National Insurance numbers.
  I should explain that all National Insurance records for the United Kingdom are held centrally in Newcastle-Upon-Tyne. The number of National Insurance numbers allocated to Northern Ireland or any other regions of the United Kingdom is not available.
  I am sorry that I cannot provide the information you require.

  Wild Animals
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what inspection his Department has made of private residences within Omagh district council area where big cats, snakes and wild animals are in captivity; and if he will make a statement. [10076]

  Mr. Moss
  Under the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland has inspected two private residences in the Omagh district council area where wild animals are kept. The inspections have confirmed that the primary needs of the animals are being well catered for and the Department is continuing to monitor the situation.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will seek to extend the provisions of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 to Northern Ireland. [10074]

  Mr. Moss
  This issue is currently under review and I shall write to the hon. Member in due course.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what advice he has received from the Royal Ulster Constabulary about the captivity and security of big cats, snakes and other wild animals maintained in private residences within Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [10075]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has recently received correspondence from the Royal Ulster Constabulary calling for the introduction of legislation equivalent to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. The question of the need for new legislation is under review.

SCOTLAND

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which sites of special scientific interest in Scotland will be affected by trunk road and motorway schemes for which preferred routes have been announced. [11230]

  Mr. Kynoch
  In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on 19 December 1995,Official Report, columns 1061–62, on the programme for developing Scotland's trunk road network, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that, subject to the usual criteria including satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures and the necessary preparatory work, it is intended to construct 17 new road schemes over the next three years. Preferred lines have been chosen for 16 of these schemes.
  542
  Two sites of special scientific interest will be affected by these schemes. These are (a) Glen Beasdale, affected by the A830 Mallaig road improvement from Polnish bridge to Loch Nan Uamh (b) Calrossie, where the A9 Logie Easter to Garrick bridge scheme is proposed to be built along a boundary line of the SSSI.

  Disturbance to SSSIs is avoided if possible. When sites are affected, every effort is made to minimise the impact of constructions.

  Speech and Language Therapy
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the purchasing by health boards of speech arid language therapy services required for children who do not have a record of needs; [11638]

  (2) what was the level of expenditure by each health board in Scotland for speech and language therapy services for (a) children with a record of needs and (b) children without a record of needs for (i) 1992, (ii) 1993 and (iii) 1994. [11639]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally. Health boards are responsible for assessing the health care needs of their local populations and for purchasing services including speech therapy services, accordingly.

  Rural Child Care
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is taking to improve rural child care in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [11581]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Provision and development of child care services are primarily matters for local service providers. The Government are mindful of the special problems for delivering these services in rural areas and have undertaken work to demonstrate how these problems can be addressed. The recently completed under-fives rural initiative demonstrated ways that the quality of child care services in rural areas can be enhanced by the use of special rural tutors.

  The Government have also provided funding support of £45,000 over three years to the rural child care development programme run jointly by Children in Scotland and Rural Forum. This project is now in its third year with several long-term projects nearing completion including an employers guide, training information packs, a training needs analysis and an initial evaluation of out-of-school clubs. In North Uist, information is being provided to support a nursery project and in Ullapool a guidebook on children's services is being produced.

  We have also funded research by Professor Mark Shucksmith of the Arkleton centre for rural development research. He is currently undertaking a scoping study on innovative approaches in rural service provision, which will include child care initiatives. The need for further research or demonstration projects will be considered on the basis of his findings.

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to expand the under-fives rural initiative; and what level of finance the scheme will receive in the next three financial years. [11582]
  543
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This initiative was a development project aimed at demonstrating methods for improving the quality of day care by introducing educational elements. It comprised 12 schemes run by voluntary organisations using peripatetic tutors in a number of day care settings in different parts of rural Scotland.

  Grants totalling £500,000 were made available under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to support the project which ended in April 1995. There are at present no plans to extend it. We will, however, assess the lessons which can usefully be drawn for our new pre-school educational voucher initiative.

  Water Charges
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to provide financial assistance to rural local authorities for the collection of rates from water consumers after April [11584]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend will make an order under section 79 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 to require local authorities to demand and recover domestic unmeasured water and sewerage charges on behalf of the new water and sewerage authorities. That order will contain provision for the level of administrative costs to be refunded to local authorities. Consultation has taken place with local authorities about the terms of the order.

  NHS (Private Sector Consultants)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that private sector consultants retained by health boards and NHS trusts in Scotland in relation to private finance initiative contracts have no conflict of interest arising from a business, financial or personal relationship with private companies bidding for such contracts. [11612]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no instances of a private sector consultant advising both the NHS and private sector on the same project. NHS trusts should follow relevant procurement rules and corporate governance guidance in avoiding situations where such a conflict of interest would arise.

  Child Care
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what guidance he is proposing to issue to local authorities on the day care review duty in the current legislation relating to the registration of day care and other provision for young children; [12022]

  (2) what plans he has to amend existing guidance relating to registration standards and requirements relating to the registration of day care and other provision for young children; [12111]

  (3) when he last issued guidelines to local authorities in Scotland regarding registration procedures governing premises for day care for young children; [12018]

  (4) what plans he has to clarify the general purpose and application of guidance in the existing legislation relating to the registration of day care and other provision for young children. [12021]
  544
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 January 1996]: Statutory provisions dealing with the registration and inspection of those who provide child minding and day care for children under eight are set out in part X of the Children Act 1989. That part of the Act which came into force in October 1991 extends to Scotland.

  To assist local authorities in the discharge of their duties and responsibilities under that part of the Act, the Scottish Office issued guidance to local authorities in June 1991.

  A minor amendment to the 1989 Act was made in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. This and further detailed amendments are planned on supervised activities and holiday play schemes will make it necessary to modify current guidance.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what priority local authorities are obliged to accord to(a) their estimate of local need and (b) the official regulations when deciding whether to close existing local day care places for young children; what estimate he has made of compliance with the guidance; and what assessment he has made of the stringency of that guidance. [12113]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 January 1996]: Registration of day care for young children under eight is governed by part X of the Children Act 1989. Section 71 empowers local authorities to refuse registration if they are satisfied about certain things specified in that section. Section 74 gives local authorities a power to cancel registration in certain specified circumstances. Under section 77, authorities are required to give not less than 14 days notice of their intention to refuse an application or to cancel registration. The person receiving such a notice may object to the step being taken and may appeal against it to the court. Section 75 also gives local authorities a power to apply, in cases of emergency, to the court to cancel a person's registration forthwith. The Scottish Office guidance issued in June 1991 draws attention to the statutory powers available to local authorities in this respect.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the sanctions available to social work departments to refer matters to the procurator fiscal when they believe that registration requirements are being breached. [12103]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 January 1996]: Failure to comply with the requirements of registration by a local authority of facilities may be an offence under the relevant statute, for example, where day care of young children is concerned, under section 78 of the Children Act 1989. If a local authority believes that an offence has been committed it may report the matter to the police or to the procurator fiscal.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the provisions of the Department of Health local authority circular on the Children Act 1989 and day care for young children registration No. LAC(93)1 have been translated into similar guidance for local authorities in Scotland. [12017]
  545
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 January 1996]: Circular LAC(93)1 was issued by Department of Health for local authorities in England. It does not apply in Scotland. The extant Scottish guidance entitled "Regulation and Review of Childminding, Day Care and Education Services for Children under 8—Guidance for Local Authorities" was issued here in June 1991.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of expansion of day care facilities for young people. [12019]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 January 1996]: The policy of the Scottish Office is to promote expansion of day care provision through public, private and voluntary agencies and individuals. The number of day care places for children under five in Scotland has increased by over 40 per cent.—from 92,000 in 1984 to 131,000 in 1994. The Scottish Office has assisted that expansion through its support under the urban programme and through grants under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Local enterprise companies are also now funding child care projects for children under five and also for older children. Expansion of services is further assisted by the tax concessions which are available to employers providing work place child care facilities.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of day care facilities for young children which have been closed by local authorities in Scotland over the last three years because they have failed to meet the physical and staffing requirements set by local authorities. [12020]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 January 1996]: The data requested are not collected centrally. Local authority reviews under the Children Act 1989, which covered the period October 1991 to October 1994, indicated that very few registrations had been cancelled because of failure to meet the physical or staffing requirements set by local authorities.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if guidance currently available from his Department prescribes legally required standards for registration. [12112]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 January 1996]: Guidance issued by the Scottish Office to local authorities as registration authorities under various statutes advises local authorities on how the legislation should be implemented. The guidance may also suggest standards which should be adopted as a matter of good practice. If such standards or other standards are made a requirement of registration, failure to comply may be an offence.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what ways specific requirements set unilaterally by local social work departments governing the registration of individual premises for day care facilities are enforceable. [12104]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 January 1996]: Under part X of the Children Act 1989, which deals with registration of day care for young children, local authorities must impose such reasonable
  546
  requirements as they consider appropriate when registering an applicant for registration. The requirements, set out in section 73 are concerned with the number of children who may be looked after, maintenance and safety of the premises and equipment, records and notification of changes. Authorities may also impose further requirements, provided these do not conflict with the requirements in that section. Section 78 makes it an offence where a registered person without reasonable excuse contravenes or otherwise fails to comply with any requirement imposed under section 73.

  Housing Stock
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was, for each district and islands council area, the mid-1995 estimates of(a) the total housing stock, (b) the number of vacant dwellings and (c) the number of other non-effective housing stock. [10855]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is not yet available. Local authorities are being consulted about the estimates which should be finalised shortly.

  Prison Visiting Committees
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the members of the visiting committee to(a) Her Majesty's prison, Barlinnie, (b) Her Majesty's prison, Greenock and (c) Her Majesty's prison, Cornton Vale. [10856]

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

  Establishment

  Name

  Barlinnie

  Baillie A. Adam

  Ms Y. Anderson

  Mr. J. Andrews

  E. Divine

  F. McAveety

  A. McCartney

  C. McDonach

  R. McGarrity

  Mrs. I. Graham

  Ms V. Grandon (N/E)

  S. Purcell (N/E)

  Ms E. Smith (N/E)

  I. Wilson (N/E)

  R. Campbell

  G. McElroy JP BA

  Dr. C. Mason

  R. McGerty

  J. Shaw

  R. Quinn

  J. Anderson JP (N/E)

  A. Devlin (N/E)

  Mrs. S. Duke (N/E)

  J. Gilleece (N/E)

  Cornton Vale

  Ms A. Dickson

  Mrs. M. Brisley

  Mrs. C. Cumming (N/E)

  Ms A. Greasley (N/E)

  A. Henderson (N/E)

  J. Robertson (N/E)

  Mrs. V. Simpson (N/E)

  P. Kelly

  Mrs. H.A. Livingston JP

  Ms M. Pollack Ms E. Taylor

  Ms T. McNally (N/E)

  547

  Establishment

  Name

  Mrs. M. Smith (N/E)

  Mrs. H. Wright (N/E)

  Greenock

  Ms C. Allan

  A. Nimmo

  J. O'Rourke

  Greenock (Cont.)

  P. Arkely (N/E)

  R. Jackson (N/E)

  J. Thomson (N/E)

  E. Gray

  A. McGhee

  (N/E) denotes non-elected member.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to modify the criteria by which persons are appointed to prison visiting committees; and if he will make a statement. [10857]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. He does not appoint members to visiting committees for adult prisons: they are appointed in terms of section 8(1) of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 by local authorities prescribed by rules made under the Act.

  Maintenance Orders
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many maintenance orders were pursued in each year in Scotland by him under schedule 2, section 6 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (Hague Convention Countries) Order 1993. [12205]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of cases received each year since 5 April 1993, when the order came into force, is as shown in the table.

  Year

  Number

  1993

  2

  1994

  5

  1995

  5

  1996 (to date)

  1

  Total

  13

  Glasgow Business Table Speech
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he first saw the press release of the speech he gave in Glasgow on Wednesday 17 January; and if he approved it before it was released to the press. [11950]

  Mr. Forsyth
  The press release was not approved by me but consisted of extracts from the speech which had been approved by me.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the names of those not employed in his Department who contributed to the drafting of his speech to the Glasgow Business Table. [11951]

  Mr. Forsyth
  Although I have advice and support from officials, my special adviser and, where necessary, others, my speeches are my responsibility and mine alone.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland at what hour and minute the original press release of the speech he gave to the meeting of the 548
  Glasgow Business Table on 17 January was released; when it was withdrawn; and when the second draft of the press release was released. [11952]

  Mr. Forsyth
  I understand that the original press release started issuing at 10.30 am and the withdrawal and release of the second press release finished transmission at 12.49 pm.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what factors underlay his decision to withdraw the original press release of his speech to a meeting of the Glasgow business Table on 17 January. [11953]

  Mr. Forsyth
  The decision to withdraw the original press release was made by staff of the Scottish Office information directorate as soon as they realised that they had made an error.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the compliance of his second press release on his speech to the Glasgow Business Table with the central Government conventions on publicity and advertising. [11948]

  Mr. Forsyth
  None. This is a matter in which I rely on official advice.

  Ministerial Discussions
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he last met ministerial colleagues to discuss Cabinet Office guidelines on publicity and advertising; [11954]

  (2) who was present at the meeting on 17 January after which the director of the directorate of information released a statement apologising to the Secretary of State. [11947]

  Mr. Forsyth
  Successive Administrations have declined to answer questions on discussions between Ministers or between Ministers and their official advisers.

  Heart Surgery
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take action to reduce the waiting times for patients who require heart surgery. [12428]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since November 1994 a national guarantee has been in place which ensures that all adult patients who are referred for cardiac surgery receive it within 12 months. It is for the patient's clinician to determine clinical priority and of course patients requiring emergency or urgent treatment are seen much sooner than the 12-month limit. It is a matter for health boards to purchase the appropriate level of services to ensure that guarantees are met.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Classroom Assistants
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 19 December,Official Report, column 1019, what is her

  549
  estimate of the number of classroom assistants who work in a voluntary capacity, and if these were included in the figures given. [10525]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Classroom assistants who work in a voluntary capacity were not included in the figures given. Information about unpaid education support staff is not collected centrally.

  Waste Management and Recycling
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to encourage sustainable waste management and recycling throughout her Department. [11179]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department operates to a green environmental and energy strategy which as Green Minister I approved in October 1995. This includes guidelines and rules on the management of waste by careful procurement, by minimisation and by separation for recycling. The Employment Service follows a similar strategy, tailored to suit its national network of offices. Objectives and, where feasible, targets are set and progress is monitored.

  Undergraduate Degrees
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans her Department has to lower the time spent on studying for an undergraduate degree to 18 months. [11895]

  Mr. Forth
  The length of individual degree courses is a matter for individual universities. The length of undergraduate courses generally will be considered in the context of the higher education review alongside other issues concerned with the effective use of public funds.

  Pupil Numbers (Costs)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what will be the estimated cost of the projected increase in pupil numbers from April 1996 to March 1997. [11707]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The latest available estimate shows a 1 per cent. increase in pupil numbers next year. How they are accommodated, and at what cost, will depend on decisions made by local education authorities and schools. The cost should be well within the 4.5 per cent. increase in provision for education made by the Government.

  A

  B

  C

  D

  D

  F

  G

  Total education expenditure excluding further education colleges 1992–93 £

  Total education expenditure 1993–94 £

  Service strategy and regulation total expenditure 1992–93 £

  Service strategy and regulation total expenditure 1993–94 £

  Column C as a percentage of column A

  Column D as a percentage of Column B

  Column F minus Column E

  LEA

  000

  000

  000

  000

  Coventry

  158,933

  155,060

  13,468

  3,417

  8.47

  2.20

  -6.27

  South Tyneside

  68,337

  67,558

  3,991

  91

  5.84

  0.13

  -5.71

  Isle of Wight

  48,888

  50,013

  2.568

  716

  5.25

  1.43

  -3.82

  Student Grants
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Eduction and Employment if the calculation of a student's income for entitlement to a grant takes into account a mortgage held by the student. [11824]

  Mr. Forth
  Under the mandatory awards regulations, in assessing a student's income a local education authority has discretion to take account of payments made in pursuance of any obligation, such as a mortgage, incurred before the start of his course.

  Disability Symbol
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for her Department and each of the agencies for which she is responsible if it uses the Employment Service's positive disabled people symbol for(a) external recruitment and (b) internal recruitment and promotion. [11910]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The position in the Department and its agencies is as follows:

  (a)

  (b)

  DfEE

  No

  No

  Employment Service

  Yes

  Yes

  Teachers' Pensions Agency

  No

  No

  DfEE plans to introduce the symbol from April 1996. Consideration is being given to how the Teachers' Pensions Agency might be included in arrangements for use of the symbol by DfEE.

  Education Spending
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each local education authority in England (i) total education spending excluding further education in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94, (ii) total expenditure on service strategy and regulation in (c) 1992–93 and (d) 1993–94, (iii) (c) as a percentage of (a), (iv) (d) as a percentage of (b) and (vi) the difference between (iii) and (iv) in ascending order of this difference. [11875]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows for each local education authority total education expenditure excluding further education colleges for(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94; total expenditure for service strategy and regulation for (c) 1992–93 and (d) 1993–94; the percentage of service strategy and regulation expenditure within total education expenditure for each year (d) 1992–93 and (e) 1993–94; and finally the difference between these variances in ascending order.
  551

  A

  B

  C

  D

  D

  F

  G

  Total education expenditure excluding further education colleges 1992–93 £

  Total education expenditure 1993–94 £

  Service strategy and regulation total expenditure 1992–93 £

  Service strategy and regulation total expenditure 1993–94 £

  Column C as a percentage of column A

  Column D as a percentage of Column B

  Column F minus Column E

  Croydon

  146,894

  145,168

  5,58

  1,814

  3.80

  1.25

  -2.55

  Northamptonshire

  223,754

  220,838

  12,232

  6,645

  5.47

  3.01

  -2.46

  Cheshire

  415,440

  423,757

  9,721

  1,660

  2.34

  0.39

  -1.95

  Corporation of London

  1,985

  2,792

  285

  347

  14.36

  12.43

  -1.93

  Devon

  377,621

  386,425

  5,210

  302

  1.38

  0.08

  -1.30

  Berkshire

  274,430

  286,230

  4,583

  1,373

  1.67

  0.48

  -1.19

  Sunderland

  123,308

  126,776

  1,745

  445

  1.42

  0.35

  -1.06

  Buckinghamshire

  281,150

  272,288

  6,479

  3,526

  2.30

  1.29

  -1.01

  Barnsley

  85,950

  89,309

  1,558

  947

  1.81

  1.06

  -0.75

  Lincolnshire

  205,521

  202,982

  2,278

  1,323

  1.11

  0.65

  -0.46

  Southwark

  131,430

  130,033

  1,782

  1,276

  1.36

  0.98

  -0.37

  Wiltshire

  218,110

  218,048

  2,139

  1,541

  0.98

  0.71

  -0.27

  Cumbria

  188,827

  188,098

  2,27

  1,754

  1.20

  0.93

  -0.27

  Wakefield

  133,981

  130,009

  847

  495

  0.63

  0.38

  -0.25

  Greenwich

  137,152

  130,387

  1,763

  1,405

  1.29

  1.08

  -0.21

  East Sussex

  250,377

  256,923

  3,388

  2,999

  1.35

  1.17

  -0.19

  Haringey

  122,255

  123,408

  684

  513

  0.56

  0.42

  -0.14

  Suffolk

  252,381

  255,816

  1,906

  1,601

  0.76

  0.63

  -0.13

  Wolverhampton

  118,265

  121,78

  1144

  1,040

  0.97

  0.85

  -0.11

  Wirral

  148,146

  149,604

  1,873

  1,722

  1.26

  1.15

  -0.11

  Warwickshire

  195,644

  201,245

  2,096

  1,961

  1.07

  0.97

  -0.10

  Avon

  389,520

  395,791

  1,694

  1,389

  0.43

  0.35

  -0.08

  Kirklees

  171,820

  174,975

  906

  796

  0.53

  0.45

  -0.07

  Somerset

  184,342

  193,130

  724

  620

  0.39

  0.32

  -0.07

  West Sussex

  262,590

  270,019

  898

  767

  0.34

  0.28

  -0.06

  Norfolk

  276,024

  283,294

  956

  827

  0.35

  0.29

  -0.05

  Dorset

  219,606

  219,426

  1,158

  1,055

  0.53

  0.48

  -0.05

  Gloucestershire

  186,903

  175,559

  1,973

  1,774

  1.06

  1.01

  -0.05

  Lambeth

  157,451

  146,935

  1,251

  1,104

  0.79

  0.75

  -0.04

  Sefton

  124,977

  128,750

  479

  463

  0.38

  0.36

  -0.02

  Leeds

  300,232

  303,660

  653

  599

  0.22

  0.20

  -0.02

  Humberside

  390,801

  403,069

  354

  302

  0.09

  0.07

  -0.02

  Leicestershire

  394,135

  400,635

  1,047

  1,036

  0.27

  0.26

  -0.01

  Doncaster

  132,006

  137,447

  214

  219

  0.16

  0.16

  0.00

  Bradford

  234,523

  236,543

  175

  175

  0.07

  0.07

  0.00

  Isles of Scilly

  1,371

  1,325

  0

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Stockport

  122,188

  116,044

  317

  315

  0.26

  0.27

  0.01

  Nottinghamshire

  422,944

  445,597

  1,956

  2,135

  0.46

  0.48

  0.02

  Gateshead

  86,549

  88,358

  293

  319

  0.34

  0.36

  0.02

  Liverpool

  225,399

  229,160

  574

  636

  0.25

  0.28

  0.02

  Bolton

  120,908

  116,752

  350

  365

  0.29

  0.31

  0.02

  Lancashire

  606,266

  618,913

  1,185

  1,354

  0.20

  0.22

  0.02

  Hampshire

  605,272

  581,475

  2500

  2650

  0.41

  0.46

  0.02

  Durham

  257,395

  256,604

  941

  1,068

  0.37

  0.42

  0.04

  Cleveland

  270,847

  256,574

  224

  347

  0.08

  0.14

  0.05

  Bedfordshire

  248,007

  238,055

  1,114

  1,217

  0.45

  0.51

  0.06

  North Tyneside

  88,626

  83,108

  328

  362

  0.37

  0.44

  0.07

  Trafford

  90,203

  86,556

  548

  583

  0.61

  0.67

  0.07

  Manchester

  237,226

  228,234

  1304

  1414

  0.61

  0.62

  0.07

  Tower Hamlets

  137,520

  137,526

  1650

  1,837

  1.25

  1.34

  0.08

  Hereford and Worcester

  260,243

  257,975

  925

  1,147

  0.36

  0.44

  0.09

  Lewisham

  135,611

  129,582

  721

  814

  0.53

  0.63

  0.10

  Redbridge

  106,936

  110,514

  750

  884

  0.70

  0.80

  0.10

  Northumberland

  136,023

  137,770

  624

  804

  0.46

  0.58

  0.12

  Barking

  71,015

  71,871

  380

  477

  0.54

  0.66

  0.13

  Sutton

  67,780

  61,647

  656

  677

  0.97

  1.10

  0.13

  Newham

  125,098

  123,745

  492

  651

  0.39

  0.53

  0.13

  Sandwell

  142,552

  137,676

  348

  539

  0.24

  0.39

  0.15

  Kent

  538,540

  525,500

  526

  1,298

  0.10

  0.25

  0.15

  Rotherham

  115,121

  118,246

  191

  376

  0.17

  0.32

  0.15

  Wandsworth

  130,071

  111613

  1,480

  1443

  1.14

  1.29

  0.16

  North Yorkshire

  291,697

  290,381

  712

  1 ,161

  0.24

  0.40

  0.16

  Salford

  101,175

  95,098

  696

  804

  0.69

  0.85

  0.16

  Havering

  97,638

  87,409

  628

  700

  0.64

  0.80

  0.16

  Brent

  146,691

  126,662

  833

  926

  0.57

  0.73

  0.16

  Camden

  107,437

  107,239

  337

  517

  0.31

  0.48

  0.17

  St. Helens

  84,737

  85,062

  402

  549

  0.47

  0.65

  0.17

  Tameside

  93,900

  91,012

  337

  484

  0.36

  0.53

  0.17

  Birmingham

  482,369

  481,936

  0

  857

  0.00

  0.18

  0.18

  Cambridgeshire

  275,872

  251,033

  1,360

  1,686

  0.49

  0.67

  0.18

  Sheffield

  198.839

  198,083

  359

  756

  0.18

  0.38

  0.18

  Derbyshire

  389,718

  372,067

  572

  1,329

  0.15

  0.36

  0.21

  Cornwall

  188.989

  193.145

  935

  1,393

  0.49

  0.72

  0.23

  Rochdale

  92,173

  91,563

  328

  540

  0.36

  0.59

  0.23

  Wigan

  134.139

  131,580

  108

  438

  0.08

  0.33

  0.25

  552 553

  A

  B

  C

  D

  D

  F

  G

  Total education expenditure excluding further education colleges 1992–93 £

  Total education expenditure 1993–94 £

  Service strategy and regulation total expenditure 1992–93 £

  Service strategy and regulation total expenditure 1993–94 £

  Column C as a percentage of column A

  Column D as a percentage of Column B

  Column F minus Column E

  Bromley

  92,178

  90,193

  723

  941

  0.78

  1.04

  0.26

  Kingston upon Thames

  64,075

  55,558

  565

  634

  0.88

  1.14

  0.26

  Shrophire

  177,595

  169,883

  0

  449

  0.00

  0.26

  0.26

  Solihull

  99,086

  90,603

  925

  1,090

  0.93

  1.20

  0.27

  Richmond upon Thames

  65,678

  67,346

  785

  991

  1.20

  1.47

  0.28

  Merton

  82,841

  79,806

  1,969

  2,120

  2.38

  2.66

  0.28

  Calderdale

  81,507

  79,152

  417

  656

  0.51

  0.83

  0.32

  Bexley

  93,663

  87,566

  1,310

  1,598

  1.40

  1.82

  0.43

  Hounslow

  109,740

  105,192

  355

  797

  0.32

  0.76

  0.43

  Bury

  80,691

  79,172

  795

  1,130

  0.99

  1.43

  0.44

  Hillingdon

  87,301

  77,691

  225

  563

  0.26

  0.72

  0.47

  Hackney

  137,918

  130,965

  748

  1,339

  0.54

  1.02

  0.48

  City of Westminster

  96,033

  95,812

  2,324

  2,816

  2.42

  2.94

  0.52

  Oxfordshire

  219,931

  229,999

  0

  1,213

  0.00

  0.53

  0.53

  Staffordshire

  437,107

  405,148

  0

  2,489

  0.00

  0.61

  0.61

  Harrow

  94,134

  99,083

  673

  1,322

  0.71

  1.33

  0.62

  Barnet

  147,567

  135,228

  878

  1,890

  0.59

  1.40

  0.80

  Ealing

  130,983

  129,805

  0

  1,191

  0.00

  0.92

  0.92

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  88,434

  87,131

  931

  1,775

  1.05

  2.04

  0.98

  Islington

  135,928

  117,886

  0

  1,197

  0.00

  1.02

  1.02

  Essex

  571,035

  498,636

  2,660

  8,021

  0.47

  1.61

  1.14

  Hertfordshire

  419,703

  412,363

  3,444

  8,103

  0.82

  1.97

  1.14

  Surrey

  375,278

  361,684

  972

  5,486

  0.26

  1.52

  1.26

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  129,432

  123,114

  413

  2,059

  0.32

  1.67

  1.35

  Knowsley

  81,187

  82,913

  1,783

  3,038

  2.20

  3.66

  1.47

  Enfield

  135,753

  122,282

  1,109

  2,921

  0.82

  2.39

  1.57

  Kensington and Chelsea

  67,941

  64,095

  697

  1,671

  1.03

  2.61

  1.58

  Waltham Forest

  116,115

  118,987

  218

  3,052

  0.19

  2.56

  2.38

  Walsall

  131,255

  123,192

  0

  3,278

  0.00

  2.66

  2.66

  Oldham

  123,586

  114,020

  55

  3,298

  0.04

  2.89

  2.85

  Dudley

  117,858

  112,402

  500

  3,752

  0.42

  3.34

  2.91

  Total

  20,554,327

  20,223,378

  155,542

  156,771

  0.76

  0.78

  0.02

  Teachers' Pay Award
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total cost(a) nationally and (b) to each local education authority of the teachers' pay award in 1995–96. [11746]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total estimated cost in England and Wales of the teachers' pay increase in 1995–96 is around £290 Million. The following table illustrates the cost of the award by updating the 1993–94 expenditure recorded by local education authorities in England and Wales for teaching staff salaries in nursery, primary, secondary and special schools by the teachers' pay awards of 2.9 per cent. in 1994–95 and 2.7 per cent. in 1995–96. The 1993–94 expenditure figures are the latest available for local education authority schools in England and Wales. The figures in the table take no account of changes in teacher numbers or other factors that affect the teachers' paybill.

  LEA expenditure on teachers' salaries

  £ thousand

  Pre-primary and primary secondary and special schools

  1993–94 (actual)

  1994–95 increase (2.9 per cent.)

  1995–96 increase (2.7 per cent.)

  Corporation of London

  378

  11

  11

  Camden

  37,774

  1.095

  1,049

  554

  LEA expenditure on teachers' salaries

  £ thousand

  Pre-primary and primary secondary and special schools

  1993–94 (actual)

  1994–95 increase (2.9 per cent.)

  1995–96 increase (2.7 per cent.)

  Greenwich

  53,751

  1,559

  1,493

  Hackney

  41,871

  1,214

  1,163

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  25,087

  728

  697

  Islington

  37,294

  1,082

  1,036

  Kensington and Chelsea

  15,922

  462

  442

  Lambeth

  39,698

  1,151

  1,103

  Lewisham

  43,235

  1,254

  1,201

  Southwark

  38,056

  1,104

  1,057

  Tower Hamlets

  58,012

  1,682

  1,612

  Wandsworth

  31,532

  914

  876

  City of Westminster

  30,151

  874

  838

  Barking

  34,487

  1,000

  958

  Barnet

  55,491

  1,609

  1,542

  Bexley

  40,962

  1,188

  1,138

  Brent

  39,613

  1,149

  1,101

  Bromley

  35,283

  1,023

  980

  Croydon

  51,278

  1,487

  1,425

  Ealing

  46,119

  1,337

  1,281

  Enfield

  51,873

  1,504

  1,441

  Haringey

  48,595

  1,409

  1.350

  Harrow

  38,702

  1,122

  1,075

  Havering

  41,677

  1,209

  1,158

  Hillingdon

  26,648

  773

  740

  Hounslow

  46.927

  1,361

  1,304

  Kingston upon Thames

  21,879

  634

  608

  Merton

  33,279

  965

  925

  Newham

  54,533

  1,581

  1,515

  555

  LEA expenditure on teachers' salaries

  £ thousand

  Pre-primary and primary, secondary and special schools

  1993–94(actual)

  1994–95 increase (2.9 per cent.)

  1995–96 increase (2.7 per cent.)

  Redbridge

  49,548

  1,437

  1,377

  Richmond upon Thames

  25,724

  746

  715

  Sutton

  22,531

  653

  626

  Waltham Forest

  46,867

  1,359

  1,302

  Birmingham

  211,785

  6,142

  5,884

  Coventry

  69,840

  2,025

  1,940

  Dudley

  55,540

  1,611

  1,543

  Sandwell

  66,061

  1,916

  1,835

  Solihull

  41,921

  1,216

  1,165

  Walsall

  55,669

  1,614

  1,547

  Wolverhampton

  53,635

  1,555

  1,490

  Knowsley

  34,935

  1,013

  971

  Liverpool

  104,939

  3,043

  2,916

  St. Helens

  39,149

  1,135

  1,088

  Sefton

  57,370

  1,664

  1,594

  Wirral

  69,278

  2,009

  1,925

  Bolton

  54,728

  1,587

  1,521

  Bury

  33,505

  972

  931

  Manchester

  91,541

  2,655

  2,543

  Oldham

  56,483

  1,638

  1,569

  Rochdale

  39,389

  1,142

  1,094

  Salford

  47,641

  1,382

  1,324

  Stockport

  53,551

  1,553

  1,488

  Tameside

  39,501

  1,146

  1,097

  Trafford

  36,262

  1,052

  1,007

  Wigan

  66,655

  1,933

  1,852

  Barnsley

  41,363

  1,200

  1,149

  Doncaster

  62,198

  1,804

  1,728

  Rotherham

  58,540

  1,698

  1,626

  Sheffield

  92,046

  2,669

  2,557

  Bradford

  109,072

  3,163

  3,030

  Calderdale

  37,935

  1,100

  1,054

  Kirklees

  81,076

  2,351

  2,253

  Leeds

  146,072

  4,236

  4,058

  Wakefield

  63,131

  1,831

  1,754

  Gateshead

  40,458

  1,173

  1,124

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  53,518

  1,552

  1,487

  North Tyneside

  40,501

  1,175

  1,125

  South Tyneside

  31,493

  913

  875

  Sunderland

  65,654

  1,904

  1,824

  Isles of Scilly

  608

  18

  17

  Avon

  177,289

  5,141

  4,926

  Bedfordshire

  105,301

  3,054

  2,926

  Berkshire

  135,540

  3,931

  3,766

  Buckinghamshire

  112,209

  3,254

  3,118

  Cambridgeshire

  103,041

  2,988

  2,863

  Cheshire

  185,457

  5,378

  5,153

  Cleveland

  124,442

  3,609

  3,457

  Cornwall

  86,653

  2,513

  2,407

  Cumbria

  88,947

  2,579

  2,471

  Derbyshire

  168,175

  4,877

  4,672

  Devon

  175,999

  5,104

  4,890

  Dorset

  98,18

  2,847

  2,728

  Durham

  120,743

  3,502

  3,355

  East Sussex

  116,123

  3,368

  3,226

  Essex

  211,358

  6,129

  5,872

  Gloucestershire

  74,050

  2,147

  2,057

  Hampshire

  256,960

  7,452

  7,139

  Hereford and Worcester

  128,339

  3,722

  3,566

  Hertfordshire

  186,227

  5,401

  5,174

  Humberside

  177,122

  5,137

  4,921

  Isle of Wight

  24,264

  704

  674

  Kent

  227,895

  6,609

  6,332

  Lancashire

  294,517

  8,541

  8,183

  Leicestershire

  185,004

  5,365

  5,140

  Lincolnshire

  88,099

  2,555

  2,448

  Norfolk

  124,807

  3,619

  3,468

  North Yorkshire

  138,958

  4,030

  3,861

  Northamptonshire

  109,086

  3,163

  3,031

  Northumberland

  62,398

  1,810

  1,734

  Nottinghamshire

  204,137

  5,920

  5,672

  Oxfordshire

  105,430

  3,057

  2,929

  Shropshire

  79,422

  2,303

  2,207

  556

  LEA expenditure on teachers' salaries

  £ thousand

  Pre-primary and primary, secondary and special schools

  1993–94(actual)

  1994–95 increase (2.9 per cent.)

  1995–96 increase (2.7 per cent.)

  Somerset

  84,749

  2,458

  2,355

  Staffordshire

  193,818

  5,621

  5,385

  Suffolk

  130,118

  3,773

  3,615

  Surrey

  143,690

  4,167

  3,992

  Warwickshire

  90,965

  2,638

  2,527

  West Sussex

  128,568

  3,728

  3,572

  Wiltshire

  96,340

  2,794

  2,677

  Clwyd

  79,496

  2,305

  2,209

  Dyfed

  83,748

  2,429

  2,327

  Gwent

  89,452

  2,594

  2,485

  Gwynedd

  52,783

  1,531

  1,466

  Mid Glamorgan

  126,517

  3,669

  3515

  South Glamorgan

  84,294

  2,445

  2,342

  West Glamorgan

  79,266

  2,299

  2,202

  Powys

  27,607

  801

  767

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the total expenditure of her 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 she has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if she will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (1) advertising and (2) press and public relations. [11344]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]Before the merger in July 1995, the Department operated separately as the Department for Education and the Employment Department. We will continue to follow separately-funded programmes of publicity until the end of the financial year 1995–96.

