Sitting of 30 January 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ALLIED IRISH BANKS BILL
    HENRY JOHNSON, SONS & CO., LIMITED BILL
      UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL
      Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
      EDINBURGH ASSAY OFFICE BILL
      Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Drinking Water
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he takes to ensure the independent monitoring of the quality of drinking water. [10368]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): Before privatisation, there were no proper standards for drinking water and no effective monitoring. Since privatisation, strict monitoring by the drinking water inspectorate has been introduced and standards have risen every year since 1991.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: The Secretary of State will probably be aware of the recent red alert on drinking water in the Wakefield area as a result of the discovery of cryptosporidium in drinking water supplies. Given the complete lack of public confidence in the privatised utilities, especially Yorkshire Water, will the Secretary of State ensure that, when there are red alert procedures in future, they automatically trigger an immediate objective evaluation and monitoring of the safety of that drinking water? Why are the Government unable to offer a definition of safe or unsafe levels of cryptosporidium in drinking water?
    Mr. Gummer: Before privatisation, there would have been no testing, there would have been no way of finding out about cryptosporidium and companies were not required to report it. Companies are now required to report
    760
    it at once. The drinking water inspectorate runs independent tests and deals with the matter independently—another advantage of privatisation.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Do we not have the finest drinking water in the world? Is it not acknowledged that 99.3 per cent. of all the tests are passed with flying colours, and is it not disgraceful that, time and again, we find that very high quality being rubbished by Opposition Members?
    Mr. Gummer: I do not know of any other country in the world that has such good data and so universal a system of monitoring drinking water. In the whole of Europe, this is the only country to publish properly audited data and we believe—we cannot say for sure because other countries do not publish properly audited data—that we are among the best, if not the best, in Europe.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: In Yorkshire, people may consider the Secretary of State's answers to have been complacent. Is he aware that the public health authorities in Sheffield and in the other parts of Yorkshire feel that the cryptosporidium leaks that have been acknowledged in the Elvington and Barmby Moor sewage treatment plants are serious? Is he further aware that they affect 20 per cent. of all Yorkshire Water drinking supplies? Does he realise that there is a possibility that those increased levels of cryptosporidium may be linked to the reduced flow through the waste water system because of the cuts and the drought?
    Mr. Gummer: I agree that this is a serious matter and, in that view, we are unlike any other country in Europe. No one except the United States treats the matter with the same seriousness as we do. We are the only country to have a system of monitoring and of dealing with the problems as they occur. It undermines public confidence to suggest other than that we have the safest drinking water in the world and the best services to ensure that it remains that way.

    Local Authority Services
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes>: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet representatives of Unison to discuss the provision of local authority services. [10369]
    The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): None.
    Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend's reply is somewhat disappointing. Will he arrange a meeting with representatives of Unison, and use that as an opportunity to explain to them that compulsory competitive tendering has saved enormous amounts of taxpayers' money and has led to the improvement of many services—benefits that are now widely recognised across the political divide? Will he impress upon them the importance of removing their armlock from Labour party policy so that Labour drops its stupid opposition to CCT, which proves once again that it cares for those who pay for the Labour party and not for those who pay for local services?
    Mr. Curry: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is seriously wrong in one of his statements: that view is not shared

    761
    across the political divide because the Labour party quite clearly does not share it. Labour is hostile to competition because it is funded by Unison and, if Labour ever came to power, we know that the council tax payer would finance Unison.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister recognise that we acknowledge that we meet with trade unions? In the past few weeks, I have met the ex-Tory Member of the European Parliament, whom the Secretary of State appointed to chair the Countryside Commission, people from the City of London and from London First, and the people whom the Secretary of State has appointed to the Audit Commission and to the Local Government Commission. While we are on the subject of ministerial meetings—this is the Department that managed to lose £300 million in taxpayers' money through the privatisation of the Property Services Agency—will the Minister tell us whom Ministers and officials met when they organised that transaction? Did they meet any ex-Tory Ministers when they were deciding to sell off that industry?
    Mr. Curry: I am very reassured to learn that the hon. Gentleman has such a busy social diary. However, he will know that his remarks have nothing whatever to do with the question. We sold that company because it was better in the private sector than in the public sector. The employees have benefited from that sale, and it has become an efficient company.
    The hon. Gentleman persists in believing that such bodies are run better by the state than in the private sector. There is no evidence to support that view—and I am not even sure that his leader believes it.
    Mr. Butterfill: Did my hon. Friend see the report in an edition of The Spectator from last year in which Mr. Leo McKinstry—who was the aide to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) at the last general election—said that the unions still have a great deal of influence in Labour town halls? Is it not true that they are more interested in representing the producers than the consumers in our society?
    Mr. Curry: One of the encouraging signs in recent years is the way in which a great many people in local government have embraced the partnership between the public and the private sectors. However, I am not sure to what extent that is followed by the Labour party at Westminster. It seems wedded absolutely to the idea of trade union power and the trade unions finance many of its activities. If my hon. Friend wants to discover what Labour is really like in government, I suggest that he makes some calls on a few local authorities, and he will find out in a very short time. Perhaps he should start with somewhere like Hackney.