  Information on the publicity spend of agencies and non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally by the former Departments. It was not the policy of the former Departments to make use of paid public relations services. Press enquiries were handled by their own specialist staff and costs are not separately identifiable.

  The costs of the total expenditure on publicity and on advertising for the former Departments are as follows:

  £ thousand

  Total publicity expenditure

  Advertising

  ED

  1979–80

  70

  not available

  1989–90

  30,300

  16,630

  1991–92

  18,300

  12,600

  1993–94

  10,970

  7,300

  1994–95

  11,200

  8,000

  1995–96 (to date)

  6,400

  4,500

  1995–96 (estimated for whole year)

  7,595

  6,283

  DFE

  1979–80

  104

  92

  1989–90

  1,400

  250

  1991–92

  8,881

  3,03

  1993–94

  9,994

  1,442

  557

  £ thousand

  Total publicity expenditure

  Advertising

  1994–95

  8,088

  147

  1995–96 (to date)

  1,342

  49

  1995–96 (estimated for whole year)

  5,430

  300

  The projected spending on publicity in the 1996–97 public expenditure survey allocation for the Department is £13,040,000. Details on how this will be divided between various forms of publicity have not yet been agreed.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the annual telephone costs to(a) her Department, (b) her Department's agencies and (c) her 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). [11346]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]The information is as follows:a. Telephone costs to the Department

  (i) 1979–80: Figures are not available

  (ii) 1989–90: Figures are not available

  (iii) 1991–92: £6,157,168

  (iv) 1993–94: £6,269,422

  (v) 1994–95: £5,867,605

  (vi) 1995–96: £4,800,000 (estimate)

  (vii) 1996–97: £4,800,000 (estimate)

  For 1995–96 and earlier the figures amalgamate the relevant expenditure of the former Department for Education and the former Department of Employment. The figures for 1993–94 and later years include the telephone costs for the Teacher's Pensions Agency which cannot be separately identified.
  b. Telephone costs to the Employment Service

  (i) 1979–80: Figures are not available

  (ii) 1989–90: Figures are not available

  (iii) 1991–92: Figures are not available

  (iv) 1993–94: £14,900,554

  (v) 1994–95: £13,699,000

  (vi) 1995–96: £12,833,333 (estimate)

  (vii) 1996–97: £12,833,333 (estimate)

  c. Information about telephone costs to the Department's non-departmental public bodies is not available centrally. On availability of internal directories the answers are:

  (a) Yes

  (b) Yes

  (c) Information not available to the DfEE.

  Education, South London
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many (1) church-aided and (2) non-denominational secondary schools which are located within 15 miles of Southwark are(a) grant-maintained and (b) maintained by local authorities. [11937]
  558
  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Maintained secondary schools within 15 miles of the centre of Southwark Local Education Authority (LEA) area November 1995

  Denominational1

  Non-denominational

  LEA maintained schools

  68

  210

  Grant-maintained schools

  50

  63

  1Includes Church of England, Roman Catholic, Jewish, Methodist and other religious denominations.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will institute a public inquiry into the quality of secondary education provision in the London boroughs of Islington, Southwark and Lambeth. [11938]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will hold discussions with the Lambeth and Southwark education committee chairmen on whether their education policies are meeting the needs of local parents. [11939]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have had no request for such a meeting nor is there any current intention of Ministers to seek one.

  Employment Service (Safety of Staff)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what has been the number of attacks on Employment Service office staff in each of the last five years; what assessment she has made as to the causes of such attacks; and if she will make a statement; [11933]

  (2) what account she takes of representations by staff when considering the provision of safety measures in jobcentres; [11934]

  (3) what plans she has to allow additional safety measures to be provided at jobcentres at the request of staff; and what funding she will make available for this purpose. [11935]

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

  Letter front Mike Fogden to Mr. John McAllion, dated 29 January 1996 The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your questions concerning attacks on Employment Service (ES) staff.
  All attacks against my people are taken very seriously and we investigate them thoroughly. Fortunately, few of these attacks result in physical injury. The incidence of attacks need to be placed in the context of the some two million contacts we have with the public every week. Seen in that light the likelihood of someone in the Employment Service being attacked is, I am pleased to say, low. That does not diminish our determination to ensure that it is as low as possible and we continue to work to that end. Every incident is studied to assess causes and see if any changes are needed to the existing countermeasures. These studies show that there arc very different factors for each incident, but typical countermeasures will

  559
  include upgrading the security arrangements, better training in customer handling, introducing more effective and efficient working procedures and improving the layout of the office to provide better traffic flow and more accessible escape routes for my people.
  The figures of actual assaults on my people in each of the last five years are:—

  1991: 152

  1992: 203

  1993: 258

  1994: 268

  1995: 234

  A systematic risk assessment, by competent Risk Assessors, to identify and recommend measures to reduce incidents to the minimum practical level has been made of all our Jobcentres in preparation for the introduction of Jobseeker's Allowance (ISA). Trade Union Health and Safety representatives were fully consulted as part of the risk assessment process. Their views were fully taken into account by risk assessors.
  Safety and security measures will receive priority funding and I anticipate no difficulties in implementing the agreed recommendations of Risk Assessors.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Jobseekers (Project Work Scheme)
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her oral statement of 16 January,Official Report, column 610, if she will place in the Library a copy of all correspondence and other data evaluated by her Department relating to the decision to pilot the project work scheme in the Hull and Medway travel-to-work areas. [12156]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 26 January 1996]The information requested is either data about the labour market, which is publicly available, or pre-existing documents. It would not be appropriate specifically to provide this information in the form requested. However, it may be helpful if I explain the way in which the choice of pilot areas was made. Hull and Medway and Maidstone were two of a number of travel-to-work areas of the right size to mount a manageable pilot at a reasonable cost, while still producing a sample large enough for proper evaluation. They were also relatively self-contained, which minimised the potential for distortion, and they represented two different sorts of labour market. The respective rates of unemployment and very long-term unemployment in the two travel-to-work areas is shown in the following table, compared with the national averages.

  Pilot area

  Unemployment rate Per cent.

  VLTU1 as percentage of total unemployed

  VLTU2 as percentage of total workforce

  Medway and Maidstone

  8.2

  13.7

  1.1

  Hull

  9.9

  18.8

  1.9

  National average

  8.0

  21.6

  1.7

  1Very long-term unemployed, i.e., over 2 years.

  2Seasonally adjusted, and provisional.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made 560
  of the effects on the workings of the Sex Discrimination Acts and Equal Pay Act 1970 of the reduction in funding for the Equal Opportunities Commission. [12398]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I expect that the Equal Opportunities Commission will continue to use its resources efficiently and effectively to carry out its statutory duties.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to restore funding to the Equal Opportunities Commission. [12396]

  Mrs. Gillan
  We consider annually the funding requirements of the Equal Opportunities Commission, alongside other calls on public expenditure.

  EU Funding
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how much in(a) ecus and (b) pounds by standard region and in total the United Kingdom received under the European Leonardo programme and its predecessor schemes over the last available five-year period; [11649]

  (2) how much in (a) ecus and (b) pounds by standard region and in total is allocated to the United Kingdom from the European Leonardo programme under the current financial perspectives. [11648]

  Mr. Forth
  The main predecessors of the Leonardo programme were the Comett, Force and Petra programmes. The following tables relate to funding received in the United Kingdom as a whole under these programmes; regional allocations are not available. No financial details of funds received within the Leonardo programme in 1995, its first year of operation, have yet been published by the European Commission.

  Table 1: Figures in 000 ECU

  Year

  Comett

  Force

  Petra

  19901

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  3,048

  21,055

  1992

  6,411

  7,380

  2,796

  1993

  3,871

  3,866

  1994

  3,677

  Not available

  3,274

  1Figures not available for 1990.

  2Excludes placement/exchange activity.

  Table 2: Figures in £000

  Exchange rate I ECU=£0.8472

  Year

  Comets

  Force

  Petra

  19901

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  2,582

  2894

  1992

  5,432

  6,252

  2,369

  1993

  3,280

  3,275

  1994

  3,115

  Not available

  2,774

  1Figures not available for 1990.

  2Excludes placement/exchange activity.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment ( I ) how much in(a) ecus and (b) pounds by standard region and in total the

  561
  United Kingdom received from the European Socrates programme and its predecessor schemes over the last available five years. [11652]

  (2) how much in (a) ecus and (b) pounds by standard region and in total is allocated to the United Kingdom from the European Socrates programme under the current financial perspectives. [11653]

  Mr. Forth
  The main predecessors of the Socrates programme were the Erasmus and Lingua programmes. The following table relates to funding allocated to the United Kingdom as a whole under these programmes; regional allocations are not available. No financial details of grants awarded under the Socrates programme in 1995, its first year of operation, have yet been published by the European Commission.

  ERASMUS1

  LINGUA

  Year

  ECU000

  £0002

  ECU000

  £0002

  1990

  5,372

  4,551

  n/a

  n/a

  1991

  6,822

  5,780

  32,156

  31,827

  European Social Fund Allocations 1991–95

  1994 prices using an exchange rate of £1 = 1.2 ecu

  Community initiatives are included between 1991–93 and excluded for 1994 and 1995

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Total

  Mecu

  £ million

  Mecu

  £ million

  Mecu

  £ million

  Mecu

  £ million

  Mecu

  £ million

  Mecu

  £ million

  Objective 1

  Northern Ireland

  75

  53

  80

  59

  78

  61

  49

  40

  50

  42

  332

  255

  Merseyside1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  46

  39

  50

  42

  96

  81

  Highlands and Islands1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  7

  9

  7

  17

  14

  Total

  75

  53

  80

  59

  78

  61

  103

  86

  109

  91

  445

  350

  Objective 2

  North-East England

  25

  17

  29

  21

  27

  21

  24

  20

  26

  21

  131

  100

  East England2

  24

  17

  28

  20

  26

  21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  78

  58

  East Midlands1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  5

  7

  6

  13

  11

  West Midlands

  19

  13

  22

  16

  20

  16

  30

  25

  31

  26

  122

  96

  North West England

  51

  36

  60

  44

  56

  44

  31

  26

  33

  27

  231

  177

  West Cumbria

  3

  2

  3

  2

  3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  13

  10

  West Scotland

  18

  13

  21

  16

  20

  16

  20

  17

  21

  17

  100

  79

  East Scotland

  6

  4

  7

  5

  7

  5

  8

  8

  8

  7

  36

  29

  South Wales

  14

  10

  17

  12

  16

  12

  15

  12

  16

  13

  78

  59

  North East Wales2

  2

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  5

  Yorkshire and Humberside1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  21

  26

  22

  51

  43

  East London and Lea Valley1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  5

  6

  5

  12

  10

  Thanet1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Plymouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2

  2

  4

  4

  Total

  162

  113

  189

  138

  177

  139

  170

  144

  179

  149

  877

  683

  Objectives 3 and 4 Total3

  314

  262

  371

  309

  548

  457

  421

  351

  554

  462

  2,208

  1,841

  Objective 5b

  South West England

  4

  3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  4

  3

  5

  4

  17

  14

  Rural Wales

  4

  3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  4

  3

  5

  4

  17

  14

  Highland and Islands2

  4

  3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  7

  Dumfries and Galloway1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  The Marches1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Northern Uplands1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  4

  4

  6

  6

  Lincolnshire1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  East Anglia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Borders of Scotland1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Central Scotland/Tayside1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Grampian1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Total

  12

  9

  6

  6

  6

  6

  17

  15

  21

  19

  62

  55

  Grand total

  563

  437

  646

  512

  809

  663

  711

  596

  863

  721

  3,592

  2,929

  1These programmes commenced in 1994.

  2These programme areas were redefined from 1994.

  3Objectives 3 and 4 are national programmes not divided regionally. 1991–93 figures cover both objectives which were amalgamated into Objective 3 from 1994 onwards.

  562

  ERASMUS1

  LINGUA

  Year

  ECU000

  £0002

  ECU000

  £0002

  1992

  9,249

  7,836

  44,210

  43,567

  1993

  9,582

  8,118

  44,769

  44,040

  1994

  10,328

  8,750

  45,283

  44,476

  1Includes LINGUA Action II.

  2At 1 ECU = £0.8472.

  3LINGUA Actions I, III, IV and VB only.

  4LINGUA Actions I, III, IV and V only.

  n/a not available.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much in(a) Ecus and (b) pound sterling by standard region and in total the United Kingdom received under the European social fund over the last available five years. [11660]

  Mr. Forth
  Information by standard region is not available except at disproportionate cost. The following table shows the amounts of European social fund as allocated to the United Kingdom in the years 1991–95.

  EU Funding
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much in(a) ecus and (b) pound sterling by standard region and in total is allocated to the United Kingdom from the European social fund under the present structural funds agreement. [11661]

  Mr. Forth
  Information by standard region is not available except at disproportionate cost. Allocations are

  European Social Fund Allocations 1994–99

  1994 prices using an exchange rate of £1=1.2 ecu

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Total

  Mecu

  £ million

  Mecu

  £ million

  Mecu

  £ million

  Mecu

  £ million

  Mecu

  £ million

  Mecu

  £ million

  Mecu

  £ million

  Objective 1

  Northern Ireland

  49

  40

  50

  42

  55

  46

  58

  48

  68

  57

  75

  62

  355

  295

  Merseyside

  46

  39

  50

  42

  54

  45

  58

  48

  63

  52

  68

  56

  339

  282

  Highlands and Islands

  8

  7

  9

  7

  9

  8

  9

  8

  10

  8

  10

  8

  55

  46

  Total

  103

  86

  109

  91

  118

  99

  125

  104

  141

  117

  153

  126

  749

  623

  Objective 21

  North East England

  24

  20

  26

  21

  27

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  77

  63

  East Midlands

  6

  5

  7

  6

  7

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  17

  West Midlands

  30

  25

  31

  26

  33

  27

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  94

  78

  North West England

  31

  26

  33

  27

  35

  29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  99

  82

  West Cumbria

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  6

  West Scotland

  20

  17

  21

  17

  22

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  63

  52

  East Scotland

  8

  8

  8

  7

  8

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24

  22

  South Wales

  15

  12

  16

  13

  16

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  47

  39

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  25

  21

  26

  22

  27

  23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  78

  66

  East London and Lea

  Valley

  6

  5

  6

  5

  6

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  8

  15

  Thanet

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Plymouth

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  6

  Total

  170

  144

  179

  149

  186

  156

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  535

  449

  Objectives 3 and 4 Total2

  421

  351

  554

  462

  526

  438

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,377

  2,815

  Objective 5b

  South West England

  4

  3

  5

  4

  6

  5

  6

  5

  6

  5

  6

  5

  33

  27

  Rural Wales

  4

  3

  5

  4

  6

  5

  6

  5

  6

  5

  6

  5

  33

  27

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  6

  6

  The Marches

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  2

  1

  8

  6

  Northern Uplands

  2

  2

  4

  4

  3

  2

  5

  4

  3

  2

  3

  2

  20

  16

  Lincolnshire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  6

  6

  East Anglia

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  9

  6

  Borders of Scotland

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  6

  6

  Central

  Scotland/Tayside

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  6

  6

  Grampian

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  6

  6

  Total

  17

  15

  21

  19

  22

  19

  25

  21

  24

  19

  24

  19

  133

  112

  Grand Total

  711

  596

  863

  721

  852

  712

  150

  125

  165

  136

  177

  145

  4,794

  3.999

  1No indicative allocations available for Objective 2 beyond 1996.

  2The total allocation shown for Objectives 3 and 4 is for six years but a plan for 1997–99 has yet to be agreed.

  Employment Service (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) when the bonus payments paid to Employment Service staff in Coventry began; when the staff of the Coventry Employment Service were notified of the payment of bonuses; and what the conditions of such payments were; [11837]

  (2) when those Coventry Employment Service staff currently in dispute were notified of the payment of bonuses to Employment Service staff; and if they were notified of the conditions that would have to be accepted if they were to receive such payments; [11838]
  564
  set out in the following table. The table shows the amounts of European social fund allocated to the United Kingdom in the years 1994–1999. There are as yet no indicative allocations for objective 2 of the European structural fund in 1997–1999. It will be for the European Commission to decide later this year the share of each eligible member state and for the Government to determine the share between the eligible areas of Great Britain.

  (3) what discussions took place between her Department and Employment Service with regards to the payment of bonuses to Coventry Employment Service staff; [11839]

  (4) what bonus payments to Coventry Employment Service staff have been issued in relation to the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance;[11841]

  (5) what are the reasons, outside those in connection with the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance, for the payment of bonus to Coventry Employment Service staff; and if she will make a statement; [11842]

  (6) what is the cost to date, and what the eventual cost will be, of the payment of bonuses to Employment

  565
  Service staff in (a) Coventry and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole; [11843]

  (7) what relation the payment of bonus to Employment Service staff in Coventry bears to the current dispute within the Employment Service in Coventry; [11844]

  (8) if bonus payments have been issued to the Employment Service staff in Coventry involved in the Coventry Employment Service dispute. [11845]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 29 January 1996 The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about bonus payments to Employment Service staff in Coventry.
  First I must make clear that no bonus payments have been made to staff in my Coventry offices. In three of the four ES offices in Coventry, strike action has been called by the Civil and Public Services Association (CPSA), and it seems that the Association is alleging that bonuses are being paid to staff remaining at work. That is not the case.
  It is open to the Employment Service to make bonus payments under the provisions of its Special Bonus Scheme which began operating in 1989. The Scheme criteria under which a bonus may be paid include recognition of "maintenance of operational effectiveness in exceptionally difficult circumstances".
  Under the Scheme, bonus payments may be authorised by my Regional Directors where they believe the circumstances to warrant such a payment. There is no requirement for discussions to take place between the Employment Service and the Department for Education and Employment in relation to payments made under the ES Special Bonus Scheme.
  My Regional Director for the West Midlands, Rosemary Thew, is currently considering whether to make a bonus payment to staff remaining in work at Coventry. Such a payment would reflect the particularly difficult circumstances at the offices in the City; staff remaining at work are ensuring that the offices continue to function, thus allowing benefit payments and services to be offered to unemployed people and employers in Coventry.
  Any payment made would have no connection with the forthcoming introduction of the Jobseeker's Allowance. As I have indicated they would be designed to recognise the maintenance of services in the exceptionally difficult circumstances occasioned by strike action by those ES employees in Coventry who are members of the CPSA.
  You asked what the cost of paying people bonuses through the Special Bonus Scheme had been to date, and what the eventual cost will be. Some of my Regional Directors in regions other than the West Midlands have made bonus payments totalling £141,000 to people who are delivering our services from some offices affected by the dispute. It is not possible to inform you of the future total cost of such payments as many of my Regional Directors have not yet decided whether they should be made or, if so, for how much.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she has requested the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to report into the dispute involving the Employment Service. [11840]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  566
  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 29 January 1996 The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the involvement of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) in the trade dispute between the Employment Service and the Civil and Public Services Association (CPSA).
  In early December 1995 ACAS acted upon a request from the CPSA to offer its conciliation services to the parties involved in the dispute. I was pleased to agree to talks under the auspices of ACAS being planned for 19 December. However, at a late stage they were called off because the CPSA decided not to adhere to the agreement we had reached that it would order its striking members back to work before the talks started.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many grant-maintained schools have applied for a change of character; what was the nature of the change; and what was the Secretary of State's decision. [12183]

  Mrs. Gillan
  There have been 211 applications for a significant change of character by grant-maintained schools. The following table shows the nature of the changes applied for and the Secretary of State's decision.

  Number

  To add or extend sixth form

  Applications

  89

  Approved

  38

  Rejected

  .33

  Under consideration

  18

  To add or extend nursery provision

  Applications

  49

  Approved

  16

  Rejected

  11

  Under consideration

  22

  Other change of age range

  Applications

  44

  Approved

  40

  Rejected

  2

  Under consideration

  2

  To add whole or partial selection

  Applications

  26

  Approved

  16

  Rejected

  5

  Under consideration

  5

  To add or remove boarding

  Applications

  2

  Approved

  2

  Rejected

  0

  Under consideration

  0

  Single-sex to co-educational

  Applications

  1

  Approved

  0

  Rejected

  1

  Under consideration

  0

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many grant-maintained schools interview as part of their admissions procedure. [12184]
  567
  Mrs. Gillan
  Some 20 grant-maintained schools have approved admission arrangements which enable them to use interviews other than for the purpose of assessing religious suitability.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to ensure that the membership of training and enterprise council boards includes representatives from firms with(a) under 50 employees, (b) under 20 employees, and (c) under 10 employees. [11959]

  Mr. Paice
  I am satisfied that the current arrangements ensure that small firms are represented on training and enterprise council boards and that TECs consult widely with small businesses in the preparation of their plans.

  Business Start-up Scheme
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 15 January,Official Report, column 357, how many start-ups in each of his tables benefited from (a) start-up grants, (b) survival grants and (c) both. [11945]

  Mr. Paice
  All starts received a start-up grant. The number of 52-week survival grants paid in 1993–94 and 1994–95 is given in the following table. All survivors, therefore, received both start-up and survival grants.

  Business start-up scheme: 52 week survivors in England

  Year

  52-week survivors

  1993–94

  25,282

  1994–95

  24,344

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many training places were created(a) in total and (b) by standard region, with assistance from the European social fund in the United Kingdom in each year from 1990 to 1994. [11700]

  Mr. Forth
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much in(a) ecus and (b) pounds the United Kingdom has been allocated from the European social fund under objectives 3 and 4 between 1994 and 1999. [11701]

  Mr. Forth
  The United Kingdom was allocated 3,377 mecu under objectives 3 and 4 of the European social fund between 1994 and 1999. At an exchange rate of 1.2ecu = £1 this would be £2,815 million.

  Training Schemes
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment her Department has made of the numbers and percentages of(a) firms with under (i) 100 employees, (ii) 50 employees,
  568
  (iii) 20 employees and (iv) 10 employees and (b) start-ups that have participated in Government-funded training schemes in each of the last five years. [11956]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department does not hold the information in the specific form requested. I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will publish the delegated schools budget for 1995–96 for each local education authority combining the budgets for grant-maintained and for local education authority maintained primary and secondary schools. [12341]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows, for each local education authority, the amount delegated to primary, middle and secondary schools through the aggregated schools budget in 1995–96. The figures are derived from the local management of schools budget statements produced by local education authorities under section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  The funding of grant-maintained schools is a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools, and I have asked the chairman of the funding agency to arrange for a reply to be sent to the hon. member in respect of the GM sector.

  Funding delegated (1995–96) to primary, middle and secondary schools through ASB

  LEA

  £ million

  Avon

  234.4

  Barking and Dagenham

  50.8

  Barnet

  61.4

  Barnsley

  51.4

  Bedfordshire

  127.8

  Berkshire

  163.9

  Bexley

  50.5

  Birmingham

  275.1

  Bolton

  66.7

  Bradford

  127.8

  Brent

  38.8

  Bromley

  39.5

  Buckinghamshire

  138.1

  Bury

  45.1

  Calderdale

  37.7

  Cambridgeshire

  130.4

  Camden

  43. I

  Cheshire

  248.9

  Corporation of London

  0.7

  Cleveland

  157.3

  Cornwall

  113.9

  Coventry

  87.4

  Croydon

  62.1

  Cumbria

  98.0

  Derbyshire

  185.4

  Devon

  224.4

  Doncaster

  85.1

  Dorset

  117.7

  Dudley

  67.7

  Durham

  146.6

  Ealing

  57.4

  East Sussex

  153.4

  Enfield

  64.9

  Essex

  222.2

  Gateshead

  50.5

  Gloucestershire

  71.2

  Greenwich

  74.0

  Hackney

  51.6

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  31.2

  569

  Funding delegated (1995–96) to primary, middle and secondary schools through ASB

  LEA

  £ million

  Hampshire

  338.7

  Haringey

  59.3

  Harrow

  53.3

  Havering

  56.7

  Hereford and Worcester

  149.3

  Hertfordshire

  226.2

  Hillingdon

  33.8

  Hounslow

  59.7

  Humberside

  237.8

  Isle of Wight

  30.6

  Isles of Scilly

  0.8

  Islington

  53.1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  22.1

  Kent

  277.4

  Kingston

  26.5

  Kirklees

  96.6

  Knowsley

  45.3

  Lambeth

  43.7

  Lancashire

  320.6

  Leeds

  190.2

  Leicestershire

  226.6

  Lewisham

  65.7

  Lincolnshire

  105.3

  Liverpool

  129.4

  Manchester

  114.6

  Merton

  39.8

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  66.2

  Newham

  72.6

  Norfolk

  155.6

  North Tyneside

  49.6

  North Yorkshire

  177.1

  Northamptonshire

  138.1

  Northumberland

  81.7

  Nottinghamshire

  250.3

  Oldham

  68.8

  Oxfordshire

  130.9

  Redbridge

  63.2

  Richmond

  36.0

  Rochdale

  48.7

  Rotherham

  70.5

  Salford

  58.9

  Sandwell

  79.3

  Sefton

  78.5

  Sheffield

  103.9

  Shropshire

  89.9

  Solihull

  59.1

  Somerset

  108.9

  South Tyneside

  39.6

  Southwark

  55.7

  St. Helens

  48.7

  Staffordshire

  243.5

  Stockport

  69.7

  Suffolk

  162.1

  Sunderland

  81.9

  Surrey

  173.2

  Sutton

  30.5

  Tameside

  50.9

  Tower Hamlets

  72.6

  Trafford

  44.2

  Wakefield

  79.1

  Walsall

  62.8

  Waltham Forest

  57.2

  Wandsworth

  37.3

  Warwickshire

  105.4

  West Sussex

  167.2

  Westminster

  38.8

  Wigan

  83.8

  Wiltshire

  104.4

  Wirral

  83.7

  Wolverhampton

  64.7

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing (Elderly People)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the housing stock in England and Wales was earmarked for the elderly in(a) 1992, (b) 1993, (c) 1994 and (d) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [9477]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]The available data on local authority and housing association dwellings in England for elderly people are set out. The figures relate to the stock at 31 March/1 April. Comprehensive data for the private sector are not available.

  Per cent.

  Local authorities Proportion of stock which is:

  Housing associations

  sheltered housing

  other housing intended for the elderly

  Proportion of stock which is for the elderly

  Proportion of bedspaces in hostels which are for the elderly

  1992

  7.9

  9.1

  26.6

  23.9

  1993

  8.0

  9.1

  24.7

  18.4

  1994

  8.0

  9.4

  23.9

  19.0

  1995

  8.0

  9.3

  n/a

  n/a

  Sources

  Local authority—Housing Investment Programme (HIPI) returns Housing associations—HAR10/1 returns.

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

  Commission for Local Administration in England
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received the report of the review of the local government ombudsman; and when he expects to publish it. [11098]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Following completion of the first stage of his financial, management and policy review of the Commission for Local Administration in England, Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield presented his report to my right hon. Friend and to the chairman of the commission on 30 November 1995. The report is now being carefully considered by Ministers and by the commission and it will be published for wider consideration in due course.

  Rail Services
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what total payment has been made under the standard spending assessment to provide for the additional costs of supporting rail services that have arisen from the privatisation of British Rail. [11318]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A figure of £89 million has been set aside from within the provisional all other services standard spending assessments for 1996–97 to reflect the costs of supporting rail services that have arisen from restructuring due to the privatisation of British Rail. This takes account of payments made directly to passenger transport executives under British Rail and Railtrack deeds of assumption.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will increase the funds for the single regeneration budget to ensure a higher success rate in bids. [11609]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  As existing commitments under the programmes combined within the single regeneration budget are fulfilled, so increased resources are being made available for the bidding rounds for the SRB challenge fund. Under current plans, the challenge fund element of the SRB will increase from £125 million in 1995–96 to £600 million in 1988–99. Many unsuccessful bidders from round 1 in 1994 came back with greatly improved and successful bids for round 2, demonstrating the strength of local partnerships. Unsuccessful bidders last year will have the chance to hid again in round 3 this year.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy in respect of changes in public expenditure plans for the regeneration budget before May 1997. [11608]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Regeneration work, such as housing, training and economic development initiatives, are supported through main programme expenditure by various Government Departments. This is supplemented by targeted programmes which have been brought together in the single regeneration budget.

  Under current plans, the single regeneration budget will provide over £1.3 billion for regeneration work in each of the three years 1995–96 to 1997–98—a total of some £4 billion. During this period there will be some £870 million available for funding new regeneration schemes successful in bidding rounds for the competitive SRB challenge fund. In 1998–99, under current plans, the challenge fund element of the SRB will increase to £600 million, by which time new schemes from four bidding rounds will be under way.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 9 January,Official Report, columns 25–26, if he will list for each of the challenge fund schemes which included plans to assist business start-ups how many start-ups they estimated would be helped; and what was the average sum estimated to be made available for each start-up by each scheme. [11944]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information on the forecast number of business start-ups over the lifetime of each challenge fund scheme is given.

  Information about the average sum estimated to be made available for each start-up for each scheme is not available. As explained in my replies to the hon. Member on 9 January, Official Report, column 25, and 17 January, Official Report column 603, the single regeneration budget challenge fund provides support to local partnerships for schemes which incorporate a wide range of economic, environmental and social measures, including the business start-ups set out in the table. Schemes approved to date stand to receive some £1.7 billion in challenge fund support overall. Within the resources made available to each approved scheme, it is for partnerships to determine the support provided for business start-ups. This accords with our intention of encouraging partnerships to tackle regeneration in ways
  572
  that are appropriate to their local needs and priorities. It is not therefore possible to estimate the sums provided for start-ups from the records held centrally or at Government offices.

  Challenge fund scheme under rounds 1 and 2 and the forecast number of business start-ups over the lifetime of each scheme are as follows:

  Scheme

  Number

  A New Start for Netherfield

  20

  Action for Haslingden

  58

  All Change at Crewe

  28

  Altogether Wight

  436

  Amble Challenge Bid

  10

  Amble Regeneration

  4

  Appleby Heritage Centre

  48

  Ashfield Partnership

  820

  Backing Winners Business Support

  2,250

  Birmingham SRB

  4,861

  Birmingham: 1996–2003

  135

  Blackbird Leys Redevelopment Initiative

  2

  Blackbird Leys/Temple Cowley Regeneration Partnership

  375

  Blackburn SRB

  606

  Blackpool Challenge Partnership

  525

  Blueprint for the Community (Bognor Regis)

  70

  Boston 2000

  278

  Breaking the Cycle—From Dependence to Independence

  30

  Brighton Regeneration Partnership

  47

  Bristol 2020

  67

  Brixham Business Development Project

  40

  Burton: A Better Future

  500

  Business 2000

  673

  Canning Town

  500

  Central Stepney Regeneration Programme

  14

  Chart 99

  30

  Cheetham and Broughton Initiative

  260

  CILNTEC Contributing to A World Class City

  930

  Cityvision's First Challenge Fund Bid for Hull

  62

  Coalfield Renaissance

  368

  Cobridge Community Renewal

  87

  Community Works

  307

  Communities First in Rural Somerset

  21

  Congleton Town and Industry Initiative

  51

  Connected Community for the 21st Century

  5

  Consett Southern Area

  200

  Corby Urban Village Restoration Scheme

  16

  Cornwall Developing in Partnership

  322

  County Durham SRB Partnership

  1,200

  Coventry and Warwickshire Partnerships Ltd.

  1,915

  Creating A Sustainable Black Country Urban Forest

  3

  Creekside Renewal: Building Bridges

  74

  Crime Reduction, Employment and Training Queen Parks Kilburn

  50

  Crosby/Scunthorpe Town Centre

  380

  Cross River Partnership 1995

  97

  Dartford and Thames Gateway Foyer Project

  4

  Derby-DaubHill Deane: A Partnership for Prosperity

  277

  Derby's Rail Corridor—Opportunity for Global Change

  128

  Destination Bassetlaw

  785

  Developing Park Royal's Offer

  106

  Developing Stronger Communities (Barnsley)

  18

  Dewsbury: Fabric for the future

  232

  Dingle 2000

  40

  East Durham Task Force

  500

  East Gateshead Regeneration

  30

  East Kent Initiative

  25

  Economic Development Support for New Business

  850

  Elland Initiative Partnership

  5

  Employment Creation in the Hawtec Area

  1.725

  Empowering Enterprise in Local Communities

  20

  Energise Eastbourne

  200

  573

  Challenge fund scheme under rounds 1 and 2 and the forecast number of business start-ups over the lifetime of each scheme are as follows:

  Scheme

  Number

  Enhancing the Development of Ethnic Minorities

  17

  Enterprise 200 Norfolk and Waveney TEC

  1,050

  EPICC

  21

  Epicentre Strategy

  500

  Foundations for the Future

  530

  Gainsborough Regeneration

  60

  Going for Growth (Doncaster)

  1,310

  Goole "Foundation for the Furure"

  48

  Grays Regeneration

  7

  Greater Peterborough TEC

  480

  Green Street SRB

  300

  Greenwich 2000—Tourism development

  80

  Grimsby Regeneration Partnership

  80

  Grow Your Own Job and Business Diversification Rural Areas

  790

  Growing Together: Youth and Inner City Regen etc. (Sheffield)

  34

  Hamilton Quarter Initiative

  94

  Hardwick Community Partnership Regeneration Project

  36

  Haringey and Enfield Young People and Offenders Emp.

  24

  Hayes/west Drayton Corridor

  200

  Heart of Barrow

  250

  Hertfordshire Enterprise Alliance

  38

  Hertfordshire TEC

  720

  Huddersfield Challenge

  92

  Hulls First SRB Bid

  1,450

  Huyton

  53

  Improving Labour Market Flexibility

  35

  Initiative Burnley

  1,391

  Inner City Lifeline

  166

  Investing in Derby People

  262

  Ipswich West Dock regeneration

  90

  Jobs Guidance and Training for Central London Refugees

  70

  Keighley: A Local Strategy

  630

  Knowsley Industrial Park

  100

  Lairdside

  77

  Lea Bridge—A Gateway to Opportunity

  151

  Lea Valley (Poplar) Joint Venture Initiative

  2

  Leeds: Rebuilding Our Communities

  77

  Leek Regeneration: Securing a Future for a Market Town

  12

  Leicester's 1996-97 Challenge Fund Bid

  128

  London East Manufacturing Initiative

  15

  London East TEC Assist

  300

  Loughborough Town Partnership

  30

  Loughborough University of Tech: a Competiveness Catalyst

  6

  Luton Dunstable Partnership

  157

  Luton Dunstable Partnership—Sustainable Regeneration

  210

  Maidstone Town Centre Initiative

  10

  Manchester City Council

  1,388

  Manufacturing Excellence Programme

  10,000

  Medway Towns Campus Programme

  30

  Meeting the Challenge of Change

  319

  Meeting the Needs of Newham's Communities

  151

  Middlesborough Pride and Enterprise

  93

  Middleton Pride

  94

  Netherton SRB

  54

  Networking Business and the Community

  5

  New Business Growth Programme

  850

  New Business Growth (Phase Two)

  155

  New Dimensions for Stratford and Temple Mills

  181

  New Enterprise Strategy Teeside TEC

  1,500

  New Entrepreneurs Challenge Programme

  2.000

  Newark and Sherwood

  200

  Newhaven Economic Partnership

  107

  Newstead Regeneration Partnership

  4

  574

  Challenge fund scheme under rounds 1 and 2 and the forecast number of business start-ups over the lifetime of each scheme are as follows:

  Scheme

  Number

  Newton 21

  28

  North East Lincolnshire Challenge Bid

  90

  North End/north Lynn Regeneration

  20

  North Liverpool

  250

  North London TEC Support for New Business

  900

  North Shields Town Centre Regeneration Strategy

  359

  North Solihull Challenge

  86

  North West Leicestershire Coalfield Priority Area

  55

  North West London TEC

  540

  Northampton Partnership

  98

  Northern Wards

  127

  Nottingham—Capturing the Dynamics

  600

  Old Trafford Initiative

  340

  Older People—harnessing Potential and Providing Support

  16

  Oldham Partnership

  1,400

  Owton/rossmere Partnership

  86

  Park Royal Partnership Ltd.

  16

  Peckham Partnership

  60

  Plymouth 2000

  684

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Partnership

  633

  Qualitec and Partners

  1,100

  Queens Park Challenge Fund

  32

  Raffles Community Development Partnership

  90

  Raising Educational Achievement and Employment in Downham

  5

  Regenerating Central Brighton

  55

  Regenerating King's Cross—Gateway to Europe

  296

  Regenerating Wembley Park

  80

  Regeneration in West Chester

  252

  Regeneration of Shields Road District Centre and Newcastles ea

  24

  Regeneration Through People

  1,000

  Releasing Local Potential

  127

  Remaking Chalkhill

  5

  Removing Barriers—Creating Opportunities Leeds

  777

  Renaissance of Blyth

  40

  Revitalising the City Fringe

  60

  Reviving the Heart of the West End

  64

  Rochdale Canalside

  120

  Roding Valley Partnership

  15

  Roding Valley Partnership

  15

  Roding Valley Partnership—Combined Bid L0026, L0027, L0028

  7

  ROYDS

  50

  Runcorn on the Mersey

  105

  Salford Partnership

  770

  Sanderson Kayser Green Steelworks Etc Pilot (Sheffield)

  12

  Sandwell Regeneration Partnership

  372

  Sandwell: Capacity Building for Urban Regeneration

  78

  Selby Waterfront

  27

  SESKU

  55

  Shaping Rotherhams Future

  804

  Sheffield SRB Scheme

  1,233

  Sherburn Road Regeneration Initiative

  6

  Shropshire Business Support

  750

  Silwood Community Forum

  3

  Sleaford Pride

  45

  Small Business Village

  15

  SOLOTEC Greenwich and Lewisham Access Success Progress

  247

  South Denes Peninsula Regeneration (Great Yarmouth)

  15

  South Leytonstone Community Partnership

  200

  South Tyneside

  60

  South Tyneside Youth to the Future

  116

  South Wandle Regeneration Strategy

  23

  Southampton Regeneration Partnership

  206

  Southampton's Bid

  99

  Speke Garston

  141

  575

  Challenge fund scheme under rounds I and 2 and the forecast number of business start-ups over the lifetime of each scheme are as follows:

  Scheme

  Number

  St. Helens Southern Corridor

  150

  Stratford Regional Station

  4

  Sunderland Partnership

  633

  Support for New and Young Business in Staffordshire

  2,100

  Sustainable Regeneration in Barnsley

  1,400

  Swadlincote Woodlands

  180

  Sydenham Estate Somerset

  40

  Tame Valley Initiative

  586

  Thames Gateway Technology Centre

  90

  The Bakewell Project: A Window of Opportunity

  65

  The Battle for Hastings

  280

  The Brentford Partnership

  23

  The Cannock Gateway Project

  136

  The Castle Pride Initiative Scarborough

  52

  The Centre for Sustainable Living, Castle Hill, Dudley

  12

  The Eastwood/oakhill Challenge (Rotherham)

  6

  The Glossopdale Project

  155

  The Harwich Dimension (Tendring)

  60

  The Heart of Worthing

  30

  The Island and Royal Manor of Portland

  115

  The Lancashire Manufacturing Partnership

  1,000

  The Learning Community Initiative

  20

  The Limes Farm Regeneration Partnership

  12

  The Merseyside Learning Partnership

  38

  The Miles Platting, Ancoats and Northern Quarter (Srb2) Bid

  123

  The Ragworth Regeneration Project

  2

  The Regeneration of Central Accrington

  49

  The Villages Initiative

  3

  The York Regeneration Initiative

  29

  This Partnership Means Business

  2.070

  Toureast London

  19

  Turning the Tide—the Western Approaches

  114

  Turning the Tide Morecombe

  100

  Unlocking the Potential of Young People

  2

  Upper Lee Valley Regeneration

  288

  Urban Regeneration in Barton and Tredworth

  202

  Vauxhall/Lambeth Walk Initiative

  3

  Vauxhall: Crossing the Line

  25

  Vital Centres and Green Links

  15

  Wandle Corridor Regeneration Project

  20

  West Central Halifax A Bid for Prosperity

  161

  West Cornwall Initiative

  488

  West London TEC Economic Development for New Business

  850

  Whitehaven Development Company

  72

  Wigan SRB Partnership

  1,589

  Wisbech

  30

  Wolverhampton

  1,246

  Wolverton: youth, community and Business Symbiosis

  8

  Work and Learn

  15

  Wrens Nest Comprehensive Area Regeneration Scheme

  13

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each local authority in England the(a) total standard spending allocated and (b) amount spent in each year since 1990–91. [11595]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have placed the information in the Library of the House.
  576
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the outcome of consultation on the local government finance settlement; and if he will make a statement. [12731]

  Mr. Gummer
  I am today laying before the House the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1996–97, the limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1996–97, the Special Grant Report (No. 16) and the National Parks Supplementary Grant Report (England) 1996–97. These reports establish the amounts of revenue support grant and non-domestic rates to be paid to local authorities in 1996–97, and the basis of their distribution; specify the amounts which are to be used as the basis of comparison for measuring increases in certain local authorities' budgets in 1996–97 for the purposes of capping, provide for a special standard spending assessment reduction grant to be paid to certain authorities for 1996–97 and specify the amount of supplementary grant to be paid to certain authorities in connection with national parks. Drafts of these reports were issued for consultation on 30 November 1995. Two hundred and fifty authorities made written representations and Ministers met 84 delegations from local councils

  I shall be sending copies of these reports to all authorities today, together with tables showing each authority's standard spending assessment and its entitlement to RSG, NDR and special grant. I have also placed copies of the reports and further information to be sent to the local authority associations in the Library and the Vote Office.

  Asylum Seekers (Benefits)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to the oral statement of I 1 January,Official Report, columns 331–45 (1) in what proportion he plans that local authorities should be reimbursed for the costs they face in respect of the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1996; [11627]

  (2) what estimates he has made of the likely total costs of the assistance he plans should be given to local authorities in respect of costs arising from the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1996. [11628]

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), on 23 January to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn),Official Report, column 204.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authorities, housing authorities and other bodies on the implementation of clause 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill; and if he will place copies of all representations on this matter in the Library. [12109]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 26 January 1996]No such representations have been received.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the additional costs
  577
  or savings to housing authorities as a consequence of the implementation of clause 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill. [12108]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 26 January 1996]The effect of the provisions in clause 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill will be to relieve local housing authorities of an obligation to provide housing assistance for persons from abroad who are not entitled to social security benefits. Information about the present cost of housing such persons is not collected centrally, but it is expected that worthwhile savings will result in the longer term.

  Council House Receipts
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to the ministerial reply of 22 January,Official Report, column 81, relating to sums received by local government from sale of dwellings, if he will estimate the total unused amounts remaining with receiving local authorities. [11894]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department does not have information on how much of the receipts from the sale of local authority dwellings is still unused. The stock of usable receipts from all assets stood at £1.5 billion at 31 March 1995. About 90 per cent. of these receipts are held by authorities whose responsibilities include housing. Since 1990, local authorities have been required to set aside 75 per cent. of their capital receipts from the sale of council housing to repay debt, but it is not known how much of these amounts have not yet been used for debt repayment.

  Any unused receipts can be invested and will generate interest for the authority.

  Positive about Disabled People Symbol
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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. [11923]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department and its agencies do not at present use the Employment Service's positive about disabled people symbol, but there are plans to do so in the near future.

  Case name

  Number of units

  Ballot

  Ballot result (per cent.)

  For

  Against

  Did not vote

  Walterton and Elgin Community Homes

  1918

  Yes

  59

  23

  18

  Westside House, LB Merton

  18

  Yes

  100

  0

  0

  Holtspur, South Buckinghamshire DC

  155

  Yes

  66

  22

  12

  Peterborough individual

  '1

  Yes

  100

  0

  Hayles. LB Southwark

  221

  Yes

  75

  20

  S

  Wheathampstead, St. Albans

  500

  Yes

  1—

  —

  —

  Torbay Tenants

  2.709

  Yes

  8

  85

  7

  Trowbridge Community Homes

  260

  No

  —

  —

  —

  Dawson Heights. LB Southwark

  297

  No

  —

  —

  —

  1Number of properties transferred.

  218 properties to transfer when the transfer takes place.

  3Ballot result not available, but the majority voted against transfer.

  Tenanted Council House Transfers
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much expenditure was incurred by(a) the Housing Corporation and (b) the local authority in relation to each of the proposals for a transfer of tenanted council housing in Torquay to another landlord since 1988; and what were the numbers and percentages of tenants voting (i) for and (ii) against each proposal. [11714]

  Mr. Curry
  The available information is as follows.

  In January 1989, Torbay borough council balloted tenants on its proposal for a large-scale voluntary transfer of 3,425 dwellings to two housing associations. Fifty-nine per cent. of the eligible tenants voted in the ballot, of whom 27 per cent. were in favour of transfer and 73 per cent. voted against.

  In August 1995, 1,971 eligible tenants were balloted on three separate proposals by the Torbay tenants' housing association to take over property in Torquay, Paignton and Brixham under part IV of the Housing Act 1988. Details are in the table.

  Area covered by bid

  Eligible tenants

  Number (percentage) Votes cast

  Ballot result (expressed as percentage of eligible tenants)

  Against

  For

  Torquay

  986

  902 (92)

  844 (86)

  58 (6)

  Paignton1

  715

  667 (93)

  588 (82)

  77 (11)

  Brixham

  270

  254 (94)

  239 (86)

  15 (6)

  Total

  1,971 (100)

  1,823 (93)

  1,671 (85)

  150 (8)

  1Two tenants indicated an express wish to abstain.

  The Housing Corporation's total grant spend on the Torbay tenants' housing association was £1,546,866. The local authority's costs amounted to £650,000.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for a transfer of tenanted council properties to another landlord under the provisions of part IV of the Housing Act 1988 have been made since 1988; how many tenancies have been involved; and what was the outcome of the tenants' ballot in each case. [11713]

  Mr. Curry
  Since part IV of the Housing Act 1988 came into force in 1989, there have been nine applications for a transfer of property, seven of which progressed to a ballot of tenants. The available information on these applications is contained in the table.
  579
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total cost to public funds to date of the tenants' advice scheme set up under part IV of the Housing Act 1988 with particular reference to(a) setting up costs incurred by his Department and the Housing Corporation, (b) publicity and promotional expenditure, (c) annual revenue expenditure incurred by the Housing Corporation in each year since 1988, (d) grants to tenants' organisations and others and (e) any other expenditure. [11715]

  Mr. Curry
  The Housing Corporation's total salary costs for tenants' choice activities between 1988–89 and 1994–95 amounted to £2,001,913. Since the scheme's introduction in 1989, the Housing Corporation total grant spend in support of tenants' choice cases has been £3,826,853. The further information requested is not available.

  Charities (Funding)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he issues to local authorities in respect of the provision of public funds to charities, with special reference to charities for the aged. [11647]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: None.

  Local Government Staff (Redundancy Compensation)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to amend part IV of the

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Value in ECUS

  Value in pounds1

  Value in ECUS

  Value in pounds

  Value in ECUS

  Value in pounds

  Value in ECUS

  Value in pounds

  South West

  961,000

  768,800

  1,162,743

  930,194

  240,608

  192,486

  176,720

  141,376

  South East

  643,000

  514,400

  5,015,790

  4,012,632

  4,113,498

  3,290,798

  4,586,232

  3,668985

  East Anglia

  1,771,900

  1,417,520

  0

  0

  300,000

  240,000

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  159,048

  127,238

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Midlands

  1,200,000

  960,000

  0

  0

  1,200,414

  960,331

  345,846

  276,676

  North West

  1,720,000

  1,376,000

  0

  0

  1,452,868

  1,162,294

  2,296,450

  1,837,160

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0

  0

  517,500

  414,000

  1,397,801

  1,118,240

  503,700

  402,960

  North

  1,868,500

  1,494,000

  611,354

  489,083

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wales

  0

  0

  647,283

  517,826

  363,408

  290,726

  796,000

  636,800

  Scotland

  1,071,500

  857,200

  575,151

  460,120

  987,022

  789,617

  280,500

  224,400

  Northern Ireland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  439,232

  351,385

  0

  0

  UK total

  9,394,948

  7,515,158

  8,529,821

  6,823,855

  1,049,485

  8,395,877

  8,985,448

  7,188,357

  1To take account of currency fluctuations, £1 is considered to be equal to 1.2 ecu.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much in(a) ecus and (b) pounds by standard region and in total is allocated to the United Kingdom from the European LIFE programme under the current financial perspectives. [11651]

  Mr. Clappison
  There is no allocation of LIFE funds to any member state or region within the European Union. Funds were distributed to the highest quality proposals wherever they may come from, and are paid directly by the EC Commission to the successful applicant.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much in(a) ecus and (b) pound sterling by standard region and in total the United Kingdom
  580
  Local Government (Compensation for Redundancy) Regulations 1994; and if he will make a statement; [11971]

  (2) how many representations his Department has received in the last 18 months on the operation part IV of the Local Government (Compensation for Redundancy) Regulations 1994; and if he will make a statement. [11972]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Part IV of the Local Government (Compensation for Redundancy) Regulations 1994 came into force on 28 December 1994 and gave local authorities in England and Wales discretionary powers to make compensatory payments by 28 June 1995 to former employees who had their pensions reduced as a consequence of a Court of Appeal judgment in Allsop v.North Tyneside metropolitan borough council. My right hon. Friend has no plans to introduce further provisions. Thirty-six items of correspondence were received while part IV of the regulations was in force; in addition, 35 items were received prior to the provisions coming into force, and since 29 June 1995.

  European Funding
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much in(a) ecus and (b) pounds by standard region and in total the United Kingdom received under the European LIFE programme and its predecessor programmes over the last available five years. [11650]

  Mr. Clappison
  Information on the distribution of monies from the EC LIFE fund and its predecessors is available for the last four years only. This is set out, indicating the standard statistical region where the organisation running each project is based.

  received under the European SAVE programme and its predecessor programmes over the last available five years.[11664]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  This information is not centrally available, as levels of funding for specific projects supported under the SAVE programme are a contractual matter between the European Commission and those carrying out each project.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much in(a) ecus and (b) pound sterling by standard region and in total is allocated to the United Kingdom from the European SAVE programme under the current financial perspectives. [11665]
  581
  Mr. Jones
  Payments from European Union expenditure programmes are not allocated to member states in the legislation supporting the programmes.

  Rents-to-mortgages Scheme
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the take-up of the rents-to-mortgages scheme in 1996. [11848]

  Mr. Clappison
  Returns so far received from local authorities for the period to 30 September 1995 report that 15 sales have already been completed, and around 50 more applications have been accepted which may translate into sales.

  Mine Safety
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action has been taken in the British coal industry to ensure that the Safety Committee Regulations 1977 are in place, with particular reference to the provision of information relevant to the maintenance of safety in the mine. [11484]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Commission issued a consultative document in October 1995 on proposed regulations concerning employers' duties to consult their employees about health and safety matters in undertakings where there is no recognised trade union. These regulations would apply to coal mines but they would also extend the provisions of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977, as amended by the Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1992, to coal mines where there are recognised trade unions.

  Rural Charter
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to launch the rural charter initiative promised in his White Paper "Rural England". [12337]

  Mr. Clappison
  The rural charter initiative, including the rural services checklist, was launched on 1 November 1995. I have arranged for a copy of the checklist to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Rural Planning Guidance
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the revised rural planning guidance note PPG7. [12338]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We intend to issue a draft revision of planning policy guidance note 7, "The Countryside and the Rural Economy", later this year. This will fulfil a commitment made in the rural White Paper.

  Planning (Rural Business Use)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultation he has carried out on the 582
  introduction of a new rural business use class within the planning system; and if he will make a statement. [12339]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My officials are currently preparing a public consultation paper on the possible introduction of a new rural business use class, as promised in the rural White Paper, Cm 3016. We hope to issue it in the spring.

  Business Rate Relief Scheme
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his consultative document on the new business rate relief scheme proposed in the White Paper "Rural England", and by what date comments on it will be expected. [12340]

  Mr. Clappison
  We expect to publish a consultation paper before Easter, and to allow six weeks for comments.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Unemployment Benefit (Women)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women workers claimed unemployment benefit(a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully while their partners remained in work in each of the last 10 years. [9937]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available. Unemployment benefit is a personal benefit. Questions relating to the claimant's partner are asked only if an adult dependency addition is being claimed.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the expenditure in 1995 of providing(a) maternity payments, (b) funeral expenses and (c) cold weather payments for the last three years expressed in (1) cash terms, (2) cash terms at 1992–93 prices and (3) as a percentage of total social security expenditure, (i) in total, (ii) by region and (iii) by his Department's offices. [9485]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested by region and district office could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Cash terms (£ million)

  1992–93 prices (£ million)

  Percentage of total social security benefit expenditure per cent.

  Great Britain expenditure April—December 1995

  Maternity

  payments

  16.21

  15.05

  See note 2

  Funeral

  payments

  35.61

  33.06

  See note 2

  Cold weather payments

  32.00 (estimate)

  29.70

  see note 2

  Great Britain expenditure 1994–95

  Maternity payments

  22.24

  21.21

  0.03

  Funeral payments

  62.83

  59.92

  0.07

  Cold weather payments

  0.08

  0.08

  0.00

  583

  Cash terms (£ million)

  1992–93 prices (£ million)

  Percentage of total social security benefit expenditure per cent.

  Great Britain expenditure 1993–94

  Maternity payments

  23.27

  22.61

  0.03

  Funeral payments

  62.46

  60.69

  0.08

  Cold weather payments

  12.40

  12.05

  0.02

  Great Britain experience 1992–93

  Maternity payments

  23.07

  23.07

  0.03

  Funeral payments

  49.45

  49.45

  0.07

  Cold weather payments

  15.00

  15.00

  0.02

  1. The percentage of total Social Security benefits expenditure has been calculated by reference to the figures in the Social Security Departmental Report for 1995. They include additional local authority expenditure on Housing Benefit, Community Charge Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  2. Figures for total benefit expenditure figures for 1995–96 are not yet available; a reliable comparison, based on planned expenditure, for a part year cannot be made.

  3. Figures for total benefit expenditure figures for 1994–95 are estimated outturn.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was(a) the total social fund expenditure,
  (b) income from re-paid grants for each year since 1988, (c) the proportion of total income required for administration and (d) the number of loans and grants paid each year. [11672]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information relating to total social fund expenditure, recoveries from pre-paid awards, and the number of loans and grants awarded for year since 1988 is contained in the Secretary of State's annual reports on the social fund, copies of which are available in the Library.

  For information on administration costs since 1988, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 29 November 1995, Official Report, columns 748–50.

  Social Security
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his estimate of the effect on revenues in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98 of the proposal to limit housing benefit for single people under 25 years to the average cost of local shared accommodation; [8506]

  (2) what is his estimate of the effect on revenues in (a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98 of the freeze in (a) lone parent premium and (b) one parent benefit in April 1996; [8518]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the effect on revenues in (a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98 of the real increase in April 1996 in non-dependant deductions for housing
  584
  costs; how many people he estimates will be affected in each of these years; and if he will make a statement setting out the reasons for the increase; [8504]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the effect on revenues in (a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98 of the change in the family credit rules from July 1996 regarding awards when the youngest child has left school; [8520]

  (5) what is his estimate of the effect on revenues in (a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98 of the proposal to double the minimum payment of child maintenance under the Child Support Act from April 1996; [8507]

  (6) what estimate he has made of the effect on revenues in (a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98 of the proposal to pay housing benefit in arrears rather than in advance; [8509]

  (7) how the estimate given in his uprating statement on 29 November of £500 million in benefit savings in 1996–97 and over £1 billion savings in 1998 was calculated, itemising savings for each measure he is introducing. [8517]

  Mr. Burt
  Reductions in expenditure from measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. in the social security statement on 29 November,Official Report, column 1212–15 are set out in the table.

  Overall figures differ from those underlying the statement following the announcement on benefits for asylum seekers on 11 January and other revisions to estimates in some areas. A number of measures are subject to the outcome of consultation and the passage of legislation. The number of cases affected by the changes to non-dependant deduction rates is, in 1996–97, 55,000 on income support, 390,000 on housing benefit and 475,000 on council tax benefit, and, in 1997–98, 55,000 on income support, 390,000 on housing benefit and 485,000 on council tax benefit.

  £million, rounded to the nearest £5 million

  Measure

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Asylum seekers and persons from abroad

  -145

  -295

  -290

  Additional anti-fraud measures

  -120

  -235

  -300

  Housing Benefit—changes for under 25s

  -15

  -65

  -70

  Housing Benefit—effect of above RPI increase in non-dependent deductions

  -30

  -35

  -35

  Housing Benefit—change in payment arrangements

  -105

  -120

  -75

  One Parent Benefit—no cash increase in April 1996

  -5

  -5

  -5

  Lone Parent Premium—no cash increase in April 1996

  -10

  -10

  -10

  Child Support—increase in minimum maintenance

  -10

  -10

  -15

  Disability Living Allowance— improving quality and level of information to decision-makers

  -20

  -95

  -165

  Disability Living Allowance— mobility component for hospital in-patients

  -30

  -40

  -45

  Industrial Injuries Benefit— changes to reduced earnings allowance

  -25

  -35

  -35

  585

  £million, rounded to the nearest £5 million

  Measure

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Family Credit—change in rules

  where youngest child has left

  school

  -5

  -10

  -10

  Total

  -520

  -955

  -1,055

  1. Numbers affected are rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  2. Figures cannot be aggregated due to overlapping benefit entitlement.

  3. Some of the numbers affected (about 5,000 for each benefit in each year) will be gainers from the changes to income thresholds.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioners are identified as receiving income from savings; and what is the mean and median amount received for the latest year for which figures are available. [10200]

  Mr. Heald
  The latest available information is for 1993, when it is estimated that 73 per cent. of pensioner units were receiving income from savings. The mean amount received in 1993 is estimated to be £28.40 per week and the median is estimated at £4.90.

  Notes:

  1. Source: Analysis of the 1993 family expenditure survey.

  2. Amounts quoted are at July 1993 prices.

  3. A pensioner unit is defined as a single person over state pension age or a couple where the husband, or head, is over state pension age.

  Pensioners' Benefits
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he has taken and plans to take to improve income support and housing benefit take-up by pensioners. [10208]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Government's role is to ensure that help is there for those who need it and that people are in a position to make informed choices on whether to claim benefit. To this end, the Department is involved in a wide range of national and local initiatives to ensure that accurate and accessible information is available. These are often undertaken in conjunction with local interest and advice groups.

  Further, local authorities have a statutory duty to publicise housing benefit.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to implement the recommendations of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on hand arm vibration syndrome; and if he will make a statement. [10180]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We are currently considering the complex practical and administrative issues raised by the recommendations made by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council in its report "Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome" (Cm 2844) and expect to announce a response shortly.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what guidance is being given to adjudication officers in the period when the guidance on myalgic encephalomyelitis is being re-drafted; [10767]

  (2) what monitoring of the decisions of adjudication officers in respect of benefit claims made by people affected by myalgic encephalomyelitis is being undertaken by his Department. [10766]

  Mr. Burt
  Advice to adjudication officers on myalgic encephalomyelitis is contained in the disability handbook. This is currently being redrafted following discussions with the ME Association. In the meantime, adjudication officers are using existing guidance, but have been advised that they must consider all the evidence in the case to support their decision. Monitoring is undertaken on a random basis. Cases selected which involve myalgic encephalomyelitis are checked to ensure adjudication officers have taken this advice into account.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the number of claims made for(a) incapacity benefit and (b) the disability living allowance by claimants who suffer from myalgic encephalomyelitis since the inception of the scheme; [10832]

  (2) how many claims for (a) incapacity benefit and (b) disability living allowance made by claimants who suffer from myalgic encephalomyelitis have been refused in each month since the inception of each scheme. [10765]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the criteria for determining the temperature at which cold weather payments are triggered(a) generally, (b) in the Barking constituency and (c) in the Dagenham constituency; and what plans he has to review these criteria. [11476]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The criteria for determining cold weather payment trigger temperatures are the same throughout the country: when the average temperature is, or is forecast to be, 0?C (freezing point) or below over any seven consecutive day period. We consider this to he a reasonable indication of a sustained period of very cold weather not normally expected to occur in the majority of British winters. The weather stations used for Barking are Heathrow and Stanstead. Dagenham is served solely by Stanstead.

  There are no plans for major changes to the scheme.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many times the Tiree monitoring station has triggered the system of cold weather payments since it was first designated for such purposes. [10679]

  Mr. Evans
  Since 1 November 1991, when Tiree was first used in the cold weather payment scheme, no triggers have occurred.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time between the lodging of an appeal to a tribunal and a decision being reached by a tribunal for people appealing against a decision relating to the all-work medical test for incapacity benefit. [11196]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not held centrally and could he obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Housing Benefits
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of expenditure in Scotland in 1995–96 and 1996–97 on(a) income support for mortgage interest payments and (b) housing benefit. [11141]

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

  Projected expenditure in Scotland

  £ million 1995–96

  1996–97

  Income Support mortgage interest payments

  35

  35

  Housing Benefit

  890

  980

  1. The income support mortgage interest figures for Scotland for 1995–96 and 1996–97 have been derived by applying the same percentage of estimated expenditure for Scotland in 1994–95 to projected expenditure for Great Britain in 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Benefit Fraud
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to improve the sharing of information and promotion of best practice by Government agencies and Departments in tackling organised benefit fraud. [9980]

  Mr. Heald
  Where more than one investigative body is engaged in the detection of organised fraud offences being perpetrated by the same offenders, it is our practice that those bodies work together where it is the most effective way of pursuing an investigation. In this context, information is shared whenever it is appropriate to do so.

  Benefits Agency organised fraud investigators employed exclusively to tackle organised fraud are involved with Home Office initiatives such as the joint action group and the National Criminal Investigation Service which have been specifically set up to share information about serious fraud and discuss the best way of combatting this threat across different agencies. This multi-agency approach ensures that the most efficient and effective use of resources is employed, and best practices adopted.

  Welfare Provision
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what comparisons of the British welfare state provision he has made with those of Singapore; and if he will make a statement. [11521]
  588
  Mr. Lilley
  I regularly consider international experience of alternative state welfare systems but these are not always directly transferable to the particular circumstances of the UK. I have not studied the Singapore system in detail but I note that the Singapore Government have control over the bulk of money people are required to invest for their pensions and other welfare benefits.

  The International Monetary Fund recently reported that the average annual return on the state-run Singapore scheme since 1980 has been only 2 per cent. more than inflation. This contrasts with British pension funds which have yielded almost 10 per cent. more than inflation, and now stands at almost £600 billion.

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the take up level of(a) income support and (b) housing benefit for entitled persons in the (i) 60 to 65, (ii) 65 to 70, (iii) 70 to 75 and (iv) over 75 years of age groups; and if he will make a statement. [11522]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not readily available and, where obtainable, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Regulations
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the consultations that have taken place with welfare and refugee organisations since October 1995 concerning the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) draft Regulations. [11523]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Representations from many welfare and refugee organisations were received by the Social Security Advisory Committee during the course of its consultation exercise. The Committee's report to the Secretary of State for Social Security was approved on 8 December 1995 and subsequently published as part of Command Paper Cm. 3062. Appendix 1 of the report contains a list of the representations received.

  State Pensions
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the average level of state pension, the cost per head of the total population and the proportion of total Government expenditure required for state pensions for(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Italy, (d) the Netherlands, (e) Singapore, (f) Japan, (g) Australia and (h) New Zealand. [11524]

  Mr. Heald
  Comparable information on state pensions is not available in the format requested and could he provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on retirement pensions in EU member states is contained in the "MISSOC" tables, "Social Protection in the Member States of the Community". published by the European Commission, and in the Eurostat publication "Digest of statistics on social protection in Europe Volume 1: Old Age." Information on old-age pensions in Australia may be found in comparative tables of social security schemes, published

  589
  by the Council of Europe. Information about state pensions in Japan and New Zealand and old-age benefits in Singapore are in "Social Security Programs Throughout the World", published by Social Security Administration, USA.

  Copies of the publications referred to above are in the Library.

  £ per week

  Basic rates of retirement pension

  Value of RP at April 1975 prices

  Rate of RP if uprated by earnings since November 1979

  Single

  Couple

  Single

  Couple

  Single

  Couple

  April 1975

  11.6

  18.50

  11.60

  18.50

  —

  —

  November 1975

  13.30

  21.20

  11.91

  18.98

  —

  —

  November 1976

  15.30

  24.50

  11.91

  19.08

  —

  —

  November 1977

  17.50

  28.00

  12.06

  19.29

  —

  —

  November 1978

  19.50

  31.20

  12.43

  19.89

  —

  —

  November 1979

  23.30

  37.30

  12.65

  20.26

  23.30

  37.30

  November 1980

  27.15

  43.45

  12.79

  20.46

  27.60

  44.20

  November 1981

  29.60

  47.35

  12.45

  19.92

  30.75

  49.25

  November 1982

  32.85

  52.55

  13.01

  20.80

  33.35

  53.40

  November 1983

  34.05

  54.50

  12.86

  20.58

  36.25

  58.05

  November 1984

  35.80

  57.30

  12.88

  20.62

  38.05

  60.95

  November 1985

  38.30

  61.30

  13.07

  20.91

  41.35

  66.25

  July 1986

  38.70

  61.95

  12.99

  20.79

  43.15

  69.15

  April 1987

  39.50

  63.25

  12.70

  20.33

  45.55

  73.00

  April 1988

  41.15

  65.90

  12.73

  20.38

  49.10

  78.70

  April 1989

  43.60

  69.80

  12.48

  19.98

  53.45

  85.70

  April 1990

  46.90

  75.10

  12.27

  19.65

  58.65

  94.05

  April 1991

  52.00

  83.25

  12.79

  20.47

  64.20

  102.95

  April 1992

  54.15

  86.70

  12.77

  20.44

  69.25

  111.05

  April 1993

  56.10

  89.80

  13.06

  20.90

  72.65

  116.50

  April 1994

  57.60

  92.10

  13.07

  20.90

  74.75

  119.85

  April 1995

  58.85

  94.10

  12.93

  20.67

  77.75

  124.65

  April 1996

  61 15

  97.75

  —

  —

  80.25

  128.65

  1. The values of RP uprated by earnings have been rounded to the nearest 5 pence.

  2. The retail price index (all items), and the average earnings index (Whole economy unadjusted) as published by the central statistical office.

  3. It is not yet possible to provide a figure for the April 1996 RP rates at 1975 levels.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the average level of pension expectation for holders of SERPS since 1978 in cash terms and at 1978 prices. [11547]

  Mr. Heald
  The amount of additional pension depends on the number of years a person has contributed to SERPS and their earnings in each year. The table shows entitlement to additional pension for men on average male earnings and women on average female earnings who have contributed to SERPS in each year since 1978–79 and who reached pension age in the year shown in the left-hand column.

  Additional Pension for a person on average earnings since 1978–79

  £ per week

  At award

  At 1995–96 prices

  At November 1978 prices

  Pension age reached in:

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  1991–92

  42.30

  25.30

  47.40

  28.40

  16.30

  9.80

  1992–93

  49.80

  29.90

  53.70

  32.20

  18.50

  11.10

  1993–94

  56.90

  34.50

  59.20

  35.90

  20.40

  12.40

  1994–95

  63.70

  38.90

  65.10

  39.70

  22.40

  13.70

  1995–96

  69.70

  42.80

  69.70

  42.80

  24.00

  14.80

  All figures are rounded to the nearest ten pence.
  590
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the cash level of the state pension for each year since 1975 and its value in 1975 prices; and if he will estimate the value since 1980 if the rate had been linked to earnings. [11525]

  Mr. Heald
  The available information is in the table.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each year since 1966(a) the total number of national insurance numbers in the United Kingdom, (b) the new numbers issued and (c) the total taken out of use; and if he will make a statement on the relation of (a) to (c) to the total number of people (i) working and (ii) potentially available for work. [11546]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Tax year

  Total number of National Insurance Numbers in the United Kingdom

  Total number of new National Insurance Numbers issued

  1965–66

  35,885,700

  —

  1966–67

  36,947,100

  1,061,400

  1967–68

  37,725,600

  778,500

  1968–69

  38,849,200

  1,123,600

  1969–70

  39,766,000

  916,800

  1970–71

  40,594,300

  828,300

  1971–72

  41,626,500

  1,032,200

  1972–73

  42,260,300

  633,800

  1973–74

  42,568,800

  308,500

  1974–75

  43,650,700

  1,081,900

  1975–76

  44,858,700

  1,208,000

  591

  Tax year

  Total number of National Insurance Numbers in the United Kingdom

  Total number of new National Insurance Numbers issued

  1976–77

  46,351,000

  1,492,300

  1977–78

  47,401,100

  1,050,100

  1978–79

  48,453,200

  1,052,100

  1979–80

  49,547,100

  1,093,900

  1980–81

  50,607,200

  1,060,100

  1981–82

  51,634,600

  1,027,400

  1982–83

  52,647,700

  1,013,100

  1983–84

  53,655,600

  1,007,900

  1984–85

  54,670,000

  1,014,400

  1985–86

  55,682,000

  1,012,000

  1986–87

  56,708,200

  1,026,200

  1987–88

  57,722,900

  1,014,700

  1988–89

  58,709,400

  986,500

  1989–90

  59,659,800

  950,400

  1990–91

  60,573,400

  913,600

  1991–92

  61,420,100

  846,700

  1992–93

  62,223,300

  803,200

  1993–94

  63,020,900

  797,600

  1994–95

  63,850,100

  829,200

  Source

  1 per cent, sample of the National Insurance Recording System (NIRS).

  EU Residents (Benefit Entitlement)
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make an estimate of the saving to public funds of the introduction of a five-year residency rule for benefit entitlement in the case of citizens of countries outside the European economic area seeking to live in the United Kingdom. [12206]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There is insufficient information upon which to base a reasonable estimate.

  Child Care
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the figures for the take-up in Wales, and the United Kingdom as a whole, of the child care disregard for families in receipt of housing benefit and family credit since its introduction; if he will provide the same figures for single parent families only; and if he will make a statement about what promotional activity has been undertaken to inform the public of the increase in the child care disregard announced in the Budget. [12402]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Between 4 October 1994 and 30 September 1995, approximately 28,000 families in Great Britain benefited from the child care disregard in family credit. As at 30 September 1995, about 21,000 families in Great Britain, of whom 20,000 were lone parents, were receiving help, including about 1,000 families in Wales. Information on families receiving the help through housing benefit will not be available until later this year and take-up estimates are not available for any benefit. Figures for Northern Ireland fall within the remit of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  The further increase in the disregard announced in the Budget was publicised through a press release in
  592
  November 1995. Further publicity measures are still under consideration but will include references in leaflets, the child benefit order book and in a newspaper covering work, benefit and training issues in an easy-to-read form. produced by the Department and distributed by the Benefits Agency and Employment Services.

  Source

  Five per cent. sample of family credit awards between 4 October 1994 and 30 September 1995; and as at 30 September 1995.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment he has made of the accessibility of Benefits Agency offices to disabled people; what percentage remain inaccessible to disabled people in terms of(a) physical and (b) sensory disability; and if he will make a statement; [9284]

  (2) how he assesses the accessibility of offices other than those of the Benefits Agency for which he is responsible to disabled people; what percentage remains inaccessible to disabled people in terms of (a) physical and (b) sensory disability; and if he will make a statement. [9251]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Gordon McMaster, dated 26 January 1996 The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what assessment he has made of the accessibility of Benefits Agency offices to disabled people; and how he assesses the accessibility of offices other than those of the Benefits Agency (BA) for which he is responsible to disabled people; what percentage remain inaccessible to disabled people in terms of (a) physical and (b) sensory disability; and if he will make a statement.
  The BA shares its public outlets with the Child Support Agency and War Pensions Agency. The Contributions Agency has public access at only 4 of its independent sites and the Independent Tribunal Service has 44 sites with public access. Caller enquiries relating to the BA, Contributions Agency, Child Support Agency and War Pensions Agency are generally all handled at offices operated by the BA.
  Annexe A shows the percentage of offices that we consider are accessible to physically disabled persons.
  The accessibility of buildings is assessed on a quarterly basis. The data collated includes details on whether the building is provided with level access, a ramp or lift to avoid steps or stairways. if it has a loop-aid or minicom system to assist those with hearing difficulties and if it has any special features to assist blind or partially sighted visitors. Disabled access is automatically considered for all new buildings and major refurbishments on existing buildings.
  The provision of Loop Systems to aid the hard of hearing and special signs for the blind and partially sighted are a standard design consideration in major refurbishment or new buildings. Sixty seven percent of existing buildings have had loop-aid systems installed.
  Offices which remain inaccessible are treated as a priority for capital funding, providing modification of the building is technically possible.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  593

  Annexe A

  Agency

  Number with flat/ramped access

  Number without flat/ramped access

  Benefits agency

  614 (84 per cent.)