    City Pride Initiative
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend the city pride initiative to more cities. [10370]
    The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): Birmingham, Manchester and London are making excellent progress in
    762
    carrying forward their city pride prospectuses. We shall look at what they have achieved before extending the initiative. Meanwhile, there is nothing to stop other cities adopting a city pride approach and I am pleased that Sheffield is doing so.
    Mr. Michie: I am interested in that reply because it appears that the Government do not intend to extend the scheme. We must bear it in mind that most towns and cities have pride. Why must they wait for some sort of lottery, which is governed totally by the Tories at Westminster, before they get the resources that they require? Is not the best and most logical way to allocate resources to establish a proper regeneration programme for all cities and towns and to stop messing about with Government diktats?
    Mr. Jones: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be one of the first to recognise that pride is not restricted to one, two or three cities and is felt throughout the country. However, putting a specific programme in place is a different matter. We are assessing what has happened in the first three cities. The single regeneration budget has benefited enormously not only Sheffield, which receives some £200 million from the private and public sectors as a result of its two successful bids, but rural and suburban areas that have responded well to problems.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that city pride can work only with efficient local government? Has he read the report in today's Evening Standard that Hackney had a policy, which cost the ratepayers £2 million, to employ officials to do nothing? Is he aware of what is happening in Lambeth, where corruption is rife and the council is renowned for its sheer damned inefficiency?
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The records of Lambeth and of Hackney, and indeed of Walsall, mean that the alternative to the Government's city pride programme would be Labour's city shame.

    Water Conservation
    Mr. Chris Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's planned expenditure in the current year on measures to promote the conservation of water. [10371]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): Measures to promote water conservation among customers are the responsibility of the water companies.
    Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that the north-west has now experienced some 10 months of below-average rainfall? There is growing concern that, if that continues, not only will there be a dry summer, but circumstances could become very bad indeed in 1997? Does he accept that the Government cannot continue washing their hands of the matter, blaming the water companies and suggesting that it is their sole responsibility? It is time that he accepted his responsibility and produced some measures for water conservation.
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman realises that it is a serious matter and that the north-west has been affected

    763
    by exceptionally dry conditions. We are taking a serious long-term view of the issue. That is why we imposed a duty on the water companies to promote water conservation and gave the Director General of Water Services additional powers. We are also consulting on future byelaws. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Government are looking carefully to learn the lessons of last year's drought. As for the hon. Gentleman's allegations about the water companies, they are in the best place to promote conservation. They have also substantially increased their investment, which this year is more than two and a half times as much as it was when Labour left office. The hon. Gentleman would do well to avoid the trap that was identified by his own policy makers, when they wrote:
    "The Liberal Democrats do not always practise what they preach and are prepared to ditch environmental policies for short-term political gain".
    We shall not do that.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that Anglian Water has the lowest leakage rate of any water company in the United Kingdom and has spent £110 million on those matters since privatisation? In our area, on this subject as on so many others, we regard the views of the Opposition as total, unmitigated bosh.
    Mr. Clappison: I appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend. We recognised in our consultation paper on water services that particular difficulties face Anglian Water and other water companies in the south-east. Those companies have clearly risen to the challenge and provide an efficient service.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: This is a serious issue. The Minister may recall that there was a big problem in my constituency earlier this month, when the water supply was lost in half of it because of bursts in the mains system over Christmas and the new year. When those bursts occur in domestic, commercial and industrial premises, the water just drains away. Will the Minister consider, as part of his ministerial responsibility, modifications to the building regulations to include the provision of lagging for water systems, particularly in domestic premises, to minimise that risk?
    Mr. Clappison: We would be happy to consider the propositions that the hon. Gentleman has raised when we examine the future of the water byelaws and building regulations.