  117 (16 per cent.)

  (including Child

  Support

  Contributions and

  War Pensions

  Agency)

  Contributions agency

  4 (100 per cent.)

  0

  Independent tribunal service

  38 (86 per cent.)

  6 (14 per cent.)

  Figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Widows' Pensions
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women in receipt of a widow's pension have had their income entitlement reassessed in the last six months because of miscalculations by his Department relating to the former husband having contracted out of his state pension arrangements. [12117]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Ann Taylor dated 26 January 1996 The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many women in receipt of a Widows Pension (WP) have had their income entitlement reassessed in the last six months because of miscalculations by his Department relating to the former husband having contracted out of his state pension arrangements.
  All new awards of WP from October 1995 have been assessed correctly following a change to the computer system. The Benefits Agency is in the process of examining all WP cases that existed prior to October 1995. Until this exercise has been completed figures will not be available. Completion is due by the end of March 1996.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish(a) the current cost of providing social security payments to asylum seekers broken down by type of benefit, numbers of claimants and regional location and (b) any guidance or procedures issued which are currently in force on social security payments of any kind to asylum seekers. [12106]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of income support 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. George Howarth, dated 26 January 1996 The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will publish (a) the current cost of providing social security payments to asylum seekers broken down by type of benefit, numbers of claimants and regional location and (b) any guidance or procedures issued which are currently in force on social security payments of any kind to asylum seekers.
  The information is not available in the format requested. In May 1994, the most recent date for which complete information is available, expenditure on Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit for asylum seekers was an estimated £4.7 million per week in total. this comprised £2.4 million Income Support, £2.2 million Housing Benefit and £0.1 million Council Tax
  594
  Benefit. There were just over 42,000 claims to Income Support from Asylum Seekers, of which 28,000 were also claiming Housing Benefit and 11,000 claiming Council Tax Benefit. Regional figures and information on other benefits is unavailable.
  Guidance on asylum seekers is available in the Adjudication Officer's Guide paragraphs 28751–28900. The Handbook "Persons from abroad for Income Support staff" provides procedural guidance for BA staff. These are available in the Library.
  I hope you find this reply helpful

WALES

  NHS Trusts
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish information on the management costs of NHS trusts in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [6023]

  Mr. Richards
  [pursuant to his reply 12 December 1995]Management cost savings targets for 1996–97 amounting to £3.25 million will be issued today to health authorities and NHS trusts in Wales. This completes the transfer of £12.5 million to direct patient services which was announced in "Caring for the Future". A copy of the letter (DGM(96)10) has been placed in the Library of the House.

  There are currently 29 NHS trusts in Wales. My right hon. Friend and I have received applications from the last three directly-managed-units in Wales to become NHS trusts from April 1996. Public consultation on these three applications ended on 24 December 1995.

  Taking full account of the many representations received, and of the individual merits of each case, my right hon. Friend has decided to approve the applications.

  Merthyr and Cynon Valley health unit will become the North Glamorgan NHS trust on 26 February 1996. The Glan Hafren NHS trust and Bridgend and district NJS trust will both be dissolved on 31 March 1996 and immediately re-established incorporating the Rhymney Valley health unit and Hensol health unit respectively. All three new trusts will become operational on 1 April.

  The orders giving effect to these decisions have been signed today. We will announce shortly the details on the chairman and non-executive directors of the new North Glamorgan NHS trust.

  Today's announcement confirms that, from 1 April 1996, all acute, community health, mental health and ambulance services in Wales will be delivered by NHS trusts. This will be a further stimulus to improving efficiency in the NHS in Wales.

  Hospital Patients
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average number of patients per hospital bed for each major specialty in each year since 1989–90; and what was the percentage change over the entire period. [10784]

  Mr. Richards
  The information, which relates to NHS hospitals in Wales, is given in the following table. Only acute specialities where there were in-patient cases in both 1989–90 and 1994–95 have been included.
  595

  Number of in-patient cases per average daily available bed

  Percentage change

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1989–90 to 1994–95

  General surgery

  43.0

  42.8

  44.8

  47.0

  50.0

  52.1

  21

  Urology

  46.0

  45.5

  49.0

  49.9

  51.4

  55.5

  21

  Trauma and orthopaedic

  30.6

  31.5

  34.1

  35.8

  35.6

  37.6

  23

  Ear, nose and throat

  67.5

  66.2

  71.5

  77.4

  80.6

  78.6

  16

  Ophthalmology

  51.5

  53.8

  57.9

  64.6

  67.0

  72.5

  41

  Oral surgery

  92.8

  92.1

  87.0

  87.9

  86.4

  88.7

  -4

  Neurosurgery

  26.7

  23.4

  26.2

  23.6

  23.4

  26.6

  0

  Plastic surgery

  39.8

  36.4

  35.9

  36.0

  40.5

  29.4

  -26

  Burns surgery

  13.5

  15.2

  13.4

  15.1

  16.3

  3.5

  -74

  Cardiac surgery

  21.5

  25.4

  27.3

  25.7

  22.9

  25.1

  17

  Thoracic surgery

  25.4

  25.4

  22.9

  21.2

  19.9

  21.0

  -17

  Paediatric surgery

  61.6

  56.3

  52.9

  54.2

  56.8

  49.9

  -19

  Anaesthetics

  14.9

  11.7

  17.5

  18.9

  11.5

  16.0

  7

  General medicine

  36.9

  39.6

  42.2

  43.6

  45.7

  47.0

  27

  Gastroenterology

  22.2

  —

  —

  46.8

  538.9

  146.5

  560

  Haematology (clinical)

  51.9

  51.7

  51.1

  50.3

  43.8

  46.1

  -11

  Palliative medicine

  21.2

  16.0

  19.6

  18.7

  19.5

  18.7

  -12

  Cardiology

  49.0

  54.1

  58.5

  54.4

  51.9

  54.7

  12

  Dermatology

  15.8

  17.8

  19.7

  18.0

  18.6

  20.7

  31

  Thoracic medicine

  31.6

  32.2

  40.3

  43.4

  46.4

  48.8

  54

  Genito urinary medicine

  1.8

  10.2

  9.5

  15.0

  14.8

  12.5

  594

  Nephrology

  41.8

  38.7

  37.6

  41.0

  41.4

  47.4

  13

  Medical oncology

  13.1

  14.1

  —

  —

  147.5

  87.2

  566

  Spinal injuries

  8.9

  7.6

  5.5

  7.0

  6.7

  6.0

  -33

  Other neurology

  21.5

  21.8

  24.4

  24.4

  22.8

  23.1

  7

  Rheumatology

  17.5

  15.9

  21.6

  23.1

  26.2

  24.6

  41

  Paediatrics

  56.0

  59.0

  63.9

  64.4

  68.5

  74.0

  32

  Gynaecology

  70.1

  70.0

  73.0

  73.4

  74.2

  70.5

  0

  GP other

  16.1

  16.0

  17.0

  16.9

  16.7

  16.8

  4

  Radiotherapy

  29.5

  28.0

  30.0

  34.4

  40.5

  44.4

  51

  Total all specialties

  23.9

  24.8

  26.8

  27.9

  29.1

  30.5

  28

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average length of an in-patient hospital stay for each specialty in each year since 1989–90. [10732]

  Average duration of stay (days)

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  General surgery

  6.3

  6.3

  6.2

  6.0

  5.8

  5.7

  Urology

  6.1

  5.9

  5.9

  5.5

  5.1

  5.2

  Trauma and orthopaedic

  9.2

  8.8

  8.4

  8.0

  8.0

  7.6

  Ear, nose and throat

  3.3

  3.4

  3.2

  2.9

  2.8

  2.7

  Opthalmology

  4.4

  4.0

  3.7

  3.1

  2.7

  2.5

  Oral surgery

  2.3

  2.4

  2.3

  2.2

  2.4

  2.3

  Restorative dentistry

  —

  —

  —

  18.3

  1.4

  0.4

  Neurosurgery

  10.7

  12.6

  11.4

  12.5

  12.0

  10.9

  Plastic surgery

  5.5

  5.5

  5.9

  5.7

  5.1

  6.1

  Burns surgery

  15.0

  12.5

  13.6

  13.4

  12.4

  39.9

  Cardiac surgery

  14.0

  13.2

  12.2

  12.4

  13.8

  12.3

  Thoracic surgery

  9.6

  10.2

  11.2

  10.5

  11.4

  11.4

  Paediatric surgery

  3.4

  3.3

  3.8

  3.6

  3.1

  3.0

  Anaesthetics

  7.4

  3.4

  2.6

  2.2

  2.6

  4.7

  General medicine

  8.0

  7.7

  7.2

  6.9

  6.9

  6.8

  Gastroenterology

  16.4

  —

  —

  7.3

  12.4

  2.4

  Haematology (clinical)

  5.7

  6.0

  5.6

  6.0

  6.3

  6.3

  Clinical physiology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60.2

  —

  Rehabilitation

  —

  —

  36.9

  41.7

  44.7

  30.4

  Palliative medicine

  12.1

  14.5

  12.8

  12.7

  11.6

  12.4

  Cardiology

  6.2

  5.3

  5.0

  4.9

  5.2

  5.2

  Dermatology

  15.9

  15.1

  13.8

  14.8

  14.9

  13.6

  Thoraic medicine

  7.6

  7.6

  7.1

  6.7

  6.7

  6.2

  Infectious diseases

  8.8

  11.0

  0.7

  —

  —

  —

  Genito urinary medicine

  21.9

  16.4

  11.0

  10.1

  12.3

  13.4

  Nephrology

  6.3

  7.7

  9.1

  7.8

  8.1

  6.6

  Medical oncology

  13.9

  15.5

  —

  —

  2.5

  4.2

  596
  Mr. Richards
  The information, which relates to NHS hospitals in Wales, is given in the following table.
  597

  Average duration of stay (days)

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Spinal injuries

  27.8

  33.9

  33.0

  29.8

  35.4

  36.2

  Other neurology

  10.6

  11.1

  11.0

  11.1

  10.5

  10.1

  Rheumatology

  11.6

  12.8

  11.0

  9.9

  9.7

  9.2

  Paediatrics

  3.5

  3.4

  3.2

  2.9

  3.1

  2.9

  Paediatric neurology

  —

  7.1

  7.9

  2.5

  3.8

  5.4

  Geriatric medicine

  28.5

  26.5

  23.6

  21.9

  20.8

  20.3

  Obstetrics

  3.5

  3.4

  3.4

  3.1

  3.0

  3.0

  Gynaecology

  3.4

  3.3

  3.3

  3.2

  3.1

  3.3

  GP maternity

  4.0

  3.4

  3.2

  2.5

  2.7

  3.0

  GP other

  16.9

  16.5

  15.9

  16.2

  16.6

  16.1

  Mental handicap

  525.9

  315.2

  323.8

  266.2

  235.9

  376.7

  Mental illness

  73.2

  67.7

  54.3

  47.3

  46.7

  41.2

  Child and adolescent psychiatry

  134.2

  105.4

  97.0

  53.4

  49.5

  47.9

  Forensic psychiatry

  53.8

  45.1

  48.3

  153.2

  151.8

  170.0

  Old age psychiatry

  107.5

  104.4

  96.1

  95.9

  82.2

  66.3

  Radiotherapy

  8.4

  8.6

  8.5

  7.7

  6.8

  6.2

  Radiology

  —

  3.7

  0.9

  6.8

  9.8

  0.8

  Chemical pathology

  3.7

  —

  2.0

  —

  —

  —

  Occupational medicine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  141.8

  39.7

  Haematology (non clinical)

  8.1

  6.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Neuropathology

  —

  18.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Accident and emergency

  1.5

  1.3

  1.2

  1.2

  1.4

  1.2

  Total

  11.7

  11.2

  10.4

  10

  10

  9.2

  Note:

  '—' means no in-patients were treated.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was Welsh gross domestic product per head as a percentage of United Kingdom gross domestic product per head for each year since 1978; and if he will include the latest available statistical revisions with the date and explanation of each revision. [12445]

  Mr. Hague
  The latest available estimates are shown in the following table. Figures for 1994 were published in the article "Regional Accounts 1994: part 1" in the December 1995 edition of "Economic Trends". The article includes revisions to data on gross domestic product per head for earlier years and an explanation of the reasons for the revisions. Copies of "Economic Trends" are available in the Library of the House.

  GDP per head at factor cost: current prices; Wales 1978–1994 (UK = 100)

  1978: 85.3

  1979: 85.2

  1980; 84.2

  1981: 83.8

  1982: 87.3

  1983: 86.7

  1984: 85.6

  1985: 83.8

  1986: 85.4

  1987: 86.3

  1988: 87.0

  1989: 86.6

  1990: 85.9

  1991: 85.4

  1992: 83.7

  1992: 82.7

  19931: 84.7

  19941: 84.7

  598
  Note:

  1Provisional.

  Source:

  CSO.

  Waiting Times Information Bulletin
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he has made for the Welsh Health Common Services Authority to place copies of the Welsh waiting times information bulletin in the Library; and on what date the autumn 1995 edition was placed in the Library. [12447]

  Mr. Hague
  The waiting times information bulletin is an internal NHS document intended to help GPs advise patients on the most appropriate choice of hospital or consultant for referral. Copies are not routinely placed in the Library of the House. However, copies are available, at no charge, from the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, at Crickhowell house, Capital waterside, Cardiff CF1 5XT.

  Malnutrition
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the level of his departmental involvement in the inter-departmental low income project team and the nutrition task force; and what information he is proposing to publish on the extent of malnutrition and its relationship to low income and to public health issues arising from the work of the project team and the task force. [12444]

  Mr. Hague
  The nutrition task force and its low income project team formed part of "The Health of the Nation" programme which covers England only. My Department was represented at meetings of the main task
  599
  force by an official with observer status, but was not represented on the low income project team. The Department has also received papers relating to the work of the task force, including the report of the low income project team, for information.

  In Wales, the Health Promotion Authority for Wales undertakes a wide variety of programmes designed to encourage people to eat healthier diets. Specific initiatives have also targeted those on low income.

  Estate Care Group
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of his decision letter pertaining to the privatisation of the EstateCare group of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority. [12446]

  Mr. Hague
  Bids to acquire NHS EstateCare are still being evaluated. No decision has been taken.

  Exel Logistics
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he was requested to approve the proposal to award the materials management contract work of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority to Exel Logistics; on what date he gave his approval; what proposals he has to assist the funding of redundancy payments to those affected; and if he will make a statement. [12448]

  Mr. Hague
  The authority submitted its recommendation on 8 December 1995 and it had a response on 22 January. The authority and Exel Logistics will be responsible for handling the restructuring costs including the funding of staff reductions as part of the contract. Exel Logistics has experience in delivering significant levels of improvements in customer service and operating costs which will be of benefit to the health service in Wales.

  Internet
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning the provision of a contract for the development of Internet access services for private business clients within and outside the Business Connect network. [12400]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Euro-freight Terminal
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning the decision-making process on the Euro-freight terminal; if he will list each of the consultancy firms which have been or are currently contracted to carry out studies in relation to its feasibility; and if he will make a statement. [12442]

  Mr. Hague
  I regularly meet the chairman of the agency to discuss a wide range of issues. My officials dealing with the freight terminal are maintaining close contact with the agency.
  600
  My Department has not employed any consultants. The agency has employed three consultants:

  Formerly: Touche Ross and Coopers and Lybrand

  Currently: Price Waterhouse

  The general position regarding the proposed freight terminals is as stated in my answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 22 January, Official Report, column 4.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many beds there were in Wales in 1980, 1985, 1990 and 1995 or other statistically convenient dates for the(a) acute, (b) psychiatric, (c) geriatric, (d) psycho-geriatric, (e) private hospital and (f) private nursing home sectors of health provision. [12443]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is given in the following table.

  1980

  1985–86

  1990–91

  1994–95

  Average daily available beds in NHS hospitals:

  Acute

  10,112

  9,778

  9,056

  8,479

  Psychiatric1

  7,558

  6,495

  4,022

  2,640

  Geriatric

  4,108

  4,230

  3,811

  3,345

  Psychogeriatric

  276

  450

  1,602

  1,536

  Beds at 31 March 2:

  Private hospitals

  3

  246

  264

  318

  Private nursing homes

  3

  1,901

  9,656

  13,270

  Notes:

  1Includes the specialties of mental handicap, mental illness, child and adolescent psychiatry and forensic psychiatry.

  2Figures for 1980 and 1985–86 are at 31 December.

  3Not available.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of Alzheimer's disease were recorded in Wales in (i) 1991, (ii) 1992, (iii) 1993, (iv) 1994 and (v) 1995. [10677]

  Mr. Richards
  The number of cases of Alzheimer's disease is not collected centrally. For each year, the number of in-patient or day case finished consultant episodes at NHS hospitals in Wales, where Alzheimer's disease was recorded as the principle diagnosis, is given in the following table. Complete data for 1995 are not yet available.

  1991: 1991

  1992: 189

  1993: 126

  1994: 133

  1Includes three months of data, based on discharges and deaths, collected by the hospital activity analysis.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of hypothermia were recorded in Wales in(a) 1992, (b) 1993, (c) 1994 and (d) 1995. [10683]
  601
  Mr. Richards
  The number of cases of hypothermia is not collected centrally. For each year, the number of in-patient or day case finished consultant episodes at NHS hospitals in Wales, where hypothermia was recorded as the principal diagnosis, is given in the following table. Complete data for 1995 are not yet available.

  1992: 97

  1993: 106

  1994: 72

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioner practices there were in Wales in 1966, 1975, 1985 and 1995; and if he will make a statement. [10745]

  Mr. Richards
  At 1 April 1995, there were 538 general medical practitioner partnerships—including practitioners who practised single handed—in Wales. Information for 1966, 1975 and 1985 is not available centrally. Information on the number of general medical practitioners (unrestricted principals) for each of the years requested is given in the following table:

  Year

  Number

  1 October 1969 (earliest available)

  1,232

  1 October 1975

  1,290

  1 October 1985

  1,523

  1 April 1995

  1,710

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which sites of special scientific interest in Wales will be affected by trunk roads and motorway schemes for which preferred routes have been announced. [11232]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Sites of special scientific interest which may be affected by schemes in the Welsh Office's forward programme for which a preferred route has been announced are:
  602

  Office

  Route

  Dyfed

  Bishops Pond—Carmarthen Fair Fach Railway Cutting—Llandeilo

  Powys

  River Wye—Builth

  Mid-Glamorgan

  Cwm Taf Fechan Woodlands—Nr Merthyr Tydfil

  Gwent

  St. Brides

  Gwent levels

  Nash and Goldcliff

  Gwent levels

  Whitson

  Gwent levels

  Redwick and Llandevenny

  Gwent levels

  Mynydd Llangatwg

  Nr. Brynmawr

  Cwm Clydach

  Nr. Brynmawr

  Brynmawr Sections

  Nr. Brynmawr

  Gwynedd

  Inland Sea

  Nr. Holyhead

  Glaslyn Marshes

  Nr. Porthmadog

  Fairy Glen Woods

  Nr. Betwys-y-Coed

  Trade Missions
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what has been the value of orders following Welsh trade missions in each year since 1992; [11816]

  (2) how many jobs were created following Welsh trade missions in each year since 1992. [11813]

  Mr. Hague
  Trade missions provide an opportunity for initial contacts with prospective customers in overseas markets and any orders taken on a mission arc normally awarded on a trial basis. Since April 1993, when the current subsidised trade mission programme commenced, orders taken during the course of Welsh Office trade missions have amounted to: 1993–94, £4,827,400; 1994–95, £2,677,250; 1995–96 January, £2,289,500. Anticipated follow-on orders amounted to: 1993–94, £12,274,000; 1994–95, £22,879,000; 1995–96 January, £38,183,700. Such orders may ultimately lead to the creation of new jobs and/or the safeguarding of existing jobs but it is rarely possible for mission participants to he specific about this in the short term.

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

The Lord Archbishop of York
David Michael, Lord Archbishop of York—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford and the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

European Court of Human Rights
2.42 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to withdraw their recognition of the European Court of Human Rights.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we have renewed for the usual five years our acceptance of the right of individual petition and the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. We are unhappy with some recent Strasbourg judgments, and are initiating discussions in the Council of Europe to improve the way the convention system works.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that moderately encouraging reply. Is he aware of the fact that many of us very much resent the operation of this so-called "Court" in altering the age of entitlement to free drugs in respect of a male section of our population? Is he further aware that most of us feel that that is the business of this country and of this Government and that interference of this kind by a so-called "Court" is quite intolerable?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, as the Prime Minister made clear in another place on 7th December, the Government are certainly unhappy with some Strasbourg rulings. We are initiating discussions with other members of the Council of Europe and representatives of this institution to improve the way in which the convention works.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether a special protocol which derogates from recognition of the distinction over all aspects of the conduct of our Armed Forces may be made, quite apart from the derogation to which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we are attempting to change certain aspects of the Court. Protocol 11, which will come into effect in a few years' time, will mean that the right of the individual to take a case to Strasbourg will no longer be optional. We have
1226
accepted that situation by ratifying that protocol, but it would be inconsistent not to accept that right in the intervening period.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, say that he was moderately satisfied with what the Government have said on this since I was about to congratulate the Government on doing what they have just done.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am grateful for that.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps I may add to those congratulations. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, successive governments since 1966 have renewed the right of petition. Although many of us have reservations about particular judgments made by the European Court of Human Rights, especially in the "Death on the Rock" case, which seemed a most unfortunate judgment, is the Minister aware that there is nevertheless widespread support throughout the country for the right of access to the European Court, especially given that we do not have a British Bill of Rights which could be interpreted and applied by British judges? I wonder whether the noble Lord appreciates that the case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, had nothing to do with the European Court of Human Rights; it was the European Court of Justice which dealt with prescription charges.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. We have no quarrel with the European Convention on Human Rights. Flawed judgments by the Court were not sufficient to justify the very serious step of withdrawing.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that, as my noble friend just said, we have no quarrel with the European Convention on Human Rights, which we signed 40 years ago, would it not be better and achieve greater justice in cases where justice is needed if jurisdiction were given to our own courts to hear cases under the convention?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I do not see that that is relevant to this Question.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it would be unfortunate if there were to be any confusion between the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice? Does he accept that many of us who might conceivably approve in normal circumstances of the European Court of Human Rights have strong reservations about the European Court of Justice?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that is slightly wide of the Question, but I am well aware of the noble Lord's strong reservations.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we should get back to the flavour of the month, which is education? What is his comment upon the fact that, owing to a mistaken and foolish judgment of the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights, corporal punishment in our schools was abolished, with the result that we have all seen?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I think that we are going even wider of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to some change which he expects will take place in a few years time. What change does he expect and how many years will it take?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the changes which are being negotiated at the moment are designed to improve fairness and ensure that all factors are taken into account. The discussions will concentrate on fact finding; procedures for the new full-time court to be set up in a few years under Protocol 11; the replacement of the present part-time commission and court; and ensuring the quality of judges In the new court and procedures for their selection. It will come into effect one year after ratification by all countries in the Council of Europe, which will probably be 1998.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that on more than one occasion your Lordships' House has agreed to the incorporation of the European Convention into British law? Does he agree that it will be a good thing to have the other place follow the House of Lords in this matter?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I can hardly comment upon what should happen in the other place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord make it absolutely clear, because he did not do so in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that the case referred to by his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter did not relate to the Court of Human Rights but was a case brought and declared upon by the European Court of Justice, arising from a European directive made in 1979?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I can confirm what the noble Lord just said.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that any court whose judgments were all acceptable to this country might risk being construed in other places as lacking in impartiality?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I believe that I can agree with the noble Lord, but, on the other hand, if one has decisions with which one is not happy one is entitled to say so.

International Development Association
2.52 p.m.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their intentions concerning the replenishment of the International Development Association (IDA).
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we are working closely with other donors to ensure an early and satisfactory outcome to the negotiations on the 11th replenishment of the International Development Association.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Will he give an assurance that there will be no pro rata reduction in Britain's commitment to IDA 10 in line with the cut in America's contributions?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I can confirm that there will be no cut in the British contribution to IDA 10. What we are now discussing is IDA 11 and the interim arrangements to be made until we find out what is coming from the USA in particular.
Lord Rea: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that if the cuts that the USA has made in IDA 10 were to be applied to IDA 11, the world would be 6 billion dollars short compared to what it has had in the past? Would that not be a disaster, considering the additional needs of credit-hungry countries from the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, not to mention the on-going needs in sub-Saharan Africa? Will the Government assure us that, as the noble Lord hinted, urgent discussions will be arranged with other countries, especially other members of the EU, to ensure that that dangerous shortfall does not occur?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we cannot at this stage comment upon what the USA's commitments will he. President Clinton has expressed strong backing for IDA, but funding is caught up in the current impasse in the fiscal 1996 budget negotiations. However, other donors, the UK included, are working to ensure that those difficulties do not disrupt IDA's operations which are vital to so many of the poorest countries.

Coal Imports and Exports: Statistics
2.55 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the imports and exports of coal in 1995, and what are the prospects for 1996.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, firm figures for 1995 are not yet available. Provisional figures for the first 11 months of 1995 show imports of coal as 13.2 million tonnes and coal exports as 698,000 tonnes. The future prospects for coal imports and exports are matters for coal consumers and coal producers respectively.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the Minister aware that about half the tonnage of imports to which he referred,

1229
and an additional 2 million tonnes of exports, could have been provided from coal, of which ample reserves exist in this country but for which the capacity is lacking? Is he aware that had that capacity been available and had those actions been taken, it would have benefited the balance of payments by some £220 million last year, and have provided employment for an extra 2,500 mine workers? In those circumstances, is it not regrettable that in the run-up to privatisation the capacity of the coal industry between 1993 and 1994 was run down to such an extent? Had an extra 10 million tonnes of capacity been retained, the benefits to which I have referred would have been achieved.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no, I cannot accept that, unless what was to be provided within the UK was going to be achieved at an unacceptable level of subsidy. What is important in the UK is coal which, as the noble Lord well knows, is particularly important in the production or generation of electricity. If that were to be the case and prices were to go up or there was subsidy, there would be, directly or indirectly, a significant effect on consumers. What I do welcome is that, while clearly a number of adjustments have had to be made, the provisional figures for deep-mined production for 1995 show that there has been a 10 per cent. increase compared to 1994. Total coal production is expected to have increased by over some 7 per cent. in the same period.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern, particularly among old people, at the statement made today by the National Grid that it could not guarantee to meet maximum demand this evening and in future cold weather? Is he further aware that one of the reasons for that is the closing down of coal-powered stations and their replacement with gas-fired stations which have interruptible supply contracts? Will the Government do something about that? Will they insist that the regulator ensures that the electricity authorities do the job which the Government said they would do when they were privatised, instead of doing a far worse job than was done when the industry was nationalised?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his ingenuity in moving from a Question on the import and export of coal to the generation of electricity. Neither the regulator nor the Government can do anything about the present particularly cold weather. It is reasonable for those who are responsible to give some indication of the levels of difficulty that might be experienced were the cold snap to continue. It is worthy of note that there has been no cut off of power in this recent cold snap, or the previous one, attributable to the lack of generating capacity.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was not asking him to play God. I know that God decrees what the weather will be. I ask the Minister to ensure that the electricity authorities
1230
have sufficient supplies to guarantee production when the weather is cold. That is all I am asking him to do—to meet demand.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it did seem that the noble Lord was asking the Government to play God. Difficult issues of balance between the total amount of generating capacity that is required and demand have to be set in the context of the weather, which is unpredictable. As I have said, there are difficult questions of balance to be achieved unless consumers, both domestic and industrial, pay for a large amount of generating capacity against an eventuality that may occur only infrequently. It is for those responsible to determine whether they have achieved the right balance. Notwithstanding the present exceptionally cold weather, it would appear that they have achieved the right balance.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that those who import coal as opposed to using indigenous coal receive a cost benefit, and bearing in mind that the mineworkers who would otherwise produce the coal fall as a charge on the public revenue as a result of unemployment benefits and loss of tax receipts, will the Government provide us with figures for the savings to the private companies on importing coal and the cost to the Exchequer of paying people to be unemployed?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no. In a roundabout way the noble Lord says that he wishes to see the reintroduction of massive subsidies. I venture to suggest that he stands somewhat alone in that position. If coal imports were revealed to he massively subsidised, there might be cause for concern. So far as we are aware, there is no convincing evidence that the imports from the main exporting market economies—that is the United States, Australia and parts of South America—are heavily subsidised.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is not the problem that the decline in the British coal industry has meant that British electricity generation has become increasingly dependent on gas? Will the Minister confirm that Transco, the distribution company of British Gas, has announced that it may not be able to meet all the needs of the power stations, which has led to concerns that there might be power cuts in parts of the country today? Have we not reached the situation in which our energy policy is in a bit of a mess?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no. The noble Lord is at risk of getting cause and effect tangled up. There has been a move to gas because it is an extremely efficient fuel; it is environmentally friendly; and it allows for electricity to be generated at a lower price to the consumer. I would have thought that that was to be welcomed. I have already indicated my view on the balance that must be struck by those responsible for generating during these exceptionally cold snaps.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we have had more than 30 years' experience of seeking to change the market for coal by keeping pits

1231
open with massive subsidies and that the net result has been no recognisable economic or social benefit whatever?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord made the point better than I could.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the Minister misconstrued the purpose of my Question. It is implied that, had extra capacity been retained in 1993–94, that would have had to be subsidised. Is the Minister aware that I have had detailed discussions with the Confederation of United Kingdom Coal Producers? Is he further aware that they are confident that prices of world coal have risen while the price of UK coal has come down and that, had there been more capacity, they could have bitten deeply into the imports? That was the point that I was making. I was in no way suggesting the reintroduction of subsidy.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord includes in his further supplementary question the assumption that world coal prices will increase. He will be aware of the independent report that was provided in 1993 at the time of our coal review. It indicated that if world prices for coal increased there might be a greater opportunity for greater production in the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord is well aware, since 1993, sadly, that has not been the case.

HGV Drivers: Vision Tests
3.4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether British drivers of heavy goods vehicles will, after 1st July, have to take vision tests, without their spectacles or contact lenses, when applying to renew their driving licences.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, drivers of large goods and passenger-carrying vehicles are already required to pass a vision test in one eye, without corrective lenses, before obtaining or renewing their licence. From 1st July they will have to meet the standard in both eyes.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. It seems that the press report on 19th January overstated the likely effects of the EC directive and his reply should help to dispel misapprehensions. While safety must be paramount, would not a preferable regulation require reliable reserve spectacles to be instantly to hand in drivers' cabs since the danger foreseen arises from a sudden collapse of the spectacle or contact lenses being worn? Can we afford to lose the services of drivers with long and good records who can see perfectly with glasses?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend makes the point that important road safety issues are
1232
involved. The real question is what happens in the event of an accident if a driver's glasses are dislodged? It might not always be possible to reach for the second pair in time. The directive is designed so that in the event of glasses being knocked off during an accident, or whatever, the driver will be able to bring the vehicle satisfactorily to a halt. That is the important consideration and I believe that these new requirements are the best way to achieve that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as regards the use of contact lenses it might be difficult to insert a new set if the originals are lost or misplaced as a result of an accident? Will the Minister indicate the basis on which the Government have apparently calculated that a small number of drivers, about 0.2 per cent., are likely to he affected by the new standards? Furthermore, is he able to suggest any method of compensation which might apply to drivers, in particular those who have been working for a long time, who have little opportunity of alternative employment if they are disqualified as a result of what, essentially, is a sensible new code?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's support of the new requirement and we agree that there are important road safety issues. Compensation will be determinant on the terms of the individual driver's contract with his employer. The noble Lord was right about contact lenses. Trying to put on the spare pair of glasses after a lens has fallen out might make the situation worse. It is true that our estimate is that some 3,000 drivers—approximately 0.2 per cent. of the total—could be affected by the directive. That is based on our existing information and records.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Minister has not indicated how that information has been collated. He has dealt in part with the question of the employed driver but what about the self-employed driver who may have no such compensation available and whose business may be totally ruined?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as with other health failings, if a driver falls below the required health standard it must be true that he must no longer be at the wheel of a large vehicle. We all know that substantial casualties can result from a heavy goods vehicle that is incorrectly driven. I can only reiterate that our estimate is based on the records that we hold and on advice and information from the Chief Medical Adviser.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the EC directive in question breaches the principle of subsidiarity, bearing in mind that in the United States, Canada and Australia different states and different provinces have different road traffic laws and regulations? Does not that demonstrate that the zealots

1233
in Brussels and Strasbourg are hell bent on creating not just a federal Europe, which would be bad enough, but a tightly centralised, standardised, unitary Europe?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord completely overstates the case. We believe that this is an extremely sensible measure which will result in better road safety.

Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th December be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am also speaking to the four other regulations on the Order Paper. The jobseeker's allowance is a major step forward in creating a labour market in Britain which generates jobs and in helping unemployed people to get those jobs. It is the next stage in the Government's strategy whose success is now clear for all to see.
Unemployment has now fallen for 28 successive months. The Government's economic policy has created an exceptionally favourable climate for the start of new businesses and inward investment into the UK. The fall in unemployment is set against a background where this country now has lower unemployment and more people in work than any other major European Union country. Employment has grown substantially over recent years. New vacancies continue to be notified to Jobcentres at record levels and the number of people getting jobs through the help of Employment Service staff is also at record levels. We are determined to reinforce that success.
The benefit system has a vital role to play in helping unemployed people into jobs. It should help and motivate every jobseeker. The current system of unemployment benefit and income support does not always do so. It contains disincentives to work. It is complex, out of date and confusing for claimants. It fails to target help on those who need it most. Above all, it was designed to support people while they are out of work. Unemployed people want help to get back to work. That is what the jobseeker's allowance will provide. That is what the regulations are about.
In our White Paper in October 1994 the Government set out the three main aims for the new, modern benefit. First, we aim to improve the operation of the labour market by helping people in their search for work, while ensuring that they understand and fulfil the conditions for the receipt of benefit. JSA emphasises the responsibilities of unemployed people to take every advantage of the opportunities open to them to get back to work.
Secondly, we aim to secure better value for money for the taxpayer by a streamlined administration, closer targeting on those who need financial support and a regime which more effectively helps them find jobs.
Thirdly, we aim to improve the service we give to unemployed people through a clearer, coherent benefit structure and a better integration of the payment of benefits with the delivery of help and advice to find work. We want to give jobseekers the most effective and up-to-date support that we can devise. Through the new labour market computer system, employment advisers will have unprecedented access to information on vacancies and other opportunities which they will be able to match against the needs of the individual jobseeker.
In achieving those aims with the implementation of JSA in October this year, we will make jobs—the pursuit of jobs and the winning of jobs—the focus of our efforts on behalf of unemployed people.
We debated at length, in this House and in another place, our proposals during the passage of the Jobseekers Bill last year. The regulations provide a further level of detail, setting out the rules which will apply when jobseeker's allowance is introduced in October. In view of those earlier debates, and of the extensive nature of the regulations, I thought it best to cover matters in a general introductory speech. I shall, of course, listen most carefully to comments made during the debate and will, as far as I possibly can, endeavour to answer the points raised in my response.
Part II of the regulations deals with the labour market tests which are at the heart of the allowance and upon which we spent many hours in debate. They are designed to ensure that all jobseekers are open to the full range of job opportunities and are making all reasonable efforts to find work. There will be no change in JSA to the basic availability condition that people must be willing and able to take up immediately any offer of employment. That has been a requirement for unemployment benefits for a long time. To allow jobseekers to adapt to the flexible nature of the modern labour market, Regulation 7 will permit them to agree an individual pattern of availability across the week. That easement is balanced by a new requirement that jobseekers should normally be available for employment of at least 40 hours a week.
Regulation 13 makes particular provision for people who wish to restrict their availability on religious or conscientious grounds, for those with caring responsibilities for children or sick or elderly relatives, and for people with disabilities. In line with the commitments that we made during the passage of the Bill, disabled people may restrict their availability in any way, provided that the restrictions are reasonable in the light of their physical or mental condition.
Jobseekers must actively seek employment in every week that they are unemployed. We are making no significant departures from the approach adopted since the benefit reforms of the 1980s. Indeed, that has now become accepted as a key responsibility of jobseekers. But in searching for work, jobseekers must adopt a flexible approach. So Regulation 18 broadens the range of steps expected of a jobseeker so that they include actions to improve prospects of employment, such as drawing up a CV or seeking specialist advice. At the

1235
same time, we are ensuring that jobseekers who deliberately undermine their chances of finding work may be penalised.
As a new condition of entitlement, claimants must enter into a jobseeker's agreement with the Employment Service. Each agreement will be individually tailored, recording how each jobseeker will be available for work and the best route for him or her to find a job. The agreement will ensure that jobseekers have information about the expert advice and services available at Jobcentres. Trials of a prototype of the agreement have already been conducted in some Jobcentres, with very encouraging reactions from jobseekers. As some noble Lords will recall, many of the provisions relating to the agreement, and the access to independent adjudication for the resolution of disputes, lie in the Act itself. The regulations before the House today cover a number of more minor details such as the prescribed contents and the circumstances relevant for the backdating of an agreement.
The vast majority of unemployed people make every effort to find work, but we need effective measures against the minority who do not. Social security law has always included penalties for those who break the rules. It is wholly reasonable that those who pay taxes should not subsidise those who make little attempt to get a job.
The sanctions regime in JSA is detailed in Part V of the regulations. These will make it crystal clear that those who do not meet their obligations will suffer a loss of benefit. The Act sets out those obligations and the sanctions which may be imposed. However, we also recognise that sanctions should not be imposed where a jobseeker has good cause for his actions in, for example, refusing the offer of a job or a place on an employment course. Regulations 72 and 73 set out the circumstances that we expect independent adjudication officers to consider and the circumstances in which a jobseeker is to be regarded as having good cause.
A balance also has to be struck between protecting the taxpayer and protecting the vulnerable from loss of benefit which may subject them to unreasonable hardship. Part IX covers the regulations on how we shall protect those most at risk of hardship, who are listed in Regulation 140. Claimants with children, those who are sick, disabled or pregnant—or who have partners in that position—and those with caring responsibilities will at any time be able to receive reduced payments if they would otherwise suffer hardship. Regulations 141 to 144 detail the circumstances in which payments may be made, which include protection against delays in the system of deciding entitlement to benefit.
The Government guarantee every young person under the age of 18 who wants one a suitable youth training place. We are spending £676 million on youth training this year in England alone. There is no reason why young people need to be unemployed.
The Government's guarantee to 16 and 17 year-olds removes the need for general access to benefits. Indeed, we do not wish to encourage dependency on benefit at such an early age. The current approach in income support will, therefore, be followed in JSA. We
1236
recognise, of course, that there are circumstances when young people do need to claim benefits. We provide for them and will continue in JSA to do so. Part IV provides that young people in vulnerable groups—for example, those who have recently left local authority care—will be able to claim JSA for a period to allow them to overcome their temporary difficulties. Young people who are waiting for a suitable youth training place will be able to claim JSA if they would otherwise suffer severe hardship.
We also aim to improve the help and service to young people. A specially tailored jobseeker's agreement will be introduced under Regulation 66. The agreement will reflect the Government's commitment to the importance of training for young people. It will build on a form completed at the Careers Service and will include details of the type of training and work the young person is seeking and the action agreed to achieve his goals. The vital role of the Careers Service will continue but now as part of a two-stop service; a young person need only have contact with the Careers Service and the Jobcentre to make a claim for JSA. He will no longer also have to attend the Benefits Agency.
The new allowance will provide financial help for unemployed people and their dependants according to their needs, and this will be paid as long as they need it. Those who have paid sufficient national insurance contributions will receive a personal rate, irrespective of their capital or their partner's earnings, for up to six months—the point by which the majority of jobseekers have left unemployment. The majority of unemployed people will, we expect, receive the income-based element of JSA. In bringing together contribution-based and income-based elements, we will provide a single coherent benefit for unemployed people. There will be an end to the confusion where unemployed people could be entitled to one or the other benefit, with different rules and handled by different agencies, or even to both benefits at the same time.
Much of the content of the regulations before the House today deals with the assessment of the amounts of benefit to which people are entitled: for instance Part VII deals with the applicable amounts, and Part VIII with the treatment of income, of capital or of earnings. In the majority of cases we have had the example of income support to follow. There will, however, be some significant improvements. For instance, we will provide new help for couples, enabling partners of JSA claimants to work up to 24 hours—not 16 as now—which will encourage partners to remain in or take part-time work. Couples will also be able to earn £10 without their allowance being affected, even if only one is working.
Many unemployed people get substantial occupational pensions from their previous employer. Pensions are already fully taken into account in income support and it is right, too, that larger occupational and personal pensions should reduce the amount of contribution-based benefit for people of any age. But the present limit is too severe. Regulation 81, therefore, removes the arbitrary age threshold and raises the amount of pension that can be paid without affecting benefit from £35 to £50 a week.
Throughout the passage of the Jobseekers Bill we emphasised that JSA should be seen as one of a far-reaching package of work incentive measures. The other sets of regulations before the House today complete the picture. The unemployment and poverty traps have been significantly alleviated over recent years. Only a tiny proportion of the working population would not be better off in work than remaining on out-of-work benefits. This imaginative package of regulations we have today addresses three big issues. II gives direct encouragement to unemployed people to undertake part-time work and to use that as a stepping stone to full-time work. It removes uncertainty at the point of moving into work, and it encourages employers to look more favourably on the long-term unemployed.
The back-to-work bonus is a clear demonstration of our resolve to remove disincentives within the benefit system. At present unemployed people who take part-time jobs can lose benefit almost pound for pound. Yet if they could keep their full benefit on top of their part-time earnings they would have little incentive to go on to full-time work. The back-to-work bonus squares this circle. It is a far more effective and better targeted measure than would be raising earnings disregards across the board.
Jobseekers and their partners who take small amounts of work while on benefit can build up entitlement to a lump sum bonus of up to —1,000. They can cash this in when they move off benefit into work. The bonus will be paid to people who move off JSA at pension age, and at the age of 60 to income support claimants who have participated in the scheme, so that the bonus will not be lost. Following commitments which I made, and which my honourable friends made in another place during the passage of the Bill, the regulations provide for extensive linking rules to protect the position of many people who leave JSA for incapacity benefit during long periods of sickness or disability. We expect to pay at least 150,000 bonuses each year once the scheme is up and running. This scheme will encourage people to stay in touch with the world of work while they are on benefit and to keep their skills up to date. It will give claimants a financial boost at a crucial time by helping them to meet the expenses connected with the move back to work.
Building on the incentives for the long-term unemployed already provided by programmes funded by the Department for Education and Employment, today's regulations also provide for a national insurance contribution holiday of up to 12 months for employers who employ someone who has been out of work for two years or more. This will encourage employers to take on long-term unemployed people. Some 130,000 people are likely to be helped in this scheme and it is worth some £50 million a year to employers in national insurance savings.
Finally, I commend to the House the amendments to housing benefit and council tax benefit regulations. These underpin the measures being introduced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to enable housing and council tax benefits to run on for four weeks regardless of earnings for people who leave unemployment for work. The purpose of the measure is twofold. First, it enahles authorities to
1238
exchange information about housing benefit and council tax benefit details. Secondly, it ensures that local authorities give priority to dealing with claims from those who take advantage of the run-on. Any on-going entitlement to benefit will be established before the end of the run-on period so that there is no delay in the payment of housing benefit if an individual is entitled to it. In this way the claimant is protected from the sort of gap in income which currently causes concern and difficulties on returning to work. That fear can sometimes act as a deterrent to taking a job.
Before I sit down your Lordships should be aware that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn the special attention of the House to the JSA regulations. The fifth report has drawn attention to Regulation 150 where there are two printers' errors in the formulae and the committee has reported Regulation 152 as being defectively drafted to both Houses. The correct formulae are reproduced in a memorandum which was sent to the JCSI by the Department of Social Security and is attached as an annex to the fifth report. As both mistakes were as a result of printers' error we have undertaken to correct these errors in the version of the regulations published following approval of both Houses. Quite simply two numbers—in both cases a seven—have been printed in the final copy in the wrong place.
With regard to the defective drafting, it would appear that the gremlins which affected our regulations have also been busy in the JCSI report. The absence of the definition of the variable "N" for which Regulation 152 was reported as being defectively drafted is in fact missing from Regulation 151. It appears that both the committee and ourselves have suffered from the same printing gremlins. The committee pointed out that the meaning of "N" is reasonably clear but nevertheless should have been included. I wish to give an undertaking that this deficiency will be corrected by means of an amending instrument as soon as possible.
This is an extensive and far reaching package of legislation being debated today. I recall that at one stage someone urged me not to introduce secondary legislation and to incorporate everything on the face of the Bill as it passed through the House. I indicated that that would make the Bill a great deal bigger than it was. If one looks at the regulations before us today, that goes some way towards vindicating my position. As I said, this is an extensive and a far-reaching package. There is, however, one simple, common theme to all the regulations; it is the Government's commitment to offer every help, every encouragement and every incentive to unemployed people to find work as quickly as possible. We are already offering 1.5 million opportunities to unemployed people on government programmes and will continue that commitment next year. The Employment Service is already placing record numbers of people into jobs. We want to build on that achievement. The introduction of JSA will further that success and I commend the regulations to noble Lords.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th December be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committees].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, Whenever I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I am persuaded by nearly everything he says; he is one of the most convincing speakers on the Government Front Bench. However, it is only after having spent hours reading the Act and the regulations that I find an extraordinary gulf between what the Minister says will be the effects of the regulations and the legislation on which they are based and what appears to be spelt out in the paper.
I ask for the indulgence of the Minister and noble Lords while I explore the detail of the regulations, which is of concern to myself and other noble Lords.
The Minister began by making a couple of Second Reading points and I hope that he will forgive me if I do the same. The first of those points is that unemployment is very much a function of the definition of unemployment. Noble Lords should be concerned that the legislation accepts that there may be decent, honourable men and women who are unemployed through no fault of their own. They should not be defined out of existence by governments of all colours in order to show that unemployment is falling. Unemployment has been redefined on many occasions and each definition has affected the statistics.
The next Second Reading point is that I totally accept the noble Lord's submission that the proper and responsible administration of public expenditure is the responsibility of noble Lords and of another place. That however is not our sole duty and obligation. It is our obligation to balance that responsibility against ensuring that each citizen enjoys as much liberty as is constant with his acceptance of the rule of law and the rights of other people. It is in regard to that second criterion that I am profoundly concerned about the Bill because it imposes a level of petty restrictions on individuals which goes far beyond the spirit of the concept of citizenship in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred to my third objection; that secondary legislation is the vehicle for so much legislation that affects ordinary citizens in their daily lives. The noble Lord indicated that significant legislation has to be in a secondary legislation form; that is, regulations and not primary legislation. It is incumbent upon both Houses of Parliament to properly scrutinise and explore that legislation when it affects tens of thousands of our fellow citizens. With great respect, two-and-a-half hours on the Floor of the Upper House is not an adequate scrutiny of these significant regulations.
I apologise to the Minister because I shall be asking him questions by rapid fire, for reasons of time, to explain or enlighten us on critical points.
The Minister was kind enough to take note of noble Lords' objections and accepts that, in regard to availability, notice given under Regulation 5 to those doing voluntary work could be extended from 24 hours to 48 hours. All those who live in the real world know that 24 hours' notice to make oneself available for work, or even 48 hours if one is undertaking a voluntary job, is a very short time. I am concerned that the 48-hour
1240
rule applies to those who may be caring for dependent children or elderly dependants. Any married woman knows that finding alternative satisfactory childcare arrangements, let alone alternative care for elderly dependants, is one of the most difficult tasks that one can undertake. I hope that the noble Lord can assure the House that the 24-hour and 48-hour conditions, under which one can lose a jobseeker's allowance if one does not satisfy them, will be interpreted generously in the case of men and women who are responsibly undertaking care of their dependants.
The Minister referred to Regulation 13, which concerns the availability for work of people who have a disability or incapacity or who cannot be invariably available for work. The Minister assured noble Lords that people could draw up a jobseeker's agreement whereby it would be understood that they could not always be available for work. Can the Minister interpret Regulation 7(3) which states that if someone is unavailable for one day or more each week they can be treated as being not available for work at all, which means that they are not entitled to jobseeker's allowance?
Can the Minister say whether there is a conflict between Regulation 9 and Regulation 16? We welcome Regulation 9. It introduces the concept that somebody may not put a floor to the remuneration they expect under a period of 26 weeks. Regulation 16 relates back to existing legislation under which the permitted period is 13 weeks. Can the Minister state whether the words "permitted period" refer to 13 weeks or 26 weeks, because that is a matter of great importance?
I turn to the area of civil liberties and Regulation 18(3) and (4). We are told that somebody could be regarded as not properly actively seeking work on the grounds of their behaviour or appearance. That aspect caused a great deal of concern when noble Lords discussed the primary legislation, because the judgment of behaviour and appearance is subjective. Many people of my generation deeply dislike seeing young men with an earring, but that is not a reason for saying that they are not actively seeking work; indeed, to their generation they may be thought only to be actively seeking certain kinds of work in the popular music field. Can the Minister assure noble Lords that this very wide phrase "behaviour and appearance" will be interpreted in a way that will not impose the employment officer's view as to what is proper behaviour and appearance, which may be different from what the hulk of our fellow citizens regard as acceptable? There are many anxieties about that matter.
Chapter 4 states that the Secretary of State will indicate who shall attend, and when, and that he can ask for such information as may be required. If they do not appear twice, having been given due notice, they can be struck off the rolls and lose their entitlement to JSA.
I am concerned that there is no reference to the ability of a jobseeker who may genuinely have become ill, or whose wife or child may have become ill, to attend at the time and place specified. I do not understand why a phrase like "without reasonable grounds" cannot be written into the legislation. We are talking about people's income and in some cases their entire means of livelihood.

1241
There is an issue under Chapter 5 in relation to so-called notional income. I ask noble Lords to give me a moment's attention. This is one of the most outrageous aspects of the regulations. Regulation 105(13) states that a jobseeker who does a service for another person will be treated as having been paid the market rate for that service if that person is able to pay that rate or, indeed, to pay at all. The regulation states that,
"the adjudication officer shall treat the claimant as possessing such earnings … as is reasonable for that employment unless the claimant satisfies him that the means of that person are insufficient for him to pay or to pay more for the service".
In other words, if I do my neighbour a service—I do her shopping for her or decide to drive her to the local medical centre—I shall be assumed to have made the income that would be paid to a person doing that trip on a strictly commercial basis. That sum will then be deducted on the basis that it is notional income. I can think of nothing more calculated to penalise the good neighbour than this extraordinary regulation. I beg the Minister to read it again, to tell me that my interpretation is wrong, if it is, but if it is right to ensure that the regulation is withdrawn. Surely in this day and age we do not want to force good and well-meaning people to have to charge for everything they do for their neighbours when otherwise it will be held against them.
Finally, I come to a regulation which I believe is quite extraordinarily mean. I refer to the regulation on what income will be disregarded for the purposes of income related benefit. Among those sources of income where we are graciously told that –10 a week will be allowed are war widows' pensions, war disability pensions and—almost as an ironic twist to the list—the allowances provided for those who have suffered from persecution at the hands of the Nazi regime. I cannot believe that the Government really want to pinch pennies from these most deserving of all our fellow citizens.
In conclusion, I ask the Government to consider these specific regulations which appear to me to fly in the face of everything we mean by good neighbourliness and good citizenship.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I propose to restrict my remarks to Regulation 12, which deals with voluntary work, and consequential parts of the instrument. I begin by declaring an interest as chairman of the National Trust, a body which will be intimately affected by this statutory instrument.
During the passage of the Bill last May, I and other noble Lords drew attention to the effect that the proposed regulations would have on the voluntary sector; that is to say, on our training programmes which can offer volunteers the opportunity of working towards gaining national vocational qualifications. Those programmes are an important way for young people to enter into employment as well, of course, as benefiting the charity concerned through the useful work that the volunteers carry out.
1242
There was support from all sides of the House for the important role that the voluntary sector can play in this regard. Indeed, the Minister was good enough to recognise that when he gave a commitment to reflect and consult the main voluntary organisations involved.
In August we duly received the consultation document. I have to say that yet again there seemed to us to be a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of the training work that we give to volunteers; namely, a positive way of gaining real work experience, training and skills through these programmes which for many volunteers were a route—possibly their only route—to their first job. I said during the passage of the Bill, and I say it again, that some 80 per cent. of the National Trust's unemployed volunteers go on to full time employment—and that is several hundred young people a year. All of that we reiterated in our reply to the consultation document.
We now have the draft instrument itself. I have read with care and with some difficulty the relevant parts of the document. I find it an extremely difficult document to construe and to work one's way through. I shall come back to that point later.
First, we welcome the formal recognition in Regulation 12 of the existence of the voluntary sector. But the detail of this section is not encouraging. It appears extremely restrictive. To put the point quite simply, one cannot expect organisations to take people on to training schemes when the individual may, at any moment—that is, at 48 hours' notice—be required to leave his uncompleted training programme to take up full time employment, which incidentally may be quite unrelated to the skills or experience for which he has been trained. That appears to be the effect of Regulation 12, so far as I understand it.
That is not encouraging, but we find a ray of comfort when we move to Regulation 18 under Steps to be taken by persons actively seeking employment. Regulation 18(3) states:
"In determining whether, in relation to any steps taken by a person, the requirements of section 7(1)"
—that is the section which requires a person to be available for at least 40 hours' employment—
"are satisfied in any week, regard shall be had to all the circumstances of the case, including"—
we then move to sub-paragraph (g)—
"any time during which he was engaged in voluntary work and the extent to which it may have improved his prospects of securing employment".
In other words, if the volunteer's job prospects are improved by his voluntary work programme, he can be allowed to go ahead with his training. That sounds good, but it is crucial that it is administered in a wise and sensible manner. If so, we ought to be able to relax. However, I come back to my earlier remark regarding the complexity of the document.
It is a document which runs to 160 pages of extreme complexity, at least to me. I really wonder how the ordinary clerical officer in an employment centre can hope to carry out and, in many cases, to understand the huge amount of detail in the instrument. He will need considerable guidance.

1243
The situation is difficult enough already. We find our volunteers' schemes increasingly constricted by contradictions and confusions of current benefits rules; and we are not alone in that finding. We find much evidence up and down the country of inconsistencies in the local interpretation of the rules, and an over-rigid exercise—perhaps one should say a lack of exercise—of discretion by agency officials. How much more difficult will it be with the extremely complex rules now proposed?
In another place the Minister recently stated, in reply to a question, that training is being given and will be given to staff to implement the new regulations. I fear nevertheless that such is the length, detail and complexity of the new regulations that they will give rise to even more difficulties than those that we have experienced in recent years.
I refer to Regulation 18(2)(g). How can we get over the important point that is not brought out: that this voluntary work is training for job skills? All along this has been the message that we do not seem to be able to put over. It will be extremely difficult to get the message and the explanation of the value of structured training for volunteers across to the hundreds of clerical officers up and down the country. Therefore I conclude by asking the Minister whether the employment office will consult the main voluntary sector bodies on how job training schemes will be covered in the training and guidance to its staff. If the voluntary sector can be of any help in this respect, we would be only too happy to give whatever help we can.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I wish to raise one point on the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations. It deals with hardship payments to people with mental health problems. At the Third Reading of the Bill, when dealing with Amendment No. 7 (which I moved) the Minister stated that the Government intended to exclude "single, healthy claimants" from benefit if they failed to meet the basic conditions of entitlement. That is from the Official Report of 23rd May 1995, at col. 956. Amendments were tabled at that stage to define "hardship" and "serious medical condition" for the purpose of hardship payments. The concern raised during the debate was the exclusion of people with mental health problems from the definition of hardship. Regulation 140(1)(g) of the regulations refers only to "physical impairment".
At Third Reading my noble friend indicated that the Government were not convinced that it was necessary to include mental health problems, as people with serious mental health problems would be treated as incapable of work and exempt from the all-work test for incapacity benefit. However, the problem is likely to arise with people whose condition may be less severe but which, none-the-less, prevents their functioning in everyday society. Already my advisers have encountered examples of people with mental health problems who have received incapacity benefit all-work test questionnaires and have been so struck with anxiety that
1244
they have been unable to complete and return them. Others have been too afraid to go for a medical examination with a strange doctor.
The incapacity benefit regulations state that if the claimant fails to attend for an examination without good cause, benefit will cease immediately. But as the onus is on the claimant to prove good cause, unless an advocate or adviser can explain the situation to the Benefits Agency, benefit could be wrongly withdrawn, with no incapacity benefit. The only option for such people is to sign on.
But people with mental health problems may have difficulty in satisfying the conditions of actively seeking work or may fail to follow a direction because of the state of their mental health rather than from any deliberate intention. The Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations will preclude anyone from claiming a hardship payment in such circumstances.
Regulation 28 ignores illness and disability as factors to be taken into account in establishing whether the claimant had good cause for not complying with a notice to attend at such place and time as specified. Taken with Regulation 140, many disabled people could fall foul of these regulations and yet be unable to claim a hardship payment as a last resort.
The definition of who is eligible for a hardship payment is further limited to people with a physical disability, a chronic medical condition which has lasted or is likely to last for 26 weeks. Can my noble friend indicate whether the 26 weeks is continuous, or would someone with an intermittent or fluctuating condition still fall within that provision? For example, what about someone with ME or arthritis who is not considered to be sufficiently "incapable of work"? Do the regulations exclude such people from hardship payments?
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, pointed out the difficulties we are having with secondary legislation. As was mentioned, the regulations are 160 pages long, but the Act under which the regulations are laid is only 52 pages long. The regulations are three times as long as the Act, yet we are spending only a short time this afternoon on them when we spent several days, working long into the night, at various stages of the Bill as it went through the House.
I wonder whether it would be sensible to have a Select Committee to examine regulations in draft. If the committee thought fit, it could take evidence as to the effects of the regulations before it. I know that it is not within my noble friend's remit to respond to that when answering the debate, but it is worth putting the comment on the record so that those who have the task of examining the matter can consider it in due course.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, unlike most of the previous speakers, apart from the beginning of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, I wish to turn from the particular to the general. I have never made any secret of the fact that I believe that the state in general and the social security system in particular should be the basic insurance system for everyone in

1245
this country. For the purposes of this debate, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that we are considering what happens when people—usually, these days, through no fault of their own—lose their jobs or fail to start on the path to work.
I should like in particular to consider the first category. At the moment, assuming that enough contributions have been paid into the National Insurance Fund, the unemployed worker receives £46.45 a week for the first year—though the ever burgeoning cost of social security has made it necessary to reduce that to six months, as we find under the order. We must not forget that for half the people who lose their jobs six months is long enough. They will be re-employed by the end of that period. The state insurance scheme has worked for them, although they will almost certainly have had to tighten their belts and exist on a reduced income. Most of them will have savings; some will have a working partner. I have mentioned it in this House before but I must tell my noble friend that I still fail to understand why we should bother with them at all. Why can we not have a means-tested benefit from the beginning, with the quid pro quo of a reduced national insurance payment? That has never been answered to my satisfaction and I may return to the point later, either today or on another occasion.
That said, three months later (that is nine months after redundancy or whatever the reason there may be for unemployment) another half—in other words three-quarters of the original—will be back in work. The Government have gone some way towards my ideal here. From six months and a day, benefit is means-tested and the equivalent of income support comes into play. Quite right, say I. The trouble is that there have been times when that is paid at a different rate. When it happens, it is either unfair or generous, depending on whether the unemployment benefit or the income support is the higher. Unless my information is terribly out of date, at today's rate income support for a single man of 25 years or over is £46.50; unemployment benefit is 5 pence lower. On the other hand, a couple on income support will receive £73, but on unemployment benefit it will be £75.10. We should have done something about that years ago.
From October, we are to have a unified benefit for the jobseeker's allowance. It will not matter whether an individual is impoverished, the payments will, as 1 understand it, be the same in the first six months. If the individual falls below the means test level it will remain the same thereafter, always supposing that there is no part-time work available. If so, there is a new and welcome carrot in the jobseeker's allowance. Although, as heretofore, the allowance is to be reduced by the amount of earnings, a credit of half the amount taken away is to be credited to the claimant and may be redeemed up to —1,000 when he or she gets into full-time work.
From the point of view of the operation of the scheme, that is a complication. We will only know whether it will work after it has been operating for a while. Will people claim it? Will it be paid promptly? I was grateful for my noble friend's commitment on that latter point. We do not know, but on paper at least it
1246
should be a winner. That complication, though, in the operation of the scheme must pale into insignificance when one considers the costs of currently operating what are two schemes, with two bank accounts, two sets of rules and two sets of civil servants to operate them.
I know that putative savings were given in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill which underpins today's orders; but I should be grateful if my noble friend could give us the figures, revised as they should have been, now that more thought has been given to them. Not only will there be a saving to the taxpayer in administration costs; there will also be a lot more clarity for claimants. My noble friend probably has at his fingertips the number of different rules now in place, depending on whether a claim is being made for income support or unemployment benefit. If he does not, they jolly well ought to be at arm's length.
Under JSA there is to be only one set of rules, and normally one benefit office—the Jobcentre. Incidentally, I wonder what "normally" means. I also wonder what pressure could be put on those out of benefit not receiving the JSA after the first six months. At the same time, I reiterate a point already made several times that these regulations are extremely lengthy and extremely complicated. Not only will they be extremely difficult for the adjudication officers; they will be even more difficult for claimants. I should like to be told that there will be produced, as quickly as these regulations have been, a claimant's guide so that people know what the rules and regulations are as they affect them.
That said, JSA is a better, clearer system of state aid for the unemployed. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I will never agree that it is right that 18 to 24 year-olds should be paid less under any scheme, and I am sure that the noble Earl is about to regret that that has been continued. We shall see. I realise I am putting words into his mouth. The arguments pro and con have been set out endlessly over many years and we shall just have to agree to differ.
However, what matters is not so much the insurance policy but the success rate in getting people back to work. Unemployment benefit, income support or the new jobseeker's allowance should not be seen as a right but as the government side of a contract. Claimants should do all in their power to help themselves back into work, and if necessary Jobcentres should help them. That, after all, is their commensurate duty. In other words, there should be, as I say, a contract between the unemployed and the Government. While I have never heard it expressed quite like that, that is in effect what we now have under these regulations. Unemployed people already have to be available for and actively seeking work for 40 hours or more a week. They can, if necessary, be instructed to take certain steps to find work. That is quite right. After all, in any other sphere rights and duties go together. Why not here?
During the lifetime of this Government there have been several major improvements to the social security system, both to help people find work and to help them while they are in work. It has, in a word, become more attractive to be in work. Under the Fowler reforms the structure of income-related benefits was streamlined, so

1247
workers keep more of every pound earned. National insurance payments have been progressively reduced. Family credit was a successful reformulation of the old family allowances scheme, for people who had children and were in low-paid work. More recently, the disabled workers' allowance, of which I am particularly proud, was introduced—not only for families with a disabled earner but for single disabled people. Also, family credit has been extended to those working between 16 and 24 hours a week. Those examples are on the financial side.
On the practical side, we now have training for work, job clubs, the job interview guarantee, work trials, job plan workshops, restart courses, the jobfinder's grant and the travel to interview scheme. They may not be perfect, and one can no doubt pick holes in any one of them. But it is undeniable that at the last count they covered 1,226,000 people. The Opposition will no doubt comment rather sourly that they need to. Yes, I agree with them; they do need to. But surely the point is that whatever the level of unemployment, for the individual it is always demoralising and always descends into a dismal spiral.
Where were the equivalent schemes when we entered government? Where are the great ideas to replace them after the election that the Labour Party believe they will win? Or perhaps they believe that they do not need replacing because they are working. Are we to have a blinding admission that they are here to stay? After all, a constant reduction in the unemployment figures for the past 28 months, with an average fall of over 12,000 a month in the past six months, at a time of low growth does not just happen, does it? There must be a reason for it. I am no economist, and I should love to know an economist's view on that. I see the noble Lord, Lord Desai, in his place. Perhaps he can make a three-minute intervention when I have sat down.
The only consistent policy I have heard of from the party opposite is the national minimum wage and the social chapter. When I had that thought on the train this morning travelling to London I remembered that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, had made remarks on the minimum wage in a debate some time ago. I asked him if I could quote him, to which he replied that he would be delighted. That is what I now propose to do, very briefly. The noble Lord said:
"A minimum wage policy raises the average cost per employee, but it lowers the marginal cost of an employee … If I had a blackboard I could demonstrate as part of elementary economic theory that a minimum wage may just as likely be employment-creating as employment-destroying. Therefore, one needs to look at the evidence … the evidence does not tell us one way or the other. There are studies showing that a minimum wage can lose jobs and other studies, interestingly enough, showing that such a policy can create jobs. Therefore, I am a hit puzzled by the strength of some noble Lords' opposition to a minimum wage. To put it at its mildest, which is all that I want to do today, the point is arguable".—[Official Report, 7/12/94; col. 963.]
From that, I draw the conclusion that if the point is at least arguable, the Opposition will do it anyway, and I should not have thought that that was exactly conviction politics. The other matter to mention in this regard is the social chapter. It sits rather oddly—does it not?—
1248
with the attitude sometimes exhibited from the Front Bench opposite on the subject of part-time work. Probably, both those matters ought to be left alone.
What no one can afford to leave alone is the costs and benefits of our social security provision. How easy it is to find improvements for people less fortunate than ourselves. How hard it is becoming to find the money to pay for that. I have been convinced for some time now that there are ways by which both can be reconciled. At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned the first six months of unemployment and my belief that for a lot of people it is simply not necessary.
There are of course other ideas that come to the fore from time to time, some of which have had a lot of effort put into them by the party opposite. I wonder, for instance, what happened to the idea of taxing child allowance. Perhaps it will re-emerge in the Opposition's third look at social security. Perhaps not—in the circumstances it is not an obvious vote winner.
What has emerged from my right honourable friend Mr. Lilley and his department is a very useful and very fair tidying up exercise which will—given that, as I hope, my noble friend will announce today a claimant's guide—benefit both the taxpayer and the claimant. I wish them well with the jobseeker's allowance.
4.8 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I wish very much to reinforce the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, about the 48-hour limit, both for people with caring responsibilities and for volunteers. If these were not regulations but had been part of the Bill on which we could vote, I believe that the 48-hour limit would be a matter on which an amendment would have been tabled, and on which I suspect the Government would have lost.
That is a good argument in itself for saying that there is much in the regulations which ought not to be in the form of regulations but ought to be in primary legislation so that the House could amend and change some of these very, very important matters. They are not minor details. They are not matters that should be in regulations because they can and need to be changed at frequent intervals. They are in themselves matters of principle and should therefore be in primary legislation.
I was most interested in the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen; namely, if we are to have regulations of this detail and this length, a procedure should be developed—perhaps the usual channels and those who consider the way in which this House is run could examine the matter—so that we are not again landed with a mammoth document of this kind, not only in length but in the importance of its detail. I wish to speak about some of the details. I will stop if the Minister wishes to finish his conversation; I do not know whether that is convenient to him. I have not spent years teaching in a university without knowing how to stop people who gossip!
I refer to the 48-hour limit for carers. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is a man of considerable imagination and sympathy. I am sure he must be aware that if a person looks after an elderly or infirm

1249
person or a good child—or, more likely, a fractious child—to get someone else to take on the job is not something that can be done in a great many cases in a matter of 48 hours. There are not queues of people lined up wanting to do the job. A conscientious carer of an old, ill or young person will make good arrangements—not just any old arrangements, dumping the person on the first carer who happens to be around. He or she will wish to find a suitable person. When I had such a responsibility I was convinced that I could not possibly find a satisfactory carer for a stroke victim within 48 hours. One is not prepared to abandon a person for whom one cares unless very good arrangements can be made. I beg the noble Lord to think about it again.
Today volunteers are an important part of the way in which voluntary organisations are run. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, spoke about this in relation to the National Trust. We in the Apex Trust have been using volunteers to very good effect. They are valuable to us. It would be extremely awkward if, in order to comply with the 48-hour rule, they had to down tools and go at two days' notice.
There is another reason, with which I am sure the noble Lord will sympathise, why we want volunteers to be encouraged and not discouraged and to be able to carry out voluntary obligations satisfactorily. With the new methods of training and examining which come with the NVQs—I speak as chairman of the administration lead body—people receive training in voluntary work which enables them to comply with the requirements of NVQ and obtain a qualification. That is exactly the kind of thing that the noble Lord wants them to do. It will enable them to get jobs. To achieve level 1 or level 2 of an NVQ can greatly enhance a person's opportunity to obtain work. The regulations ought to be such as to give the greatest possible encouragement to volunteers; they should not make the requirements so tight and restrictive as to discourage voluntary work. I beg the noble Lord to look again at that limitation, which will prove to be very severe for a great many people. The disadvantages spread beyond the particular disadvantage to the individual concerned.
I should like to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said about behaviour and appearance. She quoted the case of a man who had one earring who might be somewhat unacceptable to a regular employment officer in the Employment Service. I am not familiar with the kind of work that is carried out by people with one earring. However, if I am not mistaken, I believe that there are some jobs in which it may be a disqualification not to wear one earring. There is a whole market for one-earring clients. If such people turned up for work looking more like the noble Lord, they probably would not get the job. They would have to go home to redress and equip themselves with one earring in order to be satisfactory employees in that field. That is perhaps slightly frivolous, but today there are a number of jobs on the periphery of normal employment. There are still jobs for those who do not look like those who obtain jobs in banks or the more usual areas of employment.
1250
Finally, the noble Lord claims that this measure will make it easier—I am sure it will—for people who are at present unemployed and will give them greater encouragement to get back to work. However, in my view, it does not go anything like far enough. Our present social security provisions are such that there is a real disincentive to take on jobs. I remind the noble Lord that not so long ago the applied economics unit at Cambridge came up with some figures—I accept that this Act will modify the position, but only to a very mild extent—which showed that if a man and his wife were both unemployed and had two children at school, in order to increase the family income by £20 they would have to earn £170 because of the limitations of the benefits system and the passport benefits which went with income support. While I accept that the Act goes a little way to alleviate this ridiculous situation, I ask whether there is any Member of your Lordships' House who will do —170 worth of work in order to get £20. As long as that situation obtains, no changes in the system of benefits will make a great deal of difference. This is a step in the right direction, but a very small one.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, invited me to comment I saw the Minister vigorously shaking his hand in the hope that I would not do any such thing because it would only delay matters further. I shall try to be brief.
This is not a simple matter of social insurance; it is jointly a matter of social insurance and a bureaucratic set of rules. We have 160 pages of rules for what should be a much simpler matter. While the Government try to encourage jobseeking, they still believe that people are unemployed because there are jobs that they are not seeking. I believe that that is a fallacy. If unemployment has been going down for the past 28 months it is because we have had a recovery during that time and for the 36 months before that the number of jobs was going down because of recession.
Whether or not jobs are there does not have so much effect on the behaviour of jobseekers as does the macro economy. Whether or not you have a minimum wage, the effect on employment will depend on what else you do to encourage the economy. In general, if you do not do anything to encourage the economy unemployment will increase—jobseeker's allowance or no jobseeker's allowance. That point has not yet been understood by the Government. The general climate of investment and recovery and what one does about taxation and interest rates are the matters which determine unemployment, not these rules, desirable though they may be.
The problem that the Government have not thought through for the past 16 years is that if they wish to encourage good behaviour they should stop suspecting, as the welfare state inevitably does, citizens of being out to cheat. We have 160 pages of regulations