    Single Regeneration Budget
    Mr. Forman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the quality of the bids his Department received during the second bidding round under the single regeneration budget. [10372]
    Mr. Curry: The high quality of the bids received in the second round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund demonstrated the value of competitive bidding. Sutton Regeneration Partnerships and the Wandle Valley Partnership have been successful in both rounds of the challenge fund entirely on the quality of the projects put forward.
    Mr. Forman: I am sure that my constituents will be delighted to hear my hon. Friend's commendation of the
    764
    quality of the bid that came recently on behalf of Roundshaw, South Beddington and Wallington. Does my hon. Friend agree that the distinguishing feature of that successful bid was the way in which it tried to ensure that there would be the fullest co-operation with the private sector, especially with leading firms in my constituency such as Superdrug, Homebase and Canon UK? Will my hon. Friend ensure that this feature of the regeneration process continues to be a dominant one in Government consideration?
    Mr. Curry: I shall certainly do so. First, the essence of our regeneration proposals is that as well as a diverse range of players from the public sector, partners are brought in from the private sector. Secondly, the public sector money that is made available attracts private sector finance. By that approach, we arrive at a much more effective scheme. It is one that is generated by the community and it reflects its priority.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Minister take account, in future, of bids from urban areas that may be classed as outer rather than inner areas? We are in great danger of separating the two. Good bids come from outer areas. In my constituency, for example, one has come in from Kingstanding and south Aston in Birmingham. I make no complaint about the successful bid in respect of the inner-city area of Birmingham. There is no evidence, however, that the Minister's officials take seriously bids from outer areas, simply because they are outer rather than inner. Is the Minister aware that that approach is building up a great deal of resentment in the populations of our great cities?
    Mr. Curry: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. I scrutinise all the bids personally to ensure that they are chosen on merit. There are some, however, who would argue that all the bids should be focused on the inner city. Where discrete and sensible programmes can be put together with proper partnerships, however, they can have a major impact on areas that otherwise might be considered to be relatively well off, even though they contain corners or areas that suffer from deprivation. I am determined that the scheme should continue to have national coverage. Where bids succeed on merit, we shall award resources. That can apply equally to outer parts of our great cities as well as to some smaller rural areas where problems need to be addressed.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Is there any method by which unsuccessful bidders can reassess their bids for the next round? Is there any co-operation from his Department to enable such bids to be rejigged to fit the pattern?
    Mr. Curry: There is indeed. If bids have not been successful in one round, we have made it clear that the bidders concerned should contact regional offices and go through their bids with them to ascertain where there are deficiencies. In the second round, there are many schemes that failed in the first round. For example, in Pendle there was a bid of poor quality in the first round that became a very good bid in the second. We work with local authorities and other partners to try to get bids into the best possible state so that they are competitive. Once they are in that condition, we judge them on their competitiveness.
    Ms Armstrong: I am sure that the House will be pleased that the Minister is now accepting that quality

    765
    should be an issue in competitive tendering. That has not been the position to date. Will the Minister tell us how the Government will make the entire system more open? He has implied that Ministers interfere in the process and in decisions and there is no feeling at local level that there is any accountability. Is he aware that it is felt that Government officers are making decisions that should be made openly, properly and accountably in the political process?
    Mr. Curry: I did not say that Ministers interfere. I said that Ministers fulfil their proper constitutional duty to scrutinise because we must take responsibility for the outcome. If the hon. Lady does not want Ministers to do that, it will be done, as she falsely describes, by officials. That would not be an accountable system. A Select Committee gave wide approbation to the regeneration scheme and I shall continue to scrutinise the bids to ensure that we get the best possible value for money and that the best bids receive the funds.
    Mr. Thomason: Has my hon. Friend noted the conclusion of the Environment Select Committee, that the single regeneration bids represent extremely good value for taxpayers' money? Does he agree that the local and regional offices of his Department have an important role to play in assisting partnerships to come together, and that partnerships that fail can still sometimes undertake work in future by virtue of the communications that they established in putting in a bid?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. The job of the regional offices is to facilitate bids and assist people who are bidding. We do not ask people to put it together entirely by themselves without any form of a device or assistance. We want to get the maximum number of people into a competitive position. That is why we have had such successful schemes, and one of the most successful regeneration projects in recent times has been the Hulme redevelopment in Manchester. I am glad to see the Leader of the Opposition praising such a Tory initiative in this field.