1251
because the state begins with the suspicion that honest citizens are about to cheat. Without that suspicion one would not need 160 pages but perhaps only two.
4.20 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I was very interested in the suggestion of a claimant's guide from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I entirely agree with him and with the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, about the difficulty of understanding many of the regulations. If that suggestion were adopted, I should welcome it. I wonder whether the Minister would place that—or, at the very least, the guidance for the employment officers and adjudication officers—in the Library of your Lordships' House. He might find that it would save him a good deal of unnecessary correspondence.
I congratulate the Minister on the lucid way in which he introduced the regulations. However, he made one comment which surprised me a little. He described the regulations as "minor details". Details they may be, but they will affect the lives of more people in a more significant way than will perhaps any Bill that is likely to come before us this Session. Under those circumstances they need individual examination, regulation by regulation.
Your Lordships' House collectively possesses a considerable amount of expertise. I regret that we are not using a procedure that enables us to scrutinise the regulations one by one. In that context, I was most interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I hope that more thought will be given to them all around the House.
I shall attempt to resist the temptation to make a Second Reading speech and I shall address the regulations one by one. I take first the transitional provisions under Statutory Instrument No. 3276. I was a little taken aback by Regulation 16 of those regulations concerning "Questions not immediately ascertainable". It provides first that the housing costs which are to be included in the claimant's applicable amount are those which are immediately ascertainable. I dare say that, before we have gone through the Leasehold (Reform) Bill, which I understand is likely to be laid before us shortly, we may have heard a good deal more of that provision.
The second half of that regulation provides that, where any of the questions cannot be immediately determined, the adjudication officer,
"shall proceed to determine the … question on the assumption that the determination of that question will be adverse to the claimant".
I find it somewhat hard to reconcile that statement with the principles of natural justice, as I understand them.
Your Lordships may be aware that there has been a learned exchange taking place in the columns of Public Law about the relationship between statute and the principles of natural justice. It is an arcane question in which, wearing my other hat, I have some interest. In the course of that exchange, I was taken to task by Mr. Justice Laws for giving too much weight to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The Minister
1252
does not always realise when he is well off. But, in the light of that debate, I cannot help but wonder whether that regulation was drafted in order to lead Her Majesty's judges into temptation. I am sure that they can resist it, but it is not always wise to lead people into temptation.
In the income support consequential amendments regulations, I was struck by a regulation which dealt with those people over 50 who had not worked for over 10 years. It occurred to me to check how many people might be affected by the regulation. According to a Written Answer last Tuesday, the number is 2,594,000. That is rather a lot of people. It helps to explain why the number of people on income support is rising, even though the number of people unemployed is going down. That is a matter to which we may return on another occasion.
I warmly welcome the housing benefit and council tax benefit run-on regulations. I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, into the interstices of the minimum wage, save only to draw to the Minister's attention the report in yesterday's Independent on Sunday that the state is now spending on in-work benefits to subsidise low wages —2.9 billion every year. I should be glad of a comment on the accuracy or otherwise of that figure.
With regard to Regulation 5 on carers and availability, I agree with everything said by my noble friends Lady Seear and Lady Williams of Crosby. I point out that the 48 hours covers days of non-availability, such as Sunday. One cannot normally ring up a nursery on a Sunday. I thought that that provision was a little unnecessary and could perhaps have been dispensed with.
I want to raise a point of interpretation on Regulation 11 about part-time students. There is an obligation on a part-time student to rearrange his course in order to adjust his availability, if necessary. Is there a parallel obligation on the teacher of the course to accept the rearrangement? It is a question in which I should declare an interest. If there is not, it puts the claimant in an intolerable position between the upper and the nether millstone; and if there is an obligation on the teacher, with many different people in the class it may be that there will be no time at all when the classes can be held. We need communication between the two departments on that point, and indeed on many others.
Regulation 13(2) allows an exemption to availability regulations for "a sincerely held religious belief". Who is to decide whether a religious belief is sincerely held? It is not an area in which the competence of the state is immediately obvious to me. Were the right reverend Prelate still in the Chamber I should be interested to hear his comments on that regulation. Also, such an exception for sincerely held religious belief is allowed provided the claimant can show real prospects of employment. I am reminded of the speech in the debate on the Address in the Session before last made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. He drew attention to the danger that Sunday working, especially in the retail trade, might become so normal that someone with a conscientious objection to it might not have a

1253
real prospect of employment. I should be grateful if the Government could once again consult the Churches and other concerned bodies on that matter. I am anxious about the drafting of that point.
Regulations 16 and 9 raise the conflict to which my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby referred. My understanding—I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is that there is flexibility within the period of six months. I am interested in the flexibility provided by Regulation 16. It is an example of Rentonian principles of drafting in regulation, which is a rare swallow that I welcome. I hope that it may make a summer. But I should like to know whether the interpretation will be made by the discretion of the adjudication officer or whether it will all be covered in guidance.
Regulation 14, as I understand it, deals with male carers caring for children during a spouse's absence from the country for a period not over eight weeks. If I have understood that aright, it is not applied on a sex-blind basis. A woman may be exempt from availability regulations if she is caring for a child. But If a man may be exempt only when caring for a child during that period of eight weeks, that is not on a level basis. We know that 9 per cent. of single parents are male. Their rights need attention and the drafting of that regulation needs attention.
Like other people, I have some doubts about Regulation 18(4). It covers steps for seeking work which may be disregarded if the claimant is guilty of violent or abusive behaviour. There is no dispute about the objective of that regulation. But "abusive behaviour", especially for someone who knows that hope deferred maketh the heart grow sick, presents a difficulty.
Let me put to the Minister a case which happened at my local Jobcentre. Can he say whether this is abusive behaviour within the meaning of the proverbial Act? A woman, late on a Friday afternoon, was attempting to obtain benefit. She was told that she could not obtain anything until after the weekend. She dumped her baby on the counter and said, "All right, you feed him then" and ran out of the door. Mother and baby were subsequently reunited but, meanwhile, the Jobcentre staff had fed the baby over the weekend. Was that woman guilty of abusive behaviour or not? It is perhaps a case where the prerogative of mercy might have been relevant.
On behaviour or appearance I agree strongly with the points made by my noble friend Lady Seear. I have heard it said that in the Old Bailey the surest way to be disqualified as a juror is to turn up wearing a pinstriped suit with a rolled umbrella and carrying a copy of the Daily Telegraph. Dress codes are appropriate to specific contexts. We have all misjudged the dress code in contexts with which we are not familiar. That is why I should have liked the regulation to have a provision for mens rea; dress codes in order to make themselves less suitable for employment. It would of course make proof more difficult, but that is simply the real world.
There are some parts that I welcome. Regulation 61(f), providing a concession for 16 and 17 year-olds who are enlisting in the Army, is a case in point. I thank the
1254
Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and also the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who said that this was the only one of my amendments on that subject which he thought was not wholly without merit. It is the most delightfully back-handed support I have ever received. I think it was effective and I am grateful for it.
Regulation 63 provides for a 40 per cent. reduction in benefit for those refusing training. It does not include the words for which my noble friend Lady Seear has asked over and over again; that is, "suitable training". It raises the prospect of a case like the one once raised by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, of the young man who asked to work with animals and was sent to work in an abattoir. Would that person be subjected to a 40 per cent. reduction in benefit?
The other point on which I cannot resist commenting in relation to the 40 per cent. reduction for refusing training is that I am most intrigued to find Mr. Gordon Brown writing government policy. That truly is a resurrection of Butskellism.
Regulation 72, the good cause provision, is better than we thought it might be during the passage of the Bill. I owe a great deal of thanks to both Ministers and to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who is especially responsible for that clause. The good cause provisions specify that good causes for refusing or leaving a job "shall include" the ones specified. That means that they allow for the possibility that there may be other good causes.
I am delighted to see the provisions allowing people to refuse a job if the cost of travelling to work or the job expenses are too high. That is valuable. I am also delighted to see that one is not to be forced to take a job paying commission only. That again was a concession made in the course of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and I am delighted it has been included. It is not a big concession, but it is a great deal better than nothing and I am pleased about it.
In relation to Part VII I want to ask who is to be responsible for up-rating the benefits. I do not want it to be like the Walcheren Expedition:
"Great Chatham with his sabre drawn Stood waiting for Sir Richard Strachan; Sir Richard, longing to be at 'em, Stood waiting for the Earl of Chatham".
I hope that well before the public expenditure round begins we will know who is to up-rate the benefits and that something will be done about it.
The applicable amount for 16 and 17 year-olds who receive income support is —28.85 a week. That is derisory. I want to know why, when severe hardship payments are allowed, the 40 per cent. reduction applies equally to 16 and 17 year-olds even though the amount being reduced is itself smaller, That is a subsistence payment. It is a hardship payment. The Government's justifications of the distinction between the older and the younger rates of benefit simply do not apply to a hardship payment. They had better think of a new one quickly and I shall he interested to see whether they have done so before the Minister sits down.

1255
Regulation 95(2) on royalty income needs rewriting. In relation to Regulation 140 I have asked the Minister before why it is government policy that the single cannot suffer hardship. I hope that this time we may receive an answer.
There are genuinely small mercies in these regulations. I thank the Minister for them. But they are small mercies and I hope the Minister will understand that the fact that I have not made the Second Reading speech the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, expected, does not mean that I have in any way retreated from the points I would have made. I still think them, though I have not bothered to make them at the moment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I know that I accused myself earlier this afternoon of putting words into the mouths of other noble Lords, but I did not put those words into the mouth of the noble Earl.
Earl Russell: My Lords, what I said was a paraphrase. If it was an inaccurate one, I apologise.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, these regulations comprise 160 pages and are 10,000 lines long—three times longer than the original Bill. I trust therefore that your Lordships will understand if, instead of picking away at some of the quite serious misprints to which the Minister drew our attention in Regulations 150 and 151, or the inconsistencies between Regulations 9 and 16, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, drew our attention, I instead seek to revisit some of the principal issues that are detailed here and made explicit for the first time. In that process I hope to persuade the Minister, even at this late stage, of how profoundly wrong are both the Act and these regulations.
We accept that some regulations are indeed welcome; for example, the rollover of housing and council tax benefits. We wait to see the effect of other regulations, such as the back-to-work bonus. Let us recall that what the regulations make explicit is how the Government propose to integrate, to bring together, unemployment benefit (the contributory national insurance benefit) and income support (the means-tested benefit for the unemployed) into one jobseeker's benefit.
Two hundred and fifty thousand people will be worse off as a result of the regulations. People who have paid their national insurance contribution, who have seen the contribution go up by 50 per cent. (it was 6.5 per cent. in 1979 and is now 10 per cent.) and who kept their side of the national insurance contract, now find that the contributory unemployment benefit time period has been halved. After six months, not 12 months, it will be means tested. If they claim for a wife or an adult dependant, it will be means tested from the very start, as though they had never paid any national insurance contributions at all for that purpose. Had any private employer, insurer or pension provider tried to do the same, they may have found themselves being taken to court.
1256
In addition, as we see from the regulations, not only is the insured benefit cut, but the conditions of receiving it have been made more stringent and arduous. Regulation 79 relates to young people under 25. Though they pay the same national insurance contribution as everyone else, their benefit will be reduced—not because they need less than the rest, but merely because they are younger than the rest.
As regards Regulation 107, any older men leaving with redundancy payments of £3,000 or more when their employment folds, will now find after, say, six months, that that may well make them ineligible for JSA until they have lived off and eaten up their redundancy payment as it takes them above the capital limit. Any claimant who has a partner working more than 24 hours a week, however little that partner may earn, will, after six months, find himself ineligible for JSA.
Regulation 13 affects the chronically sick and disabled. Of that group 250,000 have been removed from invalidity benefit and are being told to apply for the jobseeker's allowance. They may find themselves not disabled enough to claim incapacity benefit, but insufficiently fit to claim the jobseeker's allowance. I do not doubt that the Minister will assure us that that will not happen. We hope he is right, but if he is wrong, I can promise him that he will know about it. Anyone who has learning difficulties; anyone for whom English is a second language, and anyone less than competent to cope with the benefits system, is at risk of being assessed as not actively seeking work and losing his or her benefit.
Why are the Government doing this? Basically, we have been offered two reasons. The first is to create a flexible labour market, as the Minister told us today. The second, as the Minister has told us on other occasions, is to end welfare dependency. If those are the Government's objectives, their strategy is profoundly wrong.
As regards a flexible labour market, the Government have always insisted that if people were flexible about their wages—in other words, were prepared to accept poverty wages—they would somehow price themselves into jobs. Jobs will appear by magic out of the woodwork. Even now the Director-General of the CBI does not believe that. Pay has fallen: over I million people now earn less than £2.50 an hour and one-third of a million people earn less than £1.50 an hour. People have accepted poverty wages. If the Government were right, that would generate more jobs. But has it? On the contrary, when the minimum wages set by the wages councils were abolished, pay fell by up to one-quarter, while at the same time about 18,000 jobs in the industries covered by the wages councils were lost.
No, poverty pay does not increase employment. It simply pays poverty wages for the same work. What it does do—and this was touched on by previous speakers—is increase the social security bill so that family credit, housing benefit and council tax are needed to turn a poverty wage into a living wage. The number of people on family credit in the past five years has doubled; the bill has trebled. Every pound sliced off the wages bill under the pressure of JSA could add an extra

1257
70p or 80p in the pound to the social security bill. The result is a soaring social security budget, and the Government then complain about the rise in costs that they themselves have engineered.
The Government tell us that registered unemployment has fallen. They are right and we welcome that. But labour market research suggests that that is not so much because more jobs have been created, but because, in addition to the factors mentioned by my noble friend Lord Desai, fewer young people are leaving school and a higher proportion of them are going into further and higher education. Demography rather than a strengthened economy is the reason. I suggest that much more significantly, since the Prime Minister took office five years ago, unemployment has grown by 32 per cent. and long-term unemployment by 70 per cent. In Britain male unemployment in the age group 25 to 54—a group about which I believe we are all especially concerned—is nearly 15 per cent.; in the United States of America and Germany it is 12 per cent.; and in France it is 9 per cent. If the Government count that as success, what do they suggest would count as failure? So the first argument that the Government have adduced for these regulations is a flexible labour market to push down wages and to create more jobs. They have certainly pushed down wages, but they have not created more jobs. They have added to the social security bill.
The second proposition offered to us behind these regulations is the need to end welfare dependency. The assumption seems to be that if only people searched harder and accepted lower wages, they would find work, but instead benefits have made life too cosy and comfortable; that the unemployed need to be "braced" by benefit cuts into entering the real world of zero-hour contracts; namely, "Hang around for 40 hours so that I can employ you for any 15 of them" or of temporary work, or portfolios of fragments of jobs, with no pension, no sick pay, no holiday entitlement and no security.
What evidence is there that the benefit system discourages people from seeking and taking up work? The answer is, none. All the evidence, much of it commissioned by government, runs the other way. Benefit levels in Britain, relative to wages, are among the lowest in Europe and in the OECD. When people go on benefit most find their income halved. Most people would return to work if their wage passed the benefit level by only modest amounts. Men and women in Britain are on benefit not because they are idle and will riot work, which is the assumption of the JSA and these regulations, but because they are unemployed and cannot find work.
There are 12 people in Britain today chasing every single registered vacancy. There are 20 people in London today chasing every single registered vacancy. Recently 700 men queued for one job as a van driver. That is why men and women are dependent on benefit. They are demoralised by the Government's mismanagement of the economy and not by their own lack of moral fibre. The JSA will cut the benefit bill, certainly, by taking money away from the unemployed on which they need to live.
1258
What shred of evidence do the Government have that the harshness of JSA and these regulations will create even one extra job? Instead of 12 people chasing each registered vacancy today, let us say that JSA dragoons one extra person and 13 people chase the registered vacancies, each and every day. How will that create one single extra job? Only when the Government can point to jobs paying an adequate wage, left unfilled by men and women who choose instead to remain on benefit, will the Government be entitled to talk about welfare dependency. Meanwhile the government strategy is indeed creating welfare dependency—that of the employer on the welfare system to subsidise his wages bill. In that respect our employers are among the most subsidised and our unemployed among the least supported anywhere in the OECD. It is perverse. Every regulation in this document makes the situation worse.
What does the Government's own research tell us is the best way back to work and to expand the labour market? As the Government know, the first is to educate and skill yourself. For example, recent research into lone parents shows that those left behind when their children go to school and who wish to re-enter the labour market, are precisely those with no educational qualifications. What do the Government do in these regulations? They promptly cut the number of hours from 21 to 16 for which one may study and still retain benefit. Any other country would encourage the unemployed to train, to study and to build up qualifications. Only in Britain do we penalise the unemployed by removing benefit. It is quite perverse.
Secondly, we know that the only really effective way to get a job is to have somebody in the family with a job and, through them, to remain attached to the labour market. All the research shows that what helps someone into the labour market is who the family knows. So, a wise government would be doing everything possible to keep at least one member of a family in work in order to help the others back into the labour market. But what do the regulations do? They construct a benefit system which, by means-testing, penalises the partner who is in work by removing benefit pound for pound from the one who is unemployed. Not surprisingly, therefore, any partner who has part-time work will leave that work and both partners will drop out of the labour market. Again, that is perverse.
Thirdly, we also know that it makes sense to share out what work there is. We know that it is work that floats people out of poverty. Yet 20 per cent. of all households of working age do not have an adult in work, while some 60 per cent. of such households have two people in work. We have work-rich and work-poor families. The divide is getting worse and the regulations will make it even worse. Why? Because JSA and the deduction of benefit pound for pound means that only the wives of men in full-time work can afford to work part-time without losing benefit. If a man works full-time, his wife can work; otherwise she cannot afford to take work and both are trapped. That too is perverse.
Fourthly, we also know—the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, reminded us of this—that if people cannot obtain waged work, the next best thing is to mimic the labour market with unwaged work and to volunteer. Any

1259
sensible strategy would encourage volunteering and would regard placements with training in an approved voluntary organisation as a positive outcome to the JSA agreement. Everyone knows that the. alternative, the Government's training programmes, have a reputation for being pretty disastrous in many cases. Only three people in every 200 get a job as a result of the Government's Restart programme—that is only 1.5 per cent. By contrast, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, told us, the majority of National Trust volunteers obtain full-time work having completed their stint. Let us hope that Regulation 18/3/g bears the interpretation which the noble Lord put on it; nevertheless is its still not the case that volunteers are expected to give up their voluntary work with only 48 hours' notice, although that volunteering could equip them for a proper job, and instead have to accept a dead-end temporary job or lose their benefit?
These regulations are as malign and as perverse as the Act which fathered them. Essentially, they blame the unemployed for their unemployment. The unemployed will be required, on pain of forfeiting their benefit, to make themselves endlessly available to search for jobs that do not exist in a labour market that is overstocked. I repeat that 12 people go after every registered job vacancy today. If the harshness of JSA dragoons one extra person into the labour market so that 13 people are pursuing each vacancy, what have we achieved? What single extra job have we created? Why are we doing this? I ask the Minister to tell me why. Until the Minister can show that the regulations will generate one additional job (other than any extra jobs in social security offices), we on these Benches are utterly opposed to them.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. In fact, I think that we have had two debates. The majority of noble Lords spoke about the regulations, and their comments clearly indicated that they had read the regulations—or at least part of them. We then had almost another debate, which seemed to be a rerun of the Second Reading of the Jobseekers Act. Without seeking to be unfair to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I think that that is what we had in the past 17 minutes. I believe that I answered most of the points that she raised while the Bill was proceeding through your Lordships' House and that I did so to the satisfaction of the House, just as my right honourable and honourable friends in another place answered such points to the satisfaction of their House so that the Bill became an Act.
I do not intend to go over all the points of principle that we discussed then. I should rather turn my attention to the questions that I have been asked about the detail of the regulations. I do not know whether I dare say this to the noble Baroness, but many of the details are necessary for the running of any system involving social security, unemployment benefit, income support or whatever name she may decide to give it. Therefore, to say that all the provisions are malign is to overstate the case by about a million miles.
1260
However, I was grateful to the noble Baroness for indicating her welcome for the roll-over of housing benefit and council tax benefit. I believe that she also indicated a welcome for the back-to-work bonus although I suspect that she qualified that welcome when she said that she would wait to see whether it actually worked. I shall take that as being as near a welcome as I am likely to get from the noble Baroness.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale was a great deal more forthcoming and I am grateful to him for the positive welcome that he gave to the back-to-work bonus and to a number of other provisions in the package of regulations. My noble friend made a valid point which was echoed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about a claimant's guide. I am happy to be able to tell them that leaflets for jobseekers will be available at Jobcentres from early March. The first leaflet will give basic guidance to help to alert claimants to the changes that will come about in October. A second leaflet will give more detail and will invite claimants to speak to Jobcentre staff if they would like further guidance. That leaflet will be given to claimants from July onwards. At the same time they will also be given a brief explanation of the changes. The chief adjudication officer's guide, which gives guidance on all the benefit entitlement decisions to be made under JSA, will also be in the "public domain" to use the modern jargon. I mustry to think of a better phrase than that. I assure the noble Earl that the public domain appears to include the Library of your Lordships' House, so I shall keep him to his word that he will not bother me quite so much on the detail if that report is placed in the Library.
Perhaps I may turn to a number of the points that have been raised. I shall try to answer them as quickly as I can. If that means "shorthanding" the question, I hope that the noble Lord who asked that question will appreciate that the answer is directed at him. Perhaps I may start with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who mentioned the Income Support (General) (Jobseeker's Allowance Consequential Amendments) Regulations—not the main regulations—and who asked a question about the over-50s. I do not want to get into a debate about this, but 1 must advise the noble Earl—I thought this when I answered the question—that he makes the assumption that all those people over 50 but below retirement age who have not been in paid employment during the past 10 years are necessarily seeking paid employment. I am afraid that that is not necessarily the case. That group will include people who have retired early, as well as non-working wives and a variety of other categories. I do not think that we can assume that all those people will be looking for work. I give the noble Earl that slight warning in case he wants to use those figures again.
Perhaps I may turn to the regulations about which the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams and Lady Seear, asked a number of questions. Perhaps I should advise the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who intervened in the gap in the speakers' list, that I have had a great deal of experience of listening to "gap" speakers and that that experience has enabled me to listen to the speaker while having an intelligent conversation with the colleague to my right at the same time. I had better be careful in case I meet

1261
one of those speakers, but I think that I can safely say that I have never heard a speaker quite as stimulating as the noble Baroness—and certainly not one who does not use notes. As I recall, many of my lecturers seemed even more hidebound by their notes than I sometimes feel I am.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Williams, and one or two other noble Lords, mentioned the issue of 48 hours. The point made was that 48 hours was not long enough to allow carers to rearrange their caring responsibilities when they received an offer of employment. As I said during the Bill's passage, people with caring responsibilities who want to participate in the labour market will need to plan in advance the best way of arranging their caring responsibilities if and when they receive a job offer.
We recognise that it would be unreasonable to expect people with caring responsibilities to be available for employment immediately. That is why we have extended the current concession, which is 24 hours, to 48 hours. With advance planning, we believe that 48 hours' notice should be adequate for carers to rearrange their caring responsibilities and be available for employment or an interview.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he must think about this again. I beg him to do so. He says that carers should make arrangements. That means that they should have someone lined up to do the job, but they do not know when they will obtain a job. One cannot line up one's substitute and expect them to stand by until one has a job. One hopes that they will be off doing something else themselves. One may get a place in a nursery, and that place may be gone by the time the job is offered. One cannot make these arrangements, and I ask the Minister to reconsider this. One may make one's arrangements and not get the job. The arrangements then collapse.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness has missed two points that I made. The first point is that this is a concession. We are making a concession, because for everyone else it is immediate. If they find a job, they are expected to take it the following day, if that is when the employer wants them to start. The chances are that the employer will want them to start on Monday. An interview today would probably lead to a job being started next Monday. It is in fact already a concession. The point I made is that the current concession is 24 hours. If that were a real problem and not an imagined one, dare I suggest that some examples of the problem of the 24 hours might have come forward. We understand the point being made. We have made a concession that extends the immediate not just to 24 hours, as it is at present, but to 48 hours.
I will always look at any cases that suggest that even 48 hours is not enough, but if no examples can be given of the current 24 hours being inadequate, then I find it difficult to be persuaded that I should go further than 48 hours.
1262
On Regulation 7, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, asked me what Regulation 7(3) means. Regulation 7(3) provides that once a person has agreed a pattern of availability, he should not be able to abuse that flexibility by not being available on the days agreed. If the person fails to be available on such a day he will lose benefit for the week. That does not bear upon pattern of availability which a person with a disability might agree under the regulations. He might agree a pattern of availability which may exclude a day. That is fine. If he has already agreed that, he cannot then say, "That day I have already agreed, I shall not be available for this particular job".
On Regulation 11, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me—I believe for his own protection more than anything else—to give him a considered view on what would happen in the case of part-time students having to rearrange their course hours. Part-time students have normally to be available for employment in the same way as other jobseekers. Regulation 11 modifies the availability rule for certain jobseekers—broadly those who have been unemployed for three months or more in the previous six—if they are willing and able to rearrange their course to take a job within the pattern of hours that they have agreed.
If someone cannot, or does not wish to take advantage of Regulation 11, he will have to be available in the normal way. Regulation 11 is therefore a concession. It is not an obligation. There will be no obligation on the teacher, but we hope that the increasing flexibility of education will mean that Regulation 11 will he a helpful provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and other noble Lords asked about volunteers. They come particularly under Regulation 12, although they come elsewhere as well. I was grateful to the noble Lord for saying that we had gone some way. He wants me to try to go a little further. I have already made the point about 48 hours' notice. What I have said is as applicable to this category as it is to carers. He asked me about the training and guidance we should be giving to our staff. All the staff involved in delivering JSA will be given training. That training will ensure that they give consistent advice everywhere in the country. The crucial aspect of the particular issue addressed is to ensure that the regulations are easy and clear to interpret. We have done that with the help of the consultation we have had with the voluntary bodies.
The Employment Service guidance will be based squarely on the regulations. I do not see a need for further consultation, but in line with our commitment to open government, we shall be making the relevant elements of the completed guidance available to the voluntary organisations if they wish to have a copy. The guidance to adjudication officers who make the decisions over benefit entitlement is a matter for the Chief Adjudication Officer who is of course independent of government. That guidance is published and readily available, but I understand that the normal practice of the Central Adjudication Service is not to consult on its guidance to adjudication officers.

1263
I was asked why I should not recognise the value of training in voluntary work. As I think I said during the course of the Bill's passage, we recognise that voluntary work can help unemployed people stay in touch with the labour market and provide an opportunity for them to maintain and develop their skills. Our approach strikes a sensible and workable balance. It recognises the importance and the important role of voluntary work, without losing sight of the fact that all the time the person is doing voluntary work he or she still has as his or her first priority finding paid employment.
Although voluntary work may enhance a jobseeker's employability, we cannot count it as an active step towards finding a job. The regulations are however explicit that an adjudication officer should take into account the value of any voluntary work undertaken in determining whether a jobseeker has met the actively-seeking-work condition. However important the training benefit of voluntary work, the priority for all jobseekers has to remain to take a job if it is offered.
On Regulation 13, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me who was to judge whether a religious belief was sincerely held. Adjudication officers currently make that judgment when determining whether a claimant has good cause for refusing a job. We are not aware of any difficulties. Adjudication officers may ask for any information or evidence that they see fit. Current guidance points them to examine the length of time a person has held to his faith or evidence of that religious observance.
The flexibility in the regulations to determine a pattern of availability through the week will enable people who do not wish to work on Sundays to restrict their availability in that way provided that they retain reasonable prospects of securing work. The regulations provide also for religious considerations to be taken into account in determining good cause for turning down the offer of a job. I hope that that is helpful to the noble Earl.
Regulation 16 was linked to Regulation 9. I could not decide whether to put the matter in Regulation 9 or Regulation 16. It is the same point. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me about it. I do not believe that there is a contradiction. Regulation 16 allows jobseekers to restrict their availability to their usual rate of pay for a permitted period of up to 13 weeks. Regulation 8 allows them to continue placing restrictions on the rate of pay for which they are available, provided that they retain reasonable prospects of securing employment. Regulation 9 merely sets an overall limit of six months to such restrictions.
In fact Regulations 8 and 9 taken together are more generous to jobseekers than the current rules which allow no restrictions on pay after the permitted period. The permitted period will be determined in accordance with the adjudication officers' guidance and recorded in the jobseeker's agreement. If there is any dispute
1264
about the terms of the jobseeker's agreement, the dispute can be referred to the adjudicator by the jobseeker or the adviser.
As regards Regulation 14, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised a specific point about whether we were treating males and females differently. I believe that "he" means "she" and "she" means "he". In fact, that provision can be read for men or women. I suppose that "sexless" is the word I should use.
As regards Regulation 18, I was asked about the meaning of "violent" and "abusive" and about appearance and behaviour. We have had a great deal of debate about that. Regulation 18(4) deals with claimants who through unreasonable behaviour at a job interview or during the process of making an application to an employer effectively negate their actions to seek work. The words "violent" and "abusive" carry the clear dictionary meaning.
The noble Earl asked me about mens rea. Regulation 18(4) provides that the adjudication officer should not disregard the steps in which the circumstances were due to reasons beyond his control. It is clear from the words of the regulation—words such as "spoilt" and "undermined"—that we are not seeking to tackle accidental mistakes.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, before the Minister completes his references to Regulation 18, perhaps I may press him on a crucial point. May we take it that if the pattern of behaviour of the claimant indicated an effort to try to find a job but that his appearance is one which the unemployment officer does not find totally attractive he will be given the benefit of the doubt on the basis of the consistent pattern of action?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is always difficult to be totally theoretical. If someone is seriously looking for a job of course the adjudication officer will take that seriously into account. However, if someone says, "I am seriously looking for a job" but she goes for a job where appearance is important, such as working in the food industry—I made this point at length during debates on the Bill—and says to the employer, "No, I refuse to take off my earrings", I suggest that she would not properly be looking for a job. There are many parts of the food industry in which all employees must remove rings, watches, earrings and so forth because no one would like to find those items in a prepared meal. Producers can be taken to court by a customer who finds such odd objects. Many people in the food industry in particular have become very wary about the new rules and regulations concerning food hygiene. It is difficult for me, standing at the Dispatch Box, to say that in some hypothetical cases it will not matter but in others it will. There will be many cases in which as regards doing the job a person's appearance will not matter but in many other cases appearance will matter. One would not like to see someone with extremely dirty hands and clothes serving one's morning rolls, for example.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked a number of questions about disability, a subject in which he is greatly interested. He asked me why disability is not listed in Regulation 28 as regards failure to attend a

1265
Jobcentre. We provide for special postal arrangements for anyone who is not able to travel to a Jobcentre. They may sign on by post and many disabled people will benefit from the provision and will not be required to go to the Jobcentre in person.
Claiming incapacity benefit represents a significantly better buy for the claimant with a mental condition than does a JSA hardship payment because IB is paid at a higher rate. In most cases, an award for IB can be made at once upon receipt of a declaration for incapacity without a need to take appropriate incapacity tests immediately. Even where the claimant has recently been found capable for work and transferred from IB, IB can still be awarded if the condition has deteriorated or the claimant declares a different condition. Given the extensive safety net in IB for mental health conditions, we cannot envisage situations in which a person unable to qualify for IB will be seen as vulnerable for hardship purposes. There is therefore no reason to subject them to the lengthy and detailed JSA hardship procedures.
As regards the 26 weeks, that is continuous. The chronic condition must last or be likely to last for 26 weeks. However, that does not preclude the possibility that the symptoms may fluctuate in their intensity during that period. Thus, someone with arthritis need not necessarily be excluded. The decision as to the chronic nature of the condition will be made by the adjudication officer on the basis of the evidence available and would therefore be subject to appeal.
Dealing with Regulations 28 and 30, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked why people should lose benefit if they failed to attend a Jobcentre because they were ill or looking after a person who was ill. A person who is ill cannot be available for work and therefore is not entitled to JSA. It is right that in Regulation 28 we should not make provision for good cause for not attending. If the jobseeker is temporarily sick or is looking after a sick person he will be treated as available and therefore will be regarded as having good cause for failing to attend the Jobcentre. I hope that the good cause point will help to answer the worries expressed by the noble Baroness.
As regards Part VII, the noble Earl asked who would carry out the up-rating. I do not know whether my answer will add to his confidence, but I can tell him that the up-rating will be done by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and his ever wise Ministers.
Turning to Regulation 105(13), the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked about the good neighbour provision. When she read out the provision she missed out an important word. It reads:
"the adjudication officer shall treat the claimant as possessing such earnings (if any) as is reasonable for that employment".
In the case of a person carrying out voluntary work of ihe kind she has in mind, the notional earnings provision does not apply provided that the adjudication officer is satisfied that it is reasonable for the service to be carried out free of charge. I believe that I can put the noble Baroness's mind at ease and reassure her that a person merely acting as a good neighbour will not be penalised by the notional earnings rule.
1266
I have spoken for 22 minutes and I believe that I have answered most of the points that were raised. If I have missed any I shall be happy to write to noble Lords. If noble Lords feel that a point has not been properly answered no doubt they will write to me. I am sure that I do not need to encourage them to do that—
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I apologise for interrupting again. I wish to draw his attention to Schedule 7, relating to the disregards for war widows, war disability, war pensions and so forth. He may not wish to reply now, but I wish to urge him to consider the very modest disregard in these crucial areas of pension.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, from the Dispatch Box I have answered the point in a wider sphere on a number of occasions. The disregard for war widows is considerably better than £10 because the £49.50, which I believe is the post-1973 payment, is also disregarded. As regards war disabled pensions, many additional payments which a severely disabled person can receive are also disregarded.
In the general case of disregards, my view and that of the Government is that the pensions which come from public funds are to help people with their day-to-day living expenses, as are all the benefits. It is not justified to allow one group which already receives significantly higher benefits in addition to receive a disregard. That is doing them a double favour. Those in other groups receiving widow's benefit, incapacity benefit and so forth could easily ask, "Why, if they receive a generous disregard, should we not receive it'?". That begins to open up considerable sums of money to the benefits bill.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, made a more general speech about the regulations. A number of her points related to unemployment and to whether employment was available. We in this country are doing a good deal better than most of our competitors. As I said in my original speech, half the people who become unemployed find work again within three months, while two-thirds of them find work again within six months. A comparison with all the major industrialised countries—certainly all the major European countries—shows that we are up towards the top as regards the number of our people in employment. In fact, our unemployment rate is now better than that of the four "biggies" (if I may call them that); in other words, it is better than our big friends in the European Union—namely, Spain, Italy, France and Germany.
Indeed, not only is our unemployment rate better in general, but our youth unemployment rate is better and our unemployment among women is better. Moreover, in comparison with the EU as a whole, our long-term unemployment rate is better. Therefore, I shall not take any lessons from the noble Baroness who would impose a minimum wage and a social chapter on employment opportunities in this country and, perhaps, push our 8.2 per cent. current unemployment rate up to the levels of France with 11.4 percent. and Spain with 22.6 per cent.
I believe that the regulations and the allowance will help people who are unemployed and who want to work; as, indeed, they all do. It will help them find those jobs. It

1267
is an active employment measure which will encourage and help people and enable them to take up the jobs which are available. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Income Support (General)(Jobseeker's Allowance Consequential Amendments) Regulations 1996
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th December be approved—[5th Report from the Joint Committee]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Back to Work Bonus) Regulations 1996
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Benefit, Supply of Information and Council Tax Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 1996
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th December be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employer's Contributions Re-imbursement Regulations 1996
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th December be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill
5.22 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is an enabling measure which would allow the British Government to provide a package of benefits to certain overseas public servants in Hong Kong. My purpose today is to explain the background to this proposal and to set out the package of benefits which we propose to implement by Order in Council after enactment of the legislation.
In 1954, the government of the day published a White Paper on the future of the Colonial Civil Service. That White Paper anticipated the process of decolonisation and considered how civil servants recruited from this country to work on pensionable terms in the colonies, and other dependent territories, should be treated when a colony moved to independence. The White Paper recognised that the British Government had a special obligation towards members of the colonial service. To give officers confidence about their future, the White Paper set out conditions which they could expect to be observed upon independence. The conditions included maintenance of their terms and conditions of service, safeguarding of their pensions, the ability to retire prematurely, and the payment to them of compensation. The White Paper also renamed the Colonial Service as Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service, or HMOCS. A further White Paper of 1960 refined those arrangements.
There are some 700 members of HMOCS in Hong Kong. They have contributed enormously to the success of Hong Kong and many of them wish to continue in the service of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government after 30th June 1997. But, like their predecessors in other territories, they are concerned about their future and need to know how they will he treated. To give those officers a guarantee that their services would he welcomed by the future Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government, China and Britain agreed and the Joint Declaration makes it clear that, after 30th June 1997, foreign nationals could continue in the service of the SAR Government on terms and conditions of service no worse than before.
The Joint Declaration also provides that the pensions of all Hong Kong civil servants, which includes members of HMOCS and their dependants, would continue to he paid by the SAR Government. However, the Joint Declaration also provides that, after 30th June 1997, the top 20 to 30 posts in the Hong Kong public service should he held by Chinese nationals. Those members of HMOCS who stay on will not he able to aspire to those senior positions. The process of constitutional change will, therefore, inevitably limit their career prospects.
By 1989, Hong Kong HMOCS were pressing the British Government to give them the same package of benefits provided to their predecessors in other former dependent territories. Their representative body, the Hong Kong HMOCS Association, argued forcefully that its members were in the same position as their

1269
predecessors and that the British Government were honour bound to treat them in the same way. They were supported by the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association, known as OSPA. OSPA represents the interests of former members of HMOCS from Hong Kong and elsewhere.
After careful consideration, the British Government accepted the association's request for an HMOCS package of benefits. In formulating detailed proposals, we considered the arrangements made in 42 previous cases as well as the particular circumstances of Hong Kong. The package which we propose to implement reflects those considerations as well as the outcome of discussions with the two associations, and, of course, the Government's responsibility to balance the interests of Hong Kong HMOCS and those of British taxpayers.
Subject to Parliament's agreement, it is proposed that Hong Kong HMOCS members and pensioners should be offered the following benefits. HMOCS members would be allowed to retire before the resumption of sovereignty by China with immediate payment of pension. To enable the Governor to phase departures, officers would be allowed to retire prematurely between 1st July 1996 and 30th June 1997.
HMOCS members would be paid compensation for loss of the Secretary of State's protection and career prospects. The proposed compensation arrangements would be broadly similar to previous HMOCS compensation schemes. There would be a cap on compensation of £120,000 at 1992 prices and HMOCS members would be paid their compensation gross. The cost of any UK tax liability would be met directly by the British Government. The compensation arrangements would cost about £47 million at current prices.
HMOCS pensions will continue to be paid in Hong Kong dollars by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government after 30th June 1997. In line with the policy in the 1954 and 1960 White Papers, and subsequent practice, the British Government intend to provide Hong Kong HMOCS with pension protection. But, unlike previous cases, Her Majesty's Government have decided not to protect the full sterling value of Hong Kong HMOCS pensions at the date of change in sovereignty.
As Hong Kong HMOCS receive salaries which have a greater purchasing power than those of their predecessors and their British counterparts, the Government propose that their pensions be protected at a level broadly equivalent to the pensions received by officers in equivalent grades in the British public service. This principle of broad comparability underlies the proposed sterling pension safeguard scheme.
The British Government would not incur any significant liability under this particular scheme unless the Hong Kong dollar fell substantially in value. This is most unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future in view of Hong Kong's economic stability and the publicly stated commitment by both the Hong Kong authorities and the Chinese Government to maintain the linked exchange rate between the Hong Kong dollar and he US dollar. Copies of the proposed compensation
1270
schemes and the proposed sterling pension safeguard scheme were placed in the Libraries of both Houses before Second Reading in the House of Commons.
HMOCS officers who retire prematurely would be given financial help in finding re-employment or retraining. This help would be limited to £2,500 per officer, and subject to an overall cost ceiling of £750,000. The Chinese Government have been informed of the proposal to provide benefits to members of HMOCS in Hong Kong. They have accepted that this is a matter for the British Government.
An additional element of the package which does not depend on the Bill for its implementation is a proposed amendment to the regulations on supplementary pension for overseas service, known as SPOS. These regulations ensure that increases in all HMOCS pensions, and not just those of Hong Kong, keep pace with inflation in Britain. The regulations as applied to Hong Kong are complex and technical. But in essence what we propose is an amendment which would allow the payments under SPOS to take into account small reductions in the value of the Hong Kong dollar relative to sterling. This should provide real benefits to Hong Kong pensioners, particularly over the long term.
The HMOCS Association has accepted the package and has urged the Government to enact the Bill as soon as possible. OSPA also supports the Bill, but it has argued that the Government should propose a more generous pension safeguard scheme. We have considered carefully OSPA's arguments but we believe that our current proposal strikes a fair balance between the interests of HMOCS pensioners and British taxpayers.
In conclusion, I urge noble Lords, in considering the Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill, to bear in mind the contribution which HMOCS officers have made to Hong Kong, and the honourable record which the British Government have established in providing a reasonable package of benefits to HMOCS upon the ending of British sovereignty. It is only right that HMOCS officers in Hong Kong should receive benefits similar to those provided to their predecessors. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Cheshani.)
5.33 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, from these Benches I welcome the Bill. Indeed, the Labour Party is happy to accept it in its present form without amendment. The noble Lord, speaking for the Government, has made absolutely clear the need to provide a package of benefits for expatriates serving in the Hong Kong Civil Service and judiciary. As he said, there are around 700 men and women in the overseas service in Hong Kong who were recruited on pensionable terms before the Sino-British Joint Declaration. I wish to ask for clarification on one matter. The preamble to the Bill makes clear that there are about 500 officers and members of the judiciary who arc likely to benefit under the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3(1) of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain, when he replies to the

1271
debate, the difference between the figure of 700 he mentioned and the figure of 500 which appears in the preamble. However, we accept both the scheme for those who will retire prematurely and the second scheme for those who wish to continue after 30th June 1997 when Hong Kong is handed back to China and becomes a Special Administrative Region Government within China.
If I may say so, the Chinese Government will have the good fortune to inherit a civil service of the utmost integrity, untainted by the corruption which has become all too common in some other parts of the region. We on this side of the House are grateful to the Hong Kong Overseas Civil Service for the vital role it has played in recent years while Hong Kong has continued as a dependent territory. It has been of enormous—indeed crucial—importance in providing back-up and support to the joint liaison group in the difficult path to the transfer of sovereignty. I have no doubt that it will continue to play an important part in the remaining 18 months before the hand-over finally takes place. There are still many complex issues that require monitoring and negotiation, including the major infrastructure projects of the container port and the new airport.
When I was in Hong Kong a couple of years ago I met a number of expatriate and Hong Kong Chinese senior civil servants who gave up their time to brief me on a wide range of policy questions affecting Hong Kong at the time. I was enormously impressed by their expertise and their judgment in dealing with a variety of difficult policy problems. If I had any criticism at all, it was of their tendency—at least as I perceived it—to be unnecessarily cautious about some areas of public spending. Given Hong Kong's huge reserves, it seemed to me that more ought to have been spent to provide, for example, public housing of a higher quality and to improve educational provision. As regards poor standards of English—the subject of frequent lamenting in Hong Kong today—large classes in Hong Kong's primary and secondary schools can hardly help. There are many classes of between 40 and 50 pupils. A lack of government generosity in the provision of adult education can hardly help. either. However, those are hobby horses of mine which it would be wrong to pursue further today.
It would also be wrong to raise any of the important questions about which there is some uncertainty concerning the future of Hong Kong after July next year. This is Second Reading of a short, specific and rather technical Bill. I believe, however, it would be right to have a wide-ranging debate on Hong Kong some time in the next few months before we get too close to the hand-over period.
I understand that the Bill is acceptable to the Hong Kong Overseas Civil Service Association which is happy that it should go through in its existing form. Indeed, the noble Lord speaking for the Government assured the House that that was the case. As he made clear, the Bill is apparently in line with the 42 similar schemes introduced over the past 40 years in dependent territories when sovereignty has been handed over. It
1272
seems perfectly proper that Hong Kong civil servants should have the same treatment as those who have served elsewhere overseas.
We are also satisfied with the principle of broad comparability with officials at a similar level in the British public service, which I gather underlies the proposed sterling pension safeguard scheme. I hope very much that those overseas civil servants who decide to stay in Hong Kong after 1997 will be able to go on contributing to a system which adheres to the rule of law; which protects the freedom of the press; which remains uncorrupt; and which, as an administration, is publicly accountable for its actions. That is the system which these men and women have served and which they have worked hard to sustain. Let us hope that they can continue to maintain it after 1997. Without it, Hong Kong's prosperity could be jeopardised, and that is something the Chinese leadership in Beijing surely wishes to avoid.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Bill has broad support from all parties. However, there is an area that causes a degree of concern to the Hong Kong pensioners that could be rectified. The issue that I wish to discuss is whether the pensions of Her Majesty's overseas civil servants should be linked to sterling or to the Hong Kong dollar.
The question that springs to mind is why Hong Kong pensioners are being treated differently to those in other former colonies. Since 1960, 42 former dependent British territories have become independent. In almost every case the pensions payable to the overseas civil servants have been paid at a fixed rate of sterling exchange. That pension liability was then taken over by the British Government and paid in sterling. Therefore, civil servants returning to live in the United Kingdom, would be no worse off than their British-based equivalent.
For people facing retirement from Hong Kong in 1997, their pension will be subject to different arrangements: the sterling pensions safeguard scheme. Civil servants' pensions will continue to be paid in Hong Kong dollars after June 1997, but the full sterling value at the change of sovereignty will not be protected.
Calculation is made on the basis of the salary; in Hong Kong dollars in 1991 for the grade at which the civil servant retires, and divided by 21 to give the protected pension in sterling as at 1991. The amount is then up-rated in line with UK inflation since 1991, to give the protected pension figure, described as the notional pension. If at any point the sterling value of the pension falls below the value of the notional pension the Government will make up the shortfall.
If the Government argue, as they did in the other place, that it is unlikely that pensioners will suffer by having their pensions linked to Hong Kong dollars, there will be no extra cost to the Government or the British taxpayer if they are linked to sterling.
However, if, as many of the Hong Kong pensioners fear, there is a drastic fall in the value of the Hong Kong dollar after 1997, that situation will not be covered

1273
comprehensively by the Bill. The British taxpayer will make savings at the expense of the former civil servants. I hope that that reasoning does not form the basis of this provision in the Bill.
Furthermore, the Government have sought to limit their liability. The maximum contingent liability, based on the proposition that the Hong Kong dollar would be worthless in 1997, would be £130 million spread over 50 years. The liability would diminish rapidly with the passage of time and could be expected to halve within only eight years.
The fundamental provision of the proposed scheme is that all overseas pensions should be redetermined nationally on the basis of the officers' retirement post, converted into sterling by a divisor of 21, using an exchange rate of 21 Hong Kong dollars to the pound. If in the future, due to a fall in the sterling value of the Hong Kong dollar, a pensioner's monthly pension payment in sterling is less than his notional sterling pension, then the British Government will pay a balancing supplement.
There has been considerable concern among Hong Kong pensioners about the exchange rate figure of 21 Hong Kong dollars that has been chosen by the British Government. On 1st January 1992 the exchange rate was approximately 14.6 Hong Kong dollars to the pound, but using the exchange rate of 21 Hong Kong dollars to the pound a pensioner would receive only 69.5 per cent. of his pension in sterling. Can the Government explain why that nominal figure has been chosen? I suggest that the deal does not represent a fair balance between the interest of the pensioners and the British taxpayer.
This is a retrogressive scheme as the greatest protection is provided to the Hong Kong civil servants who are the most highly paid in relation to their UK counterparts. The level of protection decreases in line with the decline in the extent by which Hong Kong salaries exceed or are below the UK civil servant equivalent. Therefore, those whose pensions are lowest will have the difference made up the least, which is the opposite of the precept of fair play which the scheme is said to promote. The variation is 136 per cent. at the top end and 52 per cent. at the bottom end.
It would give the Hong Kong pensioners peace of mind if the Hong Kong dollar provision could be amended. The future of Hong Kong after reversion to China in 1997 could have unforeseen effects on the Hong Kong dollar and it would be unfortunate if the British Government were to leave former civil servants in a state of anxiety.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, as a former Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for Hong Kong and a former chairman of the All-Party Hong Kong Parliamentary Group, I am happy to support the Bill. However, I have two reservations which reflect the concerns of the Overseas Pensioners' Association (OSPA) and it is right that those concerns should be fully expressed.
1274
Fifty years ago Hong Kong's economy was in ruins. Hong Kong has achieved an economic miracle, as remarkable as that of any other country in the world. Two factors led to that miracle: the energy and skills of the people of Hong Kong; and, secondly, the rule of law, the absence of corruption, the fairness, integrity and wisdom of the administration of Hong Kong. The people responsible for that administration are those who are the subject of the Bill.
Hong Kong is executive-led in a way that other colonies were not as they approached independence. There is no period of ministerial government in Hong Kong preceding the transfer out of British sovereignty. Therefore, Parliament has an obligation to ensure that Hong Kong civil servants, police and judiciary, are fairly treated.
The second respect in which Hong Kong differs from other colonies is economic aid. Over the past 50 years Hong Kong has received no economic aid from the United Kingdom apart from some trivial sums after the Second World War. That situation was due to a large extent to the people who are concerned in the Bill: police, civil servants and the judiciary. Vast amounts of aid have been given to other former colonies. The UK has paid, as a form of aid, all the pensions of United Kingdom civil servants from most other ex-colonies. That point is worth bearing in mind as we consider the Bill.
The normal practice with other colonies approaching separation from the United Kingdom has been for a public officers' agreement to be signed which guaranteed maintenance of pensions of overseas service officers at a rate which reflected the official rate of exchange at or near the date of independence. In Hong Kong notional pensions are to be calculated from a base of notional salaries from 1st January 1992, five-and-a-half years before independence. The value of the pension is to be safeguarded only at a level of 21 Hong Kong dollars to the pound. That figure, to which the Hong Kong dollar has never sunk, has been chosen to bring Hong Kong pensions roughly in line with those of UK civil servants of broadly comparable grades.
It is the view of OSPA that it would be fairer to follow the precedent that was set for other countries. If the date of 1st January 1992 is to be taken as a base, why is the figure not 14.6, which was the rate of exchange for the Hong Kong dollar at that date?
If the reasoning behind those arrangements is that Hong Kong pensions are higher than those of UK civil servants, has that principle been applied to any other colony? If the pensions of those from any other colony have been below the level of UK civil servants' pensions, has the relevant public officers' agreement brought their pensions up to UK levels? OSPA believes that the divider of 21 is unfair, that the methodology for arriving at that figure is unsound, and that it will favour those who are most highly paid in relation to their British counterparts and disfavour those who receive less than their British counterparts.
My second reservation is as regards the choice as the base date of 1st January 1992. As my noble friend will he aware, this has adverse implications for those who

1275
retire after that date. The notional pension as at that date is increased only by the increase in the retail prices index in the United Kingdom, and not by the increase in the salary of the Hong Kong or United Kingdom officer. It is well known that salaries increase at a faster rate than the cost of living in general.
That is particularly relevant in the case of the Hong Kong police. I have a letter from a senior Hong Kong police officer who retired in July 1995, whose counterpart's salary increased by 22 per cent. between 1992 and 1995. The Hong Kong officer will lose the benefit of the increase received by his UK counterpart. Incidentally, that retired Hong Kong officer's pension will be safeguarded under the Government's plan at only 44 per cent. of its present level.
Therefore OSPA asks, and I ask, why was 1st January 1992 chosen? Why is it not a date in 1997, or even 1st July 1997? No doubt many calculations have to be made because of the many civil servants involved. But that must have been true for any colony as it approached independence. I understand that OSPA suggested that if the base date had to be 1st January 1992, the divider should be 14.6 which was the rate of exchange at that date.
I welcome the Bill, but I believe that the safeguard scheme needs further examination. I hope that my noble friend will consider what I have said, and that Ministers will be prepared to meet again with OSPA to see whether its concerns can be met.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, perhaps I should start by declaring that I have no financial interest in the Bill. Although I have had the privilege, and indeed the great pleasure, of serving with the Hong Kong Government for nine or more years in different capacities, my pension does not depend on the Hong Kong Government—more is the pity.
The Bill is an enabling measure. However, as I see it, it is an enabling measure in two parts. One has immediate effect once the Order in Council is brought in. The other is hypothetical and a contingency case. I should like to deal with those two separate aspects.
Hong Kong is immensely fortunate in its public service. It would be quite wrong to say that the dynamism of the territory—the extraordinary way in which it can seize any opportunity and not be fazed by problems which would completely destroy a different society—is simply due to the public service. It is due to the people of Hong Kong, but those people are operating within an environment created by the public service. Hong Kong owes a great deal to its public servants, whatever their particular nationality and from wherever they come.
I was in Hong Kong last week. I had not been there for some three and a half years. It was enormously impressive to see what is being achieved despite the political bickering in which China, Britain and Hong Kong are sometimes engaged and which is a sad diversion from the practical issues that have to be faced. To see a new airport literally rising out of the sea, a
1276
beautiful, remarkable new bridge almost complete—it will be one of the wonders of east Asia—roads, reclamation, and university development, which no doubt impressed the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is immensely encouraging. Again, those achievements are not due to the Hong Kong public service alone. They can be attributed to the energy, the dynamism and the positive attitude of the people of Hong Kong. However, Hong Kong's public service, which has continued to serve with a high degree of efficiency despite political uncertainties, has contributed in no small measure to that success.
It is perhaps invidious that we should be dealing with only one part of the public service, Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service, because the prosperity and success of Hong Kong has depended on all the Civil Service. However, we have a particular obligation to HMOCS. As the Minister said, there is no doubt that the civil servants' position is in some ways changed by the transfer of sovereignty and by the provisions of the Joint Declaration. They cannot rise to the top jobs in Hong Kong. It is right that we should make provision, as has been made in analogous circumstances in other territories.
It is good that the compensation arrangements are made in such a way that those who wish to stay on can do so. They are not obliged to retire before 1st July 1997. It is encouraging, too, that substantial numbers of members of HMOCS in Hong Kong are willing to stay on. To confuse matters, the figures that I have indicate that there are some 550 members of HMOCS in Hong Kong. Of those 250 have said that they wish to stay on; 150 are undecided; and 140 have said they will definitely leave. For that number to stay will he very much to the advantage of Hong Kong.
We have an obligation to the individuals in HMOCS. We have a strong obligation also to ensure that the new Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, is set up on 1st July 1997 in the best possible way. I believe that the provisions in the Bill for compensation and the arrangements to help those who leave to gain other jobs are good and, from my discussions in Hong Kong, much welcomed by members of HMOCS.
The second element of the Bill concerns the safeguarding of the sterling value of pensions of members of HMOCS in Hong Kong. Like all noble Lords who have spoken I believe that that contingency element is unlikely to arise. At present the Hong Kong dollar is strong against the UK currency. The Hong Kong dollar is tied to the US dollar. I do not see reason to believe that there will be a sudden crash in the value of the Hong Kong dollar. Nevertheless, many people fear that that might occur. In previous analogous circumstances, arrangements have been made to safeguard the sterling value of pensions. Therefore it is right that there should he arrangements for members of HMOCS in Hong Kong. But those arrangements should be fair, and accepted as fair by the people affected.
There can be no better suggestion than that of the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, who knows a great deal about Hong Kong and who has been a good friend of the

1277
colony at Westminster. It is not apparent to me that the arrangements now being considered—that is, a divider of 21 dollars to the pound—works out as being fair and an arrangement which would he broadly acceptable.
It is difficult to make comparisons between the Hong Kong Civil Service and the UK Civil Service. I have served in both, in Whitehall and in Hong Kong. I have immense respect for both civil services, but they are different. If one wanted a civil servant to write a brilliant submission, I should choose Whitehall. If one wanted a person to go out to deal with a typhoon, the arrival of millions of people at the border, or the development of a public housing system, a new airport or new universities, I should choose the Hong Kong Civil Service. One cannot compare the two. As the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, said, Hong Kong is different. A senior civil servant or what would be called in Hong Kong a secretary is equivalent to a Minister in this country and is in a front line position. It is therefore difficult to make comparisons.
The other difficulty is that if one chooses a divider like 21 dollars to the pound and tries to bring the guaranteed pension down to the level of the equivalent in the UK, there will be cases of hardship. I am sure that many Members of your Lordships' House will have received letters expressing anxiety. A person on a relatively low pension may find that the guarantee is at a very low level. I hope that we will not simply be guided by jealousy about the high salaries paid in Hong Kong nor by jealousy about the resulting high pensions. I hope that it will be possible to consider previous analogous cases in other dependent territories and to find a system which is nearer to what will be accepted as fair. I am conscious that for those who retired some years ago the Government would rightly say that they have benefited from windfall gains because they have had increases in pensions dependent on inflation in Hong Kong which has been much higher than inflation in the UK. However, I cannot believe that it is beyond he wit of man or those who devise such schemes to come up with a better way of dealing with the problem and perhaps a better divider along lines suggested by many of those involved.
I warmly welcome the Bill. I hope and trust that it will be enacted soon so that all those involved can be certain about their future and the Hong Kong Government can make the necessary arrangements for filling the places of those who leave. I also hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider the arguments put forward, both in your Lordships' House this evening and elsewhere, and will be prepared to look again at the precise way in which the sterling safeguard arrangement will work.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I wish to take a few moments in the gap to support the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Blaker and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn. I have been lucky enough to be associated in one way or another with Hong Kong since the early 1960s. I remember, when I was a journalist for the Economist, writing a survey in 1975 or 1976. I said
1278
specifically that the quality of civil servants in Hong Kong was in my opinion absolutely equal to the best in Whitehall.
Therefore, we are talking about people of enormous quality and calibre. We are also talking about people who have given great service to Hong Kong. We must remember that for several decades Hong Kong has been a place where much money has been made for the benefit of those making it but also for the benefit of the people of Hong Kong and the people of China.
It is worth remembering that, in comparison with the sums of money made by people in business in Hong Kong, the Civil Service has not been highly paid. Yet, so far as I am aware—and I am not talking about the unfortunate period involving the police—on the administrative side of the Civil Service the administration has been of the utmost integrity and of the highest quality. I hope that it would be unacceptable to your Lordships' House if this evening the Government were not prepared to say that they would consider some of the arguments put forward that the arrangements proposed in the Bill as drafted are not adequate to give total fairness or were not prepared to pay tribute to those who have served Hong Kong and Her Majesty's Government so magnificently for many years.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am pleased that the Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill has received a broad welcome from the House. It is essentially a non-political, technical, good housekeeping measure which recognises the British Government's responsibilities to the last serving members of HMOCS. I am sure that Hong Kong HMOCS officers and pensioners will appreciate the warm tributes that noble Lords paid to their commitment and contribution to Hong Kong over many years.
I was not surprised that the House focused on the detail of the package of benefits, rather than on the principle of providing Hong Kong HMOCS with a package in the first place. After all, we are not doing anything for Hong Kong HMOCS which was not done for their predecessors in many other former territories. I note that no speaker questioned whether such benefits should be provided at all and thus doubted the need for this piece of enabling legislation. All noble Lords recognised that this Bill is needed and must be implemented without delay.
Some noble Lords questioned certain aspects of the proposed package. It may be helpful if I say a little more about our approach to the benefits, in particular compensation and pension protection. I wish to answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. The figure of 700 is the number of HMOCS officers in Hong Kong when the Bill was drafted; 500 is the approximate number of officers who will not have reached the normal retirement age by 1st July 1997. They will therefore be eligible for compensation.
The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, mentioned compensation. We believe that officers who decide to stay on after 1997 should he compensated because

1279
HMOCS officers, whether they leave or stay on, will suffer a loss as a result of constitutional change. Even if they stay on, their promotion prospects will in most cases be seriously affected. Also, if compensation were offered only to those who left, it would encourage officers who might otherwise stay on to leave the service of Hong Kong. It would be bad if Hong Kong lost the benefit of their extensive knowledge and experience at this critical stage of the transition.
I come now to the sterling pension safeguard scheme on which a number of interesting points have been made. I understand why some noble Lords have sympathy with the case put forward by the OSPA, but it is important to look at the facts. Let me explain a little more about the proposed scheme and why the Government believe that it strikes a fair balance between the interests of HMOCS pensioners and British taxpayers.
At present Hong Kong pensions are paid by the Hong Kong Government in Hong Kong dollars. Pensioners who have retired to Britain are not paid their pensions in sterling. Neither the Hong Kong Government nor the British Government provide them with any guarantee of the sterling value of their pensions.
The Sino-British Joint Declaration provides solid guarantees on the continued payment of pensions by the autonomous Hong Kong authorities after 1997. Thus Hong Kong pensioners will be in exactly the same position after 1997 as they are at the moment. What we are therefore talking about is the British Government providing a pension protection scheme which does not exist at the moment. And we are not asking HMOCS pensioners to give up in exchange any increases in the sterling value of their pensions as a result of an appreciation in the value of the Hong Kong dollar.
My noble friend Lord Blaker spoke about similar treatment. Hong Kong pensioners are not in the same position as their predecessors. Their pensions are not paid on the basis of the fixed exchange rate with sterling; their pensions are, on average, far higher. The issue therefore was what additional protection over and above that which exists at the moment the British Government should provide for Hong Kong HMOCS pensioners.
As to why 1992 was taken as the marker date, that was when we first proposed the scheme. Because of Hong Kong's varying exchange rate, a fixed date had to be set in order to work out the contingent liability involved. Pensions linked to 1992 would be increased in line with UK inflation.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, unlike in other former British territories, the salaries of HMOCS in Hong Kong, and thus their pension levels, are on average far higher than those received by public servants in this country. Also, Hong Kong pensioners have received, and are likely to continue to receive, large pension increases awarded by the Hong Kong authorities. These increases are based on the rate of inflation in Hong Kong, which has for some years been over 8 per cent., and which of course has no relevance to the circumstances of pensioners who have retired to
1280
Britain. We therefore had to ask ourselves whether it would be fair to ask British taxpayers to protect the full sterling value of Hong Kong HMOCS pensions and any future pension increases.
Therefore, we have proposed an amendment to the SPOS regulations which would for the majority of HMOCS pensioners protect their pensions at 100 per cent. of the original sterling purchasing power, unless there was a severe fall in the value of the Hong Kong dollar. Over time, this amendment will provide real benefits to Hong Kong pensioners.
Against that background, we concluded that the British Government should not guarantee the full sterling value of Hong Kong HMOCS pensions, and that we should provide a protection scheme which would act as a safety net in the most unlikely circumstances of a severe decline in the value of the Hong Kong dollar. We considered various options for this scheme. We looked, for example, at protecting a percentage of the original sterling purchasing power of HMOCS pensions. But we decided that this would not be fair to pensioners who had retired from Hong Kong when the Hong Kong dollar was weak. We also looked at protecting a percentage of the current sterling value of pensions, but rejected this as the potential liability would depend on future pension increases awarded by Hong Kong over which we have no control.
In the end we settled on a scheme based on comparability. The operations of the scheme are complex. But the intention is to set sterling pension protection for Hong Kong HMOCS at a level broadly comparable to the pensions received by officers in equivalent grades in the Home Civil Service. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, it is on broad comparability. There cannot be specific ones.
I know that OSPA has criticised certain technical aspects of our approach, such as the grade comparison used to determine comparability. But the fact is that the exercise was, if anything, generous to Hong Kong HMOCS. For example, some of the grade comparisons were favourable to Hong Kong officers and pensioners, and we did not take account of Hong Kong pension earning rates which are, on average, about 20 per cent. higher than those of their British counterparts.
OSPA has pointed out that under our scheme the protected pensions of some Hong Kong pensioners would be less than the pensions received by their British counterparts. The fact is that over 75 per cent. of Hong Kong serving officers and pensioners would have their pension protected at a level higher than their counterparts in this country, and indeed higher than the pensions received by pensioners from other former dependent territories. In my view, our proposed scheme, taken together with the SPOS amendment is not ungenerous.
There are two other proposals in the Bill, to allow officers to take early retirement and to receive some help in finding new employment. We are not proposing anything extra for Hong Kong HMOCS. Their predecessors were allowed to retire prematurely, and it is understandable that some members of HMOCS in Hong Kong would not wish to continue in service when

1281
British sovereignty over the territory comes to an end. We have proposed that HMOCS officers who take premature retirement should be given some help, possibly by a consultant, to find new employment, and that the British Government should make a cash-limited contribution to the costs involved.
The Governor of Hong Kong cannot allow members of HMOCS to take premature retirement until the legislation and one of the Orders in Council are in place. Officers have been told that the intention is to allow them to retire from 1st July 1996 in order to phase departures before the transfer of sovereignty on 1st July 1997. The HMOCS Association, which is aware of the urgency attached to the Bill, supports its proposals and its early enactment. I commend it to noble Lords in the hope that it can complete its passage through this House as quickly as possible.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Abnormal Loads On Motorways
6.16 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley Lord Mason of Barnsley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to reduce the problems caused by daytime movements of abnormal loads on motorways.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raise this Question to ask the Government what are the prospects of the Government, in co-operation with the police and the Freight Transport Association, agreeing to ban the movements of abnormal and wide loads on roads during the day; and whether they should be escorted by the police or private escort companies. Consideration might also be given to whether a set of public national guidelines should be laid down governing abnormal load movements on the roads.
We are all aware of some of the problems. Abnormal loads under police supervision reduce three-lane motorways down to two. The result is miles of tailbacks, frustration, impatience, bumper accidents, road rage and the ruination of schedules—all caused by abnormal loads. We see giant pieces of machinery on transporters—even army tank transporters—being moved on the motorway at five o'clock in the evening. Even during the course of a working weekday, havoc can he created over long stretches of main roads. Undoubtedly also, though not so important, caravans on the move on coastal roads are not only a major frustration to holidaymakers but cause accidents through impatience and ruin holidays as well.
Worse still are abnormal indivisible loads. I refer to loads which cannot, without undue expense or risk of damage, be divided into two or more loads for the purpose of carriage on the roads. They travel under escort at 15 to 20 miles an hour. One police officer has said that the sheer number of abnormal loads currently being escorted on a daily basis across Great Britain makes for an inefficient and costly system. It affects the police service, the haulage industry and the consigners of loads, and a large part of the country at the same time.
In one year, 1,781 abnormal loads were escorted by the police in South Yorkshire alone. A survey of 16 forces over a nine-year period showed that notifications of abnormal load movements increased by 12 per cent. That is typical of the national trend. The burden on the police is significantly increasing, and the frustration of road users, especially in commerce and business, is rising accordingly.
How and when an abnormal load can he moved varies from force to force. Before an abnormal load can be moved it necessitates two working days' notice, giving time, date and route, dimensions length and width, and the chief officer of police may vary the timings in the interests of road safety and to avoid undue traffic congestion. I can tell your Lordships from experience that that cannot be avoided on the MI during the day. Above all, there does not appear to be a national policy on the movement of these loads that covers all divisional forces.
What is of concern in the police service is the possibility of the national privatisation of these operations. Studies have taken place between the police and the Home Office in regard to the privatisation, civilianisation and rationalisation of many key traffic policy functions. Some are still under consideration; others are gradually being introduced. What is of major concern and crucial importance is the safety and security of the movement of abnormal loads.
The Freight Transport Association has let it be known that policing, particularly on high-speed roads, calls for special skills and sophisticated equipment. It says that the job must be left entirely in the hands of the police—with which view I concur—and that it would be folly to abandon it. Naturally, operators do not like paying for escorts, but prefer to pay for the security and safety of a police escort than a private sector service. I believe that there should be more open, acceptable liaison hetween the different divisional forces on motorways. The Freight Transport Association suggests that it is questionable whether six forces sharing the policing of the 120 miles of the M25, or 12 forces patrolling different sections of the Al between London and Scotland, make for the best use of resources.
Is not some privatisation going on already? In North Wales road hauliers are being told to provide their own escorts. In such cases, what is the view of the Home Office as to the supervision of private firms, whether they be Group 4, Securicor or individual firms? What of the safety and security of loads? Under what special proviso can a private haulier move an abnormal load on the M1? Will not the police still have to travel with private escorts to ensure the safety of the public? Will not the routeing, authorisation and administration still be in the hands of the police? Does not all of this suggest that these operations should remain in the hands of the police? Given their powers of arrest, if the police were not involved, hijackers and roadway robbers would have a field day. It would be a godsend to the criminal fraternity.
On the 21st February 1995 the Minister the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said in a Written Answer at column 64:

1283
"A Police Community Liaison Committee has suggested that the movement of abnormal loads on motorways should be limited to night time only, and a few similar letters have been received from members of the public."
What are the prospects of a nationally recognised policy on abnormal load movements at night only with police escorts, recognising that the costs incurred by police are wholly covered by the companies concerned? I believe that the majority of hauliers would accept movements at night as national policy, with all forces complying with national guidelines. I believe that the Police Federation agrees in principle. The Association of Chief Police Officers believes it to be the logical next step. I believe that the motorist would be delighted.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mason, for putting down this interesting and somewhat intriguing Question. I am sure the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not share the criticism in his earlier remarks. My researches and knowledge of the problem of abnormal loads do not suggest to me quite the difficulties that he mentioned in the earlier part of his remarks—miles of tailbacks, frustration, road rage, accidents, and so on. There is no record of any extreme abnormality under any of the headings that he mentioned.
The noble Lord fails to remind your Lordships that under the Authorisation of Special Types (General) Order 1979 it is incumbent upon hauliers to give notice of any abnormal loads to be transported by road. It is then for the chief constables of police authorities to determine which loads shall be escorted. My understanding is that some 150,000 escorted movements are carried out on motorways and urban roadways in the course of a year out of approximately 1,350,000 notifiable movements. From that, we can see that only a small number of the notifiable movements have to be escorted.
I do not believe that there is any question as to the police abrogating this responsibility. The police responsibility in this matter is an historical one. There is no law which says that the police should undertake these tasks. In some cases, due to pressure on resources, various police authorities now take a different view. I have no doubt that my noble friend the Minister will tell us the exact position. In any event, whoever does the job at the moment, whether loads are escorted or not, the police authorities determine and control all details of movements: whether they be by day or by night, the speeds, the times, and upon which days. It is exceptional for hauliers to pay for this service. I understand that there is an exception in the case of Siemens and National Power in relation to the transportation of generating plant from Avonmouth to Didcot. My honourable friend the Minister for Transport in another place gave an Answer to this question on 24th November. Whatever arrangements National Power and Siemens came to with regard to payment, it would be interesting for the House to know whether that money
1284
accrued to the police authorities involved in the escort duties or fell into the bottomless pit known as the Treasury.
I believe that the Association of Chief Police Officers carried out an experiment in respect of escort duties. I understand from the Freight Transport Association that the experiment was successful. It tested the ability of a private contractor with the use of a non-police vehicle to carry out a movement from the north of England to the south coast. For that purpose, both motorways and inter-urban motorways were used. There is no difficulty provided that escorting companies or persons are properly trained. Essentially, there is no policing obligation here. It is a matter of escort duties. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davies, shakes his head. No doubt a little later he will give his views. If there were to be an accident both the escorting body, whether it be the police or anybody else, would be obliged to call upon the police to deal with it.
Lord Clinton-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does it not occur to the noble Lord that sometimes it is very difficult to distinguish between simple escort duties and the prevention of crime? Does he appreciate that particularly the large convoys can constitute very vulnerable targets for villains? Therefore, it is important to have the police at hand, not miles away. They are capable of coming to arrest any miscreant.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am sure that that is a point which the noble Lord might have brought up in his response, but we are time limited. Frankly, I do not see the connection. An escorting body on the motorway does not preclude the police from discharging their ordinary policing functions on the motorway. We are not talking here about crime but about escorting abnormal loads. That is the subject of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Mason. We are not talking about crime as such.
I understand that the Home Office has produced a report, following a review of traffic policy, from which I quote:
"The work being taken forward with ACPO aims to encourage the unescorted movement of abnormal loads at night-time on motorways and linking dual carriageways and the private escorting of such loads on those roads during the daytime".
Consultants have been appointed to undertake a review of the kind of skills, qualities, and so on, that would be required of a private body.
That issue has been broached with the road haulage industry and its views have been made clear. The haulage industry would prefer—as most of us might well prefer—the police to undertake those duties. But police resources are scarce. I would sooner the police went about their business of catching criminals and wrongdoers than have them undertake escort duties which could be carried out by somebody else.
I should be quite happy if we could find a method by which the haulage industry could pay for the police to undertake those duties and have the money retained in the police authorities, so that they could perhaps recruit their own motorway escorting police service. Perhaps