    Private Residential Accommodation (Leaseholders)
    Mr. Etherington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to provide redress for leaseholders in private residential accommodation from unfair treatment by (a) freeholders and (b) managing agents. [10373]
    Mr. Gummer: We utterly condemn the behaviour of unscrupulous freeholders, and the measures in the Housing Bill will attack wrong where it occurs and thereby ensure that the bad are driven out and that decent freeholders can continue to offer a valuable service.
    Mr. Etherington: Given that answer, will the Secretary of State give an undertaking to the House that no matter how people may try to evade legislation as it is introduced, as they have until now, he will not allow the Government's dogmatic attitude about regulation to prevent them from getting justice?
    Mr. Gummer: That proposal has already been introduced by the Government. It is tailored directly to
    766
    meet the real needs of those who have suffered as a result of a small minority of unscrupulous freeholders, one set of which I named in the House yesterday, and we shall ensure that the legislation sticks.
    Mr. Ashby: Would my right hon. Friend consider amending the Housing Bill to add a clause whereby costs can be awarded against unscrupulous freeholders who refuse reasonably to negotiate with leaseholders in the lands tribunal?
    Mr. Gummer: I hope that my hon. Friend will see that I have suggested that we might move cases to the lands tribunal where there is an argument between the leaseholder and the freeholder about the costs. I hope that, after consultation, that will seem to be the right way forward, because it will make the whole process cheaper for the leaseholder who needs so to do. Freeholders who behave in the way in which some have behaved will be liable, for the first time, to criminal sanctions, and that is right.
    Mr. Raynsford: The Secretary of State has acknowledged that a number of unscrupulous freeholders and their agents are threatening leaseholders with extortionate service and repair charges, backed by the threat of forfeiture. By all accounts, those pressures are intensifying and will put many leaseholders at risk in the months ahead while Parliament considers the Housing Bill. It is not good enough to wait until that reaches the statute book. The Secretary of State will know that I wrote to him more than a week ago, asking him to introduce a short, streamlined Bill that can go through the House immediately—it would have the support of the Opposition—to give instant protection to leaseholders in difficulty. Will he agree to that request—yes or no?
    Mr. Gummer: I note that when we started to legislate, suddenly the Labour party decided that it would have a go. The fact is that it is very complicated legislation, which we have to get precisely right, and the Opposition can help us. If they will allow the Housing Bill to go through the House quickly and expeditiously, as they should—the Bill will give fairness in housing, look after leaseholders and deal with houses in multiple occupation, all of which are good measures—the hon. Gentleman will be seen not to be hypocritical.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, all too often, leaseholders who attempt to exercise their statutory right to extend their leases or to buy their freehold face a great deal of elaborate and extremely ingenious obstruction from freeholders and their legal advisers? Is he further aware that he will have widespread support in the House for any measures that he introduces to ensure that the will of Parliament as expressed in the existing legislation does not continue to be thwarted in the present way?
    Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why I hope that the Labour party will not continue to obstruct the Housing Bill, which will introduce reforms for HMOs and reforms that ensure that those in need get social housing before those in less need. I look forward to the Labour party's support, and then we will get the proposed legislation through.

    Sea Pollution
    Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on reducing pollution of the sea; and if he will make a statement [10374]
    Mr. Clappison: My right hon. Friend led the debate in the fourth North sea conference which has agreed a strategy for preventing pollution in the North sea.
    Mr. Welsh: Given that this is the third anniversary of the Braer disaster, which showed how vulnerable to pollution our coastline is, will the Minister take further steps to control tanker traffic? Is he aware that the narrow sea route through the Minches daily carries three tankers through an area whose industries are very dependent on a clean environment, and which contains 100 sites of special scientific interest? An accident is waiting to happen. Will the Minister take steps now to prevent that accident?
    Mr. Clappison: That is a serious issue for the North sea coast. The hon. Gentleman will know that, following the Braer disaster, the Donaldson report produced 103 recommendations, many of which dealt with this very subject. The Government have accepted a large number of those recommendations, and my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Transport will soon present proposals for their implementation.
    The hon. Gentleman will be aware that particular problems are involved in the surveillance and enforcement of oil tankers' discharges and activities. Great care must be taken to protect our coast.
    Mr. Allason: Will my hon. Friend give some support to the campaign mounted in the south-west by Surfers Against Sewage, an organisation which is anxious to improve the quality of sea water? Is he aware that Liberal-controlled Torbay borough council does not appear to be willing to reply to letters from Surfers Against Sewage, having originally campaigned on its behalf and encouraged it? Is that not another classic example of Liberal Democrat cynicism?
    Mr. Clappison: I am surprised by what my hon. Friend tells me about the Liberal Democrat-controlled council in Torbay, which would have been expected to take an interest in the subject. My hon. Friend will know that, more generally, there has been a big clean-up of our beaches, as there has been a clean-up of our rivers and other waters. Water quality is now improving in our rivers, as it is at the seaside.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Minister be having discussions with his European counterparts with a view to offering their expertise to the Australian Government, who plan to monitor the seas in the area where the French nuclear tests took place and to measure the levels of radioactive pollution?
    Mr. Clappison: It is important for us to learn all the lessons that we can from international environmentalists. The hon. Gentleman will be interested in the judgments reached about this country by many such
    768
    environmentalists, including David Bellamy, who says that our recent record suggests that we are now on the way to becoming the clean man of Europe.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the large reduction in the amounts of contaminated substances going into the North sea, such as lead, mercury and cadmium. That is a significant achievement.

    Water Supply
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange to meet the chairmen of the water companies to discuss the quality and reliability of water supply. [10375]
    Mr. Gummer: I met leading figures in the water industry earlier this month to discuss how they are seeking to safeguard supplies in the summer in the case of a repetition of last year's weather. I press the importance of those matters on them at every opportunity.
    Mr. Canavan: How can the water companies possibly justify raking in more than £3,700 in profits every minute, while allowing more than half a million gallons of water to leak away every minute—largely because they have cut capital investment by £282 million since privatisation? Is it any wonder that, in the Strathclyde referendum, 97 per cent. of people voted against the quangoisation of Scottish Water, which they suspect is merely paving the way for the privatisation that has been an unmitigated disaster south of the border?
    Mr. Gummer: If privatisation is such a bad thing, why does the hon. Gentleman not ask the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Mr. Dobson), Labour's spokesman on water, why the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers made such a sizeable investment in Thames Water? If the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras says that he does not know, it will be very surprising, because he is a sponsored member of the RMT. What is more, it appears that Thames Water dividends pay for his agent and pay his expenses. Here is another example of "say one thing and do another"; it is hypocrisy from Labour.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many of us in Yorkshire look for a much improved service from Yorkshire Water in the years ahead, and for sweeping boardroom changes in the company as the best way of achieving it? Is it not clear that, given the existing drought, but for privatisation and the substantial investment made with it, many of us in Yorkshire would have been on standpipes long since?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. In 1976, when the weather was nothing like as extreme, more than 1 million people depended on standpipes or on rota cuts: in the recent weather, no one was so dependent. There are questions to be asked about Yorkshire Water, but it is now possible to ask them, whereas when it was nationalised there was no chance of gaining redress.
    Ms Ruddock: Is the Secretary of State aware that pre-payment meters such as Waterkey, which are being trialled in the poorest households, result in higher charges

    769
    to the consumer and can and do lead to self-disconnection? Is he further aware that, by providing the means for self-disconnection, water companies' powers contradict local authorities' power to intervene in disconnections on behalf of the most vulnerable people? Will he raise that issue, and its consequences for the poor, when he next meets the people who have become very rich by selling water?
    Mr. Gummer: On no occasion when the hon. Lady or other Labour Members have raised these matters have I been unwilling to look into them, and I shall certainly do so, but I hope that she will respect me for displaying characteristic restraint, because I failed to mention the fact that the RMT also has shares in Cable and Wireless, British Gas and electricity companies. When she attacks such people, she is attacking the RMT, nearly 20 per cent. of whose investment is in privatised utilities.
    Mr. David Martin: If my right hon. Friend spoke to the chairman of Portsmouth Water Company he would hear that there has been no hosepipe ban since 1976, that it is top of the water quality league and that its water leakage level and water supply charges are the lowest in the country.
    Mr. Gummer: There has been no ban since the last Labour Government. Water companies in the privatised world are subject to tough controls. When the water industry was nationalised, there were no independent controls, so the consumer benefits enormously from privatisation, and the Labour party invests in privatised companies.