1285
my noble friend can tell me whether or not that is possible. If it is not, we should resort to using other services, which are properly trained, properly monitored and which abide by the guidance given by chief constables under the provisions of the order to which I referred.
I should like to ask my noble friend some questions and I shall understand if he is not able to give a full answer to them this evening, but perhaps he will let me know in due course. How far advanced is the work of the review body? In the event of private escorting, will arty primary or secondary legislation be required? Further, how will the fee structure, whether it is in the private domain or through the police, be constructed and by whom? I have mentioned the escort duties remaining with the police and the charging system. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to answer those questions.
My final question is perhaps not germane to the noble Lord's Question but is, I think, germane to the general subject of police and traffic. Can my noble friend tell me whether the review has dealt with any further police tasks concerned with vehicles and traffic? Are there any further tasks contemplated, and in what area?
6.35 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, for tabling this Question for debate. It might not appear to be of earth-shattering importance to many in your Lordships' House, but it is to the motorist, who is undoubtedly affected by such loads and to those who are involved in or with the heavy haulage industry.
Before saying anything of substance, I should remind your Lordships of my interest. I am president of the Heavy Transport Association; I own a Thornycroft Antar that can operate only under a special types order; and, finally, my Territorial Army unit has a transporter operating under special types rules.
The whole question is that of striking the right balance between the interests of industry that needs to be able to move the loads, the safety and convenience of the ordinary motorist, which are largely looked after by the police, and finally the bridge and highways authorities.
I start with the need to move the loads. The need revolves around economy of size. A large generator is more efficient than a small one, as is a large piece of construction equipment. The cost and inconvenience of moving a large piece of equipment usually pales into insignificance compared with the efficiency savings that come from using such a large piece of equipment. It should not be forgotten that the vehicles used for carrying abnormal loads are taxed at the rate of £5,000 per annum. That goes some way toward paying for the police escort, though not—I accept—all the way.
We are still a world player in the heavy engineering industry, but the product still has to be moved to a port for export. I repeat the word "export" and remind your Lordships how significant that can be for foreign exchange and job security in areas of traditionally high unemployment.
1286
The noble Lord addressed the problem of the inconvenience to the ordinary motorist and the need to avoid accidents. Those matters are in the hands of the police, as was so well explained by the noble Lord. The police have the power to vary the time of the move and to decide whether they need to escort the load. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, there is no legislative requirement for them to escort it and one can escort it oneself. In general, abnormal loads are not allowed to move during rush hour. But a major question is whether they should be allowed to move at night. For many years, the Metropolitan Police encouraged moves between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. and all day Sunday. However, it is only recently that other police forces have allowed night moves on motorways and dual carriageways. During a night move, the load is lit up like a Christmas tree.
The road conditions within each constabulary vary enormously. For instance, Norfolk has few good roads and no motorways, whereas in the industrial heartlands of the country there are very good roads. Therefore, it is not surprising that all the constabularies have differing policies. Sometimes, they are too rigidly applied. without technical consideration. The problem of night moves is one of them. I have to advise the House that in general the heavy haulage industry is well pleased with the service provided by the police.
There is one area where there is still some police dogmatism; namely, running at night. The noble Lord, Lord Mason, suggested that approach as a means of reducing congestion. I wholeheartedly support him. We are talking only about a load on motorways and dual carriageways, with or without an escort, be it private, police or the haulier himself.
I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Mason, said. It makes a lot of sense to me. I do not propose to deal in any detail with the matter of private escorts. I must say that it is a very difficult subject, with the pros and cons very finely balanced. It seems to me that all concerned—the police, the heavy hauliers and the trade associations—are ambivalent about it. But I should like to make some observations on this issue.
First, only the police should be allowed to stop the traffic, whether for the purpose of escorting an abnormal load or for making multi-agency checks on goods vehicles. Secondly, private escorting is only suitable for motorways and linked dual carriageways without roundabouts. Where roundabouts occur, one must involve the police in order to stop the traffic from entering the roundabout. Thirdly, if we decide to go towards private escorting, we must not create a monopoly; the contract must not be given only to the AA or to the RAC. I am pleased that the Government did not adopt that route with the Transport Research Laboratory; they gave the contract to the laboratory itself. I suggest also that we leave the option open to the heavy hauliers to escort their own loads.
One problem on the motorway to which I should draw your Lordships' attention is that sometimes the load has to be moved into the middle of the carriageway. Bearing in mind the speed at which the traffic moves on

1287
motorways, one is likely to need a police escort in that situation; only the police have the skill and ability to interfere with traffic to that extent.
The movement of abnormal loads outside of the Construction and Use Regulations (C & U) and under 150 tonnes, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, is permitted by the Authorisation of Special Types (General) Order 1979, referred to as STGO. The STGO is designed to cover the vast majority of—dare I say it?—ordinary, abnormal loads. It is of a permissive nature and if the driver of an abnormal load breaks one of the conditions of the order, even very slightly, he can be prosecuted for C & U offences. In other words, he loses the protection of the STGO. For example, if he was running at 76 tonnes gross train weight and there was an error in the paperwork, he could be prosecuted for being 100 per cent. overloaded. The courts' sentencing policy is not consistent and the outcome is often a lottery.
A serious anomaly has developed regarding the maximum weight and notice requirements. When the original order was laid in 1979, the maximum weight under C & U was 32 tonnes. That was increased to 38 tonnes and was recognised in an amendment to STGO. However, operation at 44 tonnes is now permitted for inter-modal work under C & U. No notice is required to any authority. The anomaly is that an operator who needs to carry an abnormal load at 39 tonnes gross weight has to notify all and sundry, whereas the inter-modal operator does not.
I am reliably informed that a six-axle 46-tonne artic operating under category one of STGO causes no more stress on the road structures than does a 44-tonner on inter-modal work. Allowing 44 tonnes for abnormal loads under C & U is not recommended as it will be the thin end of the wedge for even higher weights for general construction and use, which I cannot support. Thirty-eight tonnes is quite sufficient. There are other technical difficulties with the current STGO but I do not propose to test your Lordships' patience by going through them. I therefore ask the Minister whether he intends to draft and lay a revised STGO before Parliament which will address those well-known problems.
I mentioned the role of the bridge and highways authorities. They include British Waterways, Railtrack, BR Property Board, London Underground and the local councils. They have the power to reroute abnormal loads to avoid going over weak bridges. Unfortunately, the council highways authorities do not appear to have a realistic attitude to routeing. The staff involved do not appear to have sufficient technical knowledge for their responsibilities. But there is no easy solution to the problem. Theoretically the councils should be in an ideal position to deal with these matters because they have local knowledge.
There is another problem which is similar, but more wide-ranging. I mentioned the importance of the heavy engineering industry. Most of the output needs to go to an east-coast port such as Imingham and thence to Rotterdam which then gives access to anywhere in the world at economical rates. Very heavy electrical
1288
equipment has to be delivered to power stations around the country. Other very large pieces have to be moved around the country. Most of those moves have to be authorised by the Secretary of State.
In the past the Department of Transport tried to maintain a network of high and heavy load routes, but it is not easy and there is no legal duty to do so. Another problem is that the department is not in a good position to persuade a highways or bridge authority to accept a load on their structures. Therefore the local authorities can ignore the department's and industry's national considerations and adopt a NIMBY attitude. So the question I ask the Minister is: what is the policy regarding high and heavy load route networks?
Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, for introducing this matter for debate and look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, on introducing this debate. I want to talk this evening about trains on the road. This is part of the overall problem of abnormal loads. But it is particularly aggravating and irritating to motorists to see trains being delivered on the road, mainly because it is unnecessary. As a general principle, trains should go by rail.
I must declare an interest in relation to my connection with Eurotunnel. Eurotunnel had a large number of shuttle locomotives delivered by road from the Midlands to the Channel Tunnel, sometimes to the port and sometimes to the tunnel. They were of too big a gauge to travel on British Rail lines and possibly the company may be excused for doing that.
I was responsible for ordering two coaches which were condemned. They were being delivered from Yorkshire to Folkestone, and it was interesting to note that when they arrived they were at that time the newest coaches in the whole of the Kent network. That was before the latest delivery, but at that time they had already been scrapped elsewhere when the Kent network owned nothing beyond a Mark One.
Obviously some large loads need to go by motorway; but why trains? Some preserved railway trains need to be taken by road because they are not suitable for rail. But many steam specials travel on the railways these days and trains involved in accidents sometimes need to go for repair. The most apt example, which happens quite frequently, is the InterCity Great Western 125 high speed trains which are based in Plymouth and are sent regularly to Crewe for overhaul of their engines. They go by road. They are capable of travel by rail when they are hauling coaches, but somehow, when they are on their own—perhaps they are lonely—they have to go by road. It normally takes two-and-a-half days. I gather that a police escort is usually involved. It is incredible that a 50 year-old coal-fired steam train is safe on the railway, but a modern diesel locomotive that hauls passengers most of the time is deemed unsafe.
There are two reasons for the carriage of trains on the road. The first is safety and the second is cost. In the new semi-privatised railway all operators are charged

1289
for all movements. They need to find a locomotive; a driver with route knowledge (it does not only apply to taxis); and a special contract needs to be drawn up between the operator and Railtrack.
Safety on the railway is of vital importance, but it must be affordable safety. We are in danger of forgetting that safety is meant to be in the interests of the passengers rather than in the interests of the operator protecting himself or herself from claims.
The principle now is that all trains must have a safety case before they can operate. That is obviously very important, but how safe should they he? Should they be safer than by road and accidents caused by heavy load movements? Shall we say, affordable safety? This month Modern Railways devotes several pages to safety cases under the headline "— storm imminent". I believe that that sums it up. Several years ago Railtrack, or its predecessor, had to apply for a safety case for the electrification of the Tonbridge-Redhill line in order to demonstrate that third-rail electrification was safe. The third-rail has probably been around for 60 years or more, so why did they have to make another case to demonstrate that it was safe?
There are three types of trains awaiting a safety case in which we all want to travel—that is to say, North Kent and Great Northern; the Regional Railway's 323s between Manchester and Liverpool and, of course, the Royal Mail multiple unit trains. They all have something in common: they are all awaiting safety certificates to enable them to operate. Some of them have had to submit 1,000 pages or more of paper work and most of the cases have cost half a million pounds. It can take a year to obtain a certificate, which is a year's loss of revenue. That compares with several days for an application to take a train on the road, which probably explains why that is happening. We are getting very close to a system where safety is becoming impossible to achieve. It is safer to close the system because then one has 100 per cent. safety: one cannot have an accident if nothing is running.
That is probably London Underground's argument to justify closing the Northern and Bakerloo Lines across the Thames, which they recently announced. It is certainly safer for the operator, but is it safer for the passenger? In the very unlikely event of a flood in the Underground, is the risk of being killed greater than that of being killed by a road vehicle while walking across a Thames bridge because the Underground is closed? I believe that the same applies to trains being taken by road. Does the operator have to give the police a year's notice, spend half a million pounds on a 1,000 page safety case for each journey and each load, in order to prove that the load is safe? We have heard the answer tonight from several noble Lords, and that is no. Two days are needed and at the moment it appears to be free.
If my two condemned coaches which were delivered from Rotherham to Folkestone were unsafe on the railway system, why should they be safe on the roads? It must be roughly the same low risk of something falling off and injuring another traveller, whichever way one goes. Does the road operator have to pay the full cost of delay to the other motorway users and the full
1290
cost of police escorts? I believe that the answer is no. The difference is that we, the road users and taxpayers, have no choice and have to carry the road costs and the risks of accidents, whereas on rail, the corporate operator, he it Railtrack, London Underground or one of the many train operators, have lawyers who tell them that it is better not to operate the system at all than risk anything happening, however remote. It would be equally logical, but also equally ridiculous, to suggest closing the motorways to avoid accidents because one would not have any accidents if the motorways were closed. But that is where this blinkered approach to safety is leading and I repeat, "storm imminent".
In conclusion, at a time when the Government are actually encouraging freight from road to rail, the regular carriage of trains and locomotives on the motorways must be one of the most bizarre examples of the consequences of this policy. I really urge the Government to institute an urgent review of this rather ridiculous situation.
6.53 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, for introducing this very interesting subject. I shall briefly comment on some of the points that have been made by previous speakers and that, hopefully, will help me cut down on the list of points that I intended to make.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, was extremely convincing when he referred to the lack of a national policy for determining how these loads should he managed while they are on the network. It was an extremely interesting point and I hope that the Minister will respond to it. I also agree with noble Lords who said that it would be sensible to try to ensure that these very heavy loads are carried at night. As the road system becomes fuller it is right that the Government are no longer prepared to build their way out of this particular problem, on the ground that they never could.
There is, therefore, a greater need to manage the traffic on the roads. That means rationing the road space at certain times for certain kinds of users. Given the incredibly rapid and damaging effect that any hold-up can cause not only on the motorway system but on the surrounding network—and we have only to look at what happened as a result of the first lot of snow and how that ricocheted back from Kent into Surrey, causing enormous damage to people's schedules with whole nights wasted sitting in motorway cafes and so on—we see how useful it will be if we can separate the use of the motorways by these abnormal loads from use by other traffic, such as rush hour, business and daily traffic. That is an excellent approach and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond in a positive way on that matter.
I disagree with the suggestion made, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. In common with other speakers, I believe that it is important for the police to he in charge of abnormal loads. It is not so much to stop crime being committed—although I can see that for certain loads that might be important—but that in the

1291
event of an accident one of the emergency services is already present at the scene. That is an enormous advantage in this particular case. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that point. It is idiotic to have to call an emergency service if there is an accident whereas if the police continue to escort these very big loads they are already there.
I do not believe that anyone would deny that the passage of abnormally large loads has to be done by road. Generally, they cannot be taken by rail because of the size of bridges and so on. I am not in any doubt that this type of movement has to be carried out. However, if it is an important economic matter, the question of payment arises, and I shall return to that in a moment or two after I have commented on the delightful suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who should know; namely, that, on the whole, railway carriages should travel by rail. I thought that that was a point of such absolute simplicity that it has great virtue. I was reminded of songs about porters and not being able to get to Crewe, which he particularly mentioned. That is still one of the major rail junctions in the whole of England. I am sure that the noble Lord is right on that particular point.
The last point I wish to pick up from previous speakers is the incompetence of local authorities. I do not know whether noble Lords could see my hackles rise at that point. I ask the Minister whether he has any evidence whatsoever that local authorities are not carrying out their responsibilities as regards heavy loads. I am sure that I do not need to remind him that for loads of 38 tonnes and over, transporters have to apply to the local authority. They have to be consulted about the route and they are normally consulted by the police when the load is particularly large and its transportation has to be organised by the police rather than by the local authority. I hope that I am right in thinking that highway authorities are more than competent and do know where their weak and strong bridges are and where there are narrow overhead railway bridges.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, has the noble Baroness ever actually applied to a local authority to move an abnormal load?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, no, I have not. That is why I asked the noble Earl to respond in that way. I am interested to know what people's experience has been. If there are any statistics on that, I hope that they are in the noble Earl's department because I do not have such statistics at my beck and call.
If, as I understand it, the suggestion has been made that at some future date abnormal loads might be accompanied by non-police personnel, I think that that raises extremely important considerations, some of which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mason. It is a question of whether it is desirable to have such accident-prone operations always accompanied by a police presence. I believe that it is. However, if the police are not conducting such loads along the motorway but are still responsible, as I understand might be the case, for conducting them on non-motorway and
1292
non-dual carriageway roads, a particular difficulty ensues. There will have to be a changeover of escort, but where will it take place? Will we have to provide a space at the junctions of motorways with non-motorway roads so that those huge loads can stop for half an hour while one escort goes off and the other escort checks on? That does not seem an intelligent way of conducting highways business. After all, this is a highways matter that will impact greatly on congestion.
I understand that the cost of escorting heavy loads is about £7 million per year. However, I must point out that escorted loads are the exception rather than the rule. Like other noble Lords, I have been in contact today with the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association, both of which are on the record as saying that, if payment has to be made, they would rather pay the police to do the job properly than pay a non-police escort to do the job less effectively. Obviously, they would prefer not to have to pay. We would all prefer not to have to pay for the demands that we make on society, but that is just human nature. Nevertheless, those associations recognise that there is a problem for the police who are overloaded with other duties, and they value the fact that the "flashing blue light", as they put it, exercises a great deal more discipline on the roadway than the flashing orange light. People will stop for the police in a way that they would not stop for others. If a heavy load has to go round a roundabout the wrong way, all the streams of traffic approaching that roundabout have to be stopped while the heavy load is manoeuvred. Like those associations, I do not believe that any group of people, except the police, is competent enough or powerful enough to be able to stop four or five streams of traffic while a heavy load negotiates a roundabout. That is why, if they have to pay, those organisations would rather pay the police to do the job.
Perhaps I may pick up a point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I think that it would he an excellent idea if the police could retain that charge in their own budgets without having an equivalent amount subtracted from their budgets by the Home Office. That brings me to a much wider point. It is perhaps a little unfair to inflict this on the noble Earl because it is not exactly his cup of tea or departmental responsibility. I refer to the fact that all the emergency services, particularly the fire brigade and the police, are now being asked to do things which are outside their compulsory statutory duties or which arc on the borderline of those duties. Although the services can charge for carrying out such duties, the moral context in which they operate says that they cannot make a charge. It is time that we all grew up a little bit and recognised that if someone performs an exceptional service for us, it is reasonable to make a small payment in recompense for that assistance.
Finally, I should like to ask whether this approach to privatising—I do not want to use that word, so perhaps I should say "de-professionalising"—the service—
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, it is not that.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I think that it is. We are talking about removing certain duties

1293
from the police force. Is that part of a whole process whereby a series of activities will be removed from the purlieu of the police? If so, it is an extremely dangerous process.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley for initiating this important debate. Many interesting points have been made. I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when he suggested that motorists are not inconvenienced or delayed because of abnormal loads. That view is not consistent with the experience of many of us.
A number of fascinating points have been raised in the debate. I refer not least to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who, as the noble Baroness said, asked the interesting question: why should trains go on roads when as a general principle, they should travel on rails? That is a new development and may be another aspect of the privatisation of the railways that we have not encountered previously. Perhaps we shall see more and more trains on the road network of this country. It is an interesting point. I do not think that John Betjeman ever referred to that, although it might have led to some interesting poetry.
My noble friend presented his case with customary skill and raised a number of important issues. He touched on the question of crime. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, could not have been listening at that point. A related element is the question of accidents, which was raised by the noble Baroness. We are now dealing with an issue which is essentially within the domain of the Home Office rather than the Department of Transport; but since the issue has been raised, we must deal with it. I believe that abnormal loads, particularly the mega-abnormal loads to which I shall refer in a moment, are very vulnerable to crime and accidents. As has been said, we need to have the emergency services available to deal with such matters. The presence of the police can be a deterrent to crime—and that is not unimportant.
I have mentioned "mega-abnormal" loads because it is hopelessly inadequate to talk merely of "abnormal" loads and long vehicles with wide loads. There has been a relatively new development during the past 12 or even six months. A number of mega-abnormal loads have been arriving, and will doubtless continue to arrive, on our road networks. Last November we had the first of 20 massive cargoes of 300-ft. convoys, with two units pulling and one steering from the rear. They used—perhaps I should say "engulfed"—two lanes of motorway and crawled to their destination at 10 miles per hour which went down to three miles per hour when they proceeded uphill. That was only the first of those mega-abnormal loads which travelled from Avonmouth to Didcot carrying parts for a new gas power station. With loads of that size it is self-evident that havoc could ensue if anything went wrong. Consequently to avoid any such chaos, one is heavily dependent on the skill and expertise of the escorting service which, in my submission, should most certainly be the police.
1294
The cost of policing has also been mentioned. Who is responsible for the cost of policing abnormal loads? There seems to be a sort of voluntary arrangement. Should not there be some national policy, as my noble friend asked, because inconsistency of this kind is profoundly unsatisfactory. What is the cost of policing such loads? I believe that the noble Baroness said £ million, but that is not a satisfactory figure, for the reason I have just given. What is the cost of advertising campaigns warning of such loads? Does not some special recorded telephone service have to be provided in these circumstances which can take 2,000 telephone calls separately? Who pays for all that? What is wrong with transferring the cost to the road haulier?
That suggestion was something that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, effectively went along with. He said that if there were a method of doing that, it is self evidently right that it should be done. I agree entirely with what was said about costing and hypothecation. It makes eminent sense. After all, it is not totally unusual. Football clubs have to pay for the cost of policing inside the football ground, and rightly so. There are other similar areas. I do not wish to go into them now. So it is not an unprecedented way of dealing with the situation.
I am satisfied that efforts are made to minimise inconvenience, but the questions about future policy raised by my noble friend need answering. A number of comments were made about the Home Office review and the question of deregulation. Clearly the Government seem to be stopping short of outright privatisation so far as concerns police forces; but the handling of abnormal loads seems to be a matter that is ripe for a form of privatisation, according to the Government. For reasons I have already given, I believe that it is wrong. It is not the way to deter crime. It may show that the Government are, after all, on the side of the villains. I thought that was what Mr. Heseltine said in one of his more deranged moments over the weekend, but he was not referring to the Government at the time. He does have deranged moments for those of us who remember his waving of the Mace. It is not altogether consistent with sanity. I seem to have upset the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. I am unhappy about that, because I we lcome her back. I like her very much.
The duty to tackle not just accidents and crime but pollution is important. It may well be that these are loads which give rise to pollution. The fact that the police are on the spot is important. The Police Federation is somewhat ambivalent over the matter, but I suspect that it is ambivalent because of the question of cost, with some justification. If we could get rid of that problem, the Government would he off the hook of their obsession with regulation. In fact, they can find a way through the cost difficulties.
Is it right that the Government are talking about escorting drivers within the private sector merely being in possession of full licences for three years? I want to know what criteria will govern the fitness of those whom they might have in mind in terms of recruitment from the private sector. That in my judgment—I have seen it reported in the press—would be hopelessly inadequate. When dealing with abnormal loads and, in particular, mega-abnormal loads, it is surely necessary

1295
to recruit qualified people who can deal with any emergency. Those matters require training and equipment. I believe that the police, and only the police, are capable of doing that.
Is the Minister aware that, as my noble friend said, in North Wales, hauliers have estimated that it would need three men to take a 12-ft. wide load—a lorry driver, a statutory second man, who would be required on a journey through other police areas, and a private escort—on its journey? Is he aware that it has been submitted that that could add 25 per cent. to delivery costs? Does he agree with that or not? Do the Government appreciate that there are profound concerns about wide loads being carried in areas other than on motorways, as the noble Baroness has just said? That gives rise to deep concerns on the part of people who live in such areas.
Perhaps I may return—I had forgotten this point—to private security firms, which seem to be the candidates for selection by the Government. Private security firms are burgeoning. Apparently about 162,000 people are employed by private security firms. That is roughly the present size of the police force. But there is no statutory mandatory requirement on private security firms to comply with certain criteria as to their fitness. That is vital if one is thinking in terms of recruiting private security firms in this regard. What sort of tests will be applied? Are the Government thinking now of a compulsory register? I believe that to be quintessential if this idea is to be entertained at all.
In relation to this matter, it must be remembered of course that private security firms have only a citizen's right of arrest; that is to say, they can arrest if they can show that an offence has been committed, but they cannot stop and question. That is another corollary of importance in relation to this whole issue.
As I said at the outset, it has been an interesting debate. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, raised a number of significant points of which I was frankly unaware previously. He did not want a monopoly to be created in terms of the selection of any private force to deal with escort duties. Again, that is a sensible point. He said that the haulier should have an option to call an escort. I do not believe that that is right. I believe that it contradicts the earlier points that he made. He said that it was important to allow the police to be able to stop traffic. They cannot have the right to exercise an option and yet require the police to stop traffic and do the other things about which he was talking.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I may not have expressed myself very well. I was saying that if a private escort were authorised by the police, then the haulier should have the option of escorting his own load or using a professional escort company.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I still think it is contradictory if they have the right to escort their own loads, and they want to call upon the police to carry out certain duties as well. However, that is another matter with which I have no time to deal, although I believe we have plenty of time for the debate.
1296
Once again, I congratulate my noble friend on initiating the debate. It has been a valuable hour or so. I think that he has derived some entertainment and some useful information from it. I thank him once again.
7.19 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the nature of our construction and heavy engineering industries means that it is often necessary to move abnormally large loads from one point in the country to another. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mason, for raising this interesting subject, and I thank all noble Lords for giving me notice of their areas of concern. I listened with interest to all their points which I shall attempt to answer. If I do not, I shall of course deal with them in writing at a later date.
The movement can be to a point in the UK where a facility is under construction such as a new power station, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, or moving an assembly or machine to a port for export. It is government policy to limit the use of roads for the movement of abnormal loads where possible. However, the use of alternatives, such as rail or air, is severely limited by the weight and bulk of these loads. There are some inland waterways available. But in general that system is not compatible with loads of these sizes. Where possible, a heavy load will be transported to a port and shipped around the coast to another port in the UK closer to its final destination to reduce road mileage.
The nature and size of abnormal loads are extremely varied and their movements are closely controlled. I should, perhaps, explain how the system works. Regulations require the movement of abnormal loads to be notified to the relevant highway authorities, bridge owners and the police before they can move. They also specify construction standards for the vehicle such as maximum weights, maximum axle weights, braking standards, marker boards and lighting equipment and, reflecting the size of these loads, lower speed limits than those generally applied to goods vehicles.
Most abnormal loads are moved under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) General Order 1979. These regulations permit the movement of loads over 38 tonnes and up to 150 tonnes in weight, 27.4 metres in length or 5 metres in width. Part of the definition of an abnormal load is that the load cannot, without undue expense or risk of damage, be divided into two or more loads for the purpose of carriage on roads. The loads should therefore he of a minimum size and the procedure ensures that the structures on the highway such as bridges and culverts are able to withstand any high axle weights; that there are no physical obstructions in the case of a load of large dimensions; and that the route is feasible with the minimum disruption to other road users.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, raised the issue of these regulations being outdated and inconsistent with the requirements for general goods vehicles. The regulations are now 17 years old. In answer to the noble Earl. we are producing draft regulations to consult by the middle of the year. Because the regulations controlling the use

1297
of ordinary goods vehicles have changed in this period there are a number of anomalies which have to be addressed. For example, as 44 tonne vehicles on 6 axles are now allowed for combined road-rail transport, the necessity to notify abnormal loads which weigh less than that will be considered.
For the largest and heaviest loads—that is, on loads wider than 5 metres, longer than 27.4 metres or heavier than 150 tonnes—written permission is required from the Department of Transport, which will also specify the exact route to be followed.
The necessity for this authorisation can frequently result in discussions between the manufacturer and department to ensure that the move is necessary and the item is reduced in size as much as possible. Hauliers and manufacturers are always encouraged to contact the department as early as possible, even prior to the object being made if possible, to ensure that moving it by road is feasible. Around 10 to 15 per cent. of applications to the department for movements are rejected on the grounds that the load is divisible or because the size of the load and/or the distance of the journey would cause quite unacceptable delays and disruption to other road users.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the issue of railway locomotives travelling on the road. Where these are required to have the Department of Transport's authorisation to move, permission would be given only where the locomotive could not be moved on the rail system; that is, where the destination is not connected to the rail system—such as museums—or it could not be moved on the track for safety reasons.
Locomotives are generally so heavy that they require Department of Transport authorisation. If it is at all possible to move them on the rail network we would not give permission. The trains referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, must fall below the 150 tonne limit and are therefore free to be moved as abnormal loads under the special types general order.
The "ownership" and consequently the responsibility for the protection and maintenance of the roads and the structures on them is varied. Bridges, for example, can be the responsibility of the Department of Transport, local authorities, British Rail Property Board, Railtrack or the British Waterways Board. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, suggested that the current system could be improved by better co-ordination of notifications. It is true that this fragmentation of responsibilities makes it difficult and time consuming for hauliers to check a route. However, while it may seem desirable for a central agency to co-ordinate notifications, given the number of bodies involved it would not be practicable and would almost inevitably result in an increased layer of bureaucracy.
Over the years a number of routes have evolved as being preferred for the heaviest and high loads. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, suggests that these routes should be given statutory status. However, as the needs of industry are also constantly evolving, there is not a
1298
strong case legally to protect these routes. In the case of the largest loads, where the Department of Transport is involved in the selection of the route, the department monitors any proposals for changes on roads used on a regular basis and notifies the relevant highway authority of its special usage. The case of high loads is more complex as high loads which are light and not otherwise abnormal are also affected. Many of these roads are actually local authority owned but generally they are receptive to approaches from the haulage industry and the department when told that proposed changes would affect its use as a high load route.
The route is chosen to minimise the disruption to other road users. Inevitably, that means using the widest roads available to allow other traffic to pass. In order to enhance road safety, the police usually escort such loads to warn other road users of their presence and, where necessary, direct traffic to enable the load to pass. The widest roads generally available are the motorways. Thus, invariably these are often used. The timing of the movement is generally in the hands of the police. That is for two reasons. First, they have the operational responsibility for road safety and traffic management and have local knowledge of the times that roads are likely to be at their busiest. Secondly, they will usually choose to provide an escort to ensure safe progress. Thus the timing of the move is subject to police resources being available.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, in his opening remarks raised the issue of police involvement in escorting the largest loads. The involvement of the police in the movement of these loads is under review. At present some 1½ million movements are notified to the police in the UK each year. Of these, some 10 per cent. would require escorting, the cost of which is generally met from police resources. Current arrangements for escorting can be complex, particularly where a load passes through more than one police area, necessitating a change of escort vehicle. The resultant delays and difficulties for hauliers are both inconvenient and costly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and my noble friend Lord Lucas asked about charging. Section 15 of the Police Act 1964 provides that a chief officer of police may provide at the request of any person special police services at any premises or any locality in the police area for which the force is maintained. That is subject to any payment to the police authority of charges on such scales as may be determined by the authority. What constitutes special police services is a matter for the chief officer concerned and the police authority to determine in any particular case. By definition, however, it is unlikely to include routine services.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the costs of advertising and providing a telephone inquiry point for the Avonmouth to Didcot loads were borne by the contractors. Most of the police escort costs were also met by the contractor. Each move was in three parts:

1299
two runs during the night and one, where a complex manoeuvre over a bridge was involved, took place during the day—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, why should not the whole cost be borne by the contractor in such circumstances?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the noble Lord will find that I will deal with that question later in my speech. If not I will contact him. In answer to the noble Lord during the past 15 months the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers have worked closely together to develop the idea that suitable trained and qualified personnel could replace the police when escorting some loads on motorways and certain dual carriageways. These roads have been chosen because they provide for the easiest and safest movement of the loads, without such private escorts requiring special powers such as to stop and direct traffic.
As mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lucas, as an experiment an unmarked police vehicle with amber flashing lights—which, in fact, is more visible at a distance than a blue flashing light—was used to escort an abnormal load on a long motorway journey between Rosyth and Hatfield. It was completed successfully in all respects and the journey time was reduced by some five days over a similar load travelling under normal procedures. Therefore, that amount of saving of time must be taken into account when we are looking at the cost of such operations.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mason, that movements on roads which are likely to require control and direction of other traffic will continue to remain with the police. I know that other noble Lords mentioned that fact. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, talked about situations where roundabouts are involved. We envisage that the police will be involved in all those areas where other movement of traffic Occurs.
The police are keen to realise the manpower savings which private escorting could provide. The problems of manpower resources have prompted non-police escorts on some loads, as mentioned by several speakers. Neither the Home Office nor the Association of Chief Police Officers has been involved in the scheme which is being used by the North Wales Police as an independent force initiative. It is understood to be meeting the purpose for which it was set up and we are monitoring the outcome with interest.
The private escorting of certain abnormal loads would not mean that the escorting function currently carried out by the police would be put out to tender. That would not be practicable. It would rather be a case of private operators acquiring the necessary qualifications in escorting and then making their services available to hauliers. The hauliers themselves could train staff to carry out the function, and the cost of the escorting would be met by the haulage industry. The outline
1300
proposals envisage no change affecting the overall responsibility of chief officers of police for the safe escorting and management of abnormal load movements. I can also confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that every movement of a load with a private escort would be subject to the agreement of the chief officer of police for the area concerned, having due regard to agreed national criteria. Moreover, in answer to my noble friend Lord Lucas, I can say that any regulations applying national standards for escorting would be likely to be implemented through changes to the Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) General Order. As regards my comments concerning a national criteria for private escort duty, I can confirm that that would also include proof of qualifications of the personnel involved. As I mentioned earlier, changes to those regulations would require further public consultation.
In finding ways to minimise the disruption to other road users, the movement of these types of loads at night is being investigated. That possibility was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Mason. The benefit is that there is less traffic on the road to be disrupted; the drawback is that there is the danger of vehicles travelling at faster speeds suddenly coming across a large, slow-moving convoy. The advent of modern lighting on vehicles and roads appears to make the load and escorting vehicles more conspicuous. So it could become beneficial to move at night; indeed, some police forces are already ensuring that movements are carried out at night, although the individual circumstances still have to be taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the issue of the safety of loads on our roads. Although the frustration of those held up by the movement of abnormal loads is understandable, such movements do not cause additional danger to road users. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Mason and Lord Berkeley, that the movement of abnormal loads must be carried out with safety as a top priority.
In summary, I hope that it can be seen that the movement of large, indivisible loads on our road system is unavoidable and necessary for the functioning of our domestic industries and to provide for the competitive export of goods from our heavy industries. While it can be appreciated that those movements cause disruption to other road users, the procedures which have to be followed are designed to minimise those effects. However, we acknowledge that road usage has changed over the years and those procedures are under review. Any changes will result in reduced disruption without compromising road safety.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, before the House adjourns, I cannot resist saying that I own a silver flask which was given to me by my then government car service driver. It is engraved with the words:
"To my abnormal load".
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.

  Jerusalem: Access Restrictions
  Jerusalem: Access Restrictions
  Central Asia: UK Policy
  Central Asia: UK Policy
  Caspian Sea: Exploitation of Oil Resources
  Caspian Sea: Exploitation of Oil Resources
  Oil Dispersant Policy: Review
  Oil Dispersant Policy: Review
  Mr. David Hart
  Mr. David Hart
  Gulf and Caspian Areas: Anglo-American Co-operation
  Gulf and Caspian Areas: Anglo-American Co-operation
  Ministers: Payments from Public Funds in Personal Capacity
  Ministers: Payments from Public Funds in Personal Capacity
  Prisoners: Central Database
  Prisoners: Central Database
  Drink Drivers: Use of Handcuffs
  Drink Drivers: Use of Handcuffs
  Housing Benefit Proposals and Young People
  Housing Benefit Proposals and Young People
  Absent Parents: Child Support Agency Action
  Absent Parents: Child Support Agency Action
  Asylum Seekers: Withdrawal of Welfare Benefits
  Asylum Seekers: Withdrawal of Welfare Benefits
  Elderly People: Rail Fare Discount Schemes
  Elderly People: Rail Fare Discount Schemes
  London-Gibraltar Via Bordeaux Air Route
  London-Gibraltar Via Bordeaux Air Route