    Regeneration Policies
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his current regeneration policies. [10376]
    Mr. Curry: Our regeneration policies will focus on the single regeneration budget, which will continue to be distributed on a competitive basis.
    Mr. Livingstone: Does the Minister agree that the fact that only one in five bids are successful represents a huge waste in terms of expenditure on consultants' fees and working out schemes? If we could remove that beauty contest element from the policy, the money could be used to improve areas?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is factually incorrect, because the success rate is about 50 per cent. If local authorities are not working out how to regenerate their areas, they are clearly deficient in one of their major functions.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was great rejoicing in the North Lynn part of my constituency when it was announced that his Department was making available a large amount of single regeneration cash? Will that not make up for the jobs lost at Anglian Canners four years ago and lead to new jobs and welcome environmental improvements? Is it not a good example of the public and private sectors working together?
    Mr. Curry: It is an excellent example and it illustrates one of the points made earlier: that these funds can be
    770
    spent in regions that are not metropolitan, where considerable needs exist and where they secure considerable benefits. The bid succeeded because it qualified competitively. No one receives an award without qualifying competitively.

    Fire Authority Budget
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the fire authority budget for 1997; and if he will make a statement. [10377]
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, met a delegation from Tyne and Wear fire and civil defence authority on 10 January to hear representations about our proposals for the 1996–97 local government finance settlement.
    Mr. Mullin: Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the budget announced yesterday, Tyne and Wear fire authority faces the prospect of having to cut 92 fire-fighters and four appliances, but that we could avoid that if he would set the cap higher? Will he please bear that in mind when he determines the cap?
    Mr. Curry: There is a set procedure if local or other authorities come to determination. The hon. Gentleman will be aware what that procedure is, and we shall of course pursue it scrupulously. There has been a 2 per cent. increase in Tyne and Wear's permitted budget—£500,000—to allow a catch-up because of the circumstances of last year's settlement. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the local auditor's report, which suggests where certain savings could be made by the fire authority.

    Butterfly and Moth Conservation
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding new measures for butterfly and moth conservation. [10378]
    Mr. Clappison: I shall be glad to hear of the hon. Gentleman's support for the biodiversity action plan, which has been widely welcomed and is being copied by others. It contains, among other things, plans for butterfly and moth conservation.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware that the priority species, the marsh fritillary, has declined by 62 per cent. in recent years, and that there are threats to four more of its habitats from opencast mining? Will he give an undertaking that the Government appreciate that the marsh fritillary and other butterflies are prime indicators of biodiversity, and will he give an assurance that the Government will protect that delicate and most beautiful living jewel of nature?
    Mr. Clappison: The marsh fritillary is one of the species that will benefit from a costed action plan under our biodiversity plans. Our plans will address the points made by the hon. Gentleman. I know that he takes a close

    771
    personal interest in the subject, particularly in moths such as the dingy mocha. I am sure that all the matters to which he referred can be taken into account.
    Mr. Barry Field: Will my hon. Friend commend to the House the campaign that has been waged on behalf of the Granville fritillary, a butterfly that is found only on the Isle of Wight? Does he agree that urgent action is necessary given the number of endangered Opposition Members with moth-eaten policies?
    Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Isle of Wight produces some remarkable species. Unfortunately, our action plans cannot deal with the problem of the endangered species on Labour's Front Bench—those who practice what they preach.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: May I take it from the Minister's comments that the Government are to adopt the biodiversity action plan and implement its recommendations? They have not publicly said that they will.
    Mr. Clappison: Our response to the biodiversity action plan will be made very quickly, but the hon. Gentleman should know about the widespread acclaim that our plans have received and the important initiative that we have taken to promote biodiversity in this country and in the rest of the world.

    Home Purchases (Right-to-buy)
    Sir Ralph Howell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenants bought their homes under the right-to-buy legislation in the last year for which figures are available. [10380]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Between October 1994 and September 1995, local authorities and new towns in England reported total sales under the right-to-buy legislation of almost 36,000 homes, while corresponding sales by housing associations totalled almost 700.
    Sir Ralph Howell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate the Government on the success and popularity of their right-to-buy policy. Is not it remarkable that, after all these years, we are still selling more than 100 houses a day?
    Mr. Jones: The only thing on which I would disagree with my hon. Friend is that it is remarkable. Our policy matches the aspirations of the British public, which is why the Conservative party has been in power since 1979 and the Labour party has been in opposition.
    Mr. Betts: Will the Minister confirm that, as an extension of the right-to-buy scheme, the Government introduced a rent-to-mortgage scheme in 1993? Will he also confirm that, by the end of 1995, only 13 houses had been sold under the rent-to-mortgage scheme, at a total cost in promotion of £140,000 of taxpayers' money? Is that not another example of the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of a failed Government and their failed policies?
    Mr. Jones: I can certainly confirm that the hon. Gentleman is critical of every policy that we adopt to give ordinary people a chance to own their home. Over the
    772
    years, many Labour councillors, and some Labour Members, have taken advantage of the right to buy. The carping attitude of the hon. Gentleman and others is a disgrace.

    British Gas Pipeline (Scotland-Northern Ireland)
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conditions the Health and Safety Executive requires to be satisfied before agreeing to the commissioning of the British Gas pipeline between Scotland and Northern Ireland. [10381]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: The Health and Safety Executive will need to be satisfied that Premier Transco Ltd. has properly assessed the risks to health and safety and fully meets the standards required.
    Mr. Foulkes: But how was British Gas able to lay a pipeline along a route that the Ministry of Defence opposed? How did it have a prohibition notice lifted, in spite of the opposition of the Health and Safety Executive? What influence has British Gas in the corridors of power in Whitehall?
    Mr. Jones: As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the route was moved in response to comments made about it. That is why it is north of where it was originally proposed.

  PRIME MINISTER

    United Nations Secretary-General
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had on the election of a successor to Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary-General of the United Nations, when he last met (a) President Chirac and (b) Chancellor Kohl. [10398]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): None.
    Dr. Godman: In addition to a new Secretary-General, is there not a need for a deputy Secretary-General, as advocated by Sir David Hannay, to take charge of administration and finance, thereby allowing the new Secretary-General to re-examine most carefully such serious matters as Lockerbie and Libyan sanctions? At the very least, do we not need a public debate on those appointments and on reform of the United Nations?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree about the need to reform the United Nations. I raised that at the last meeting of the G7, where there was general agreement about it. In terms of internal reform, I can see some justification for a deputy Secretary-General, and I can certainly see some for a proper reform of the United Nations. By reform, I mean not just a reform of procedures but the abolition of many United Nations bodies that no longer serve a useful purpose.

    Engagements
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January. [10399]
    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of my constituents strongly support the Government's measures to give the Attorney-General power to appeal against unduly lenient sentences? Is not the fact that the Labour party voted against that yet another example of hypocrisy?
    The Prime Minister: It is a matter of record that the Labour party voted against that measure, but it has voted against many other law-and-order measures over recent months, such as the right to silence. We increased the maximum penalty for cruelty to children from two years to 10—Labour opposed that. We increased the maximum penalty for carrying a gun in crime—Labour opposed us. The reality is that it may sometimes use tough words on crime, but when it comes to actions it is very soft.
    Mr. Blair: Conservative Members should remember that under their party crime has doubled.
    Does the Prime Minister share and understand the sense of anger of the British people at the behaviour of the privatised water companies? Given the figures released today showing that the cost of delivering water to customers has risen by almost £300 million and that although water companies' profits rose to a record level last year their investment fell, is not it high time that they were properly regulated in the public interest?
    The Prime Minister: With reference to his earlier remarks, the right hon. Gentleman might also remember that under this Government crime is falling for the first time in 40 years. [Interruption.] Statistics show that quite clearly, across a whole range of crime, and that is something that no previous Government have been able to say.
    When he refers to the privatised water industry, the right hon. Gentleman would do well to remember, too, that "Governments cannot run companies". [Interruption.] I am interested to hear that the Opposition disagree with that, because I was quoting the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
    Mr. Blair: Yes, but Governments can regulate those companies, and this Government are not regulating them. Will the Prime Minister confirm that over the past few years investment has been falling, that prices to customers have risen by more than 40 per cent., that 500,000 gallons of water are now being leaked every minute of every day and that customer complaints have doubled? Those are the facts about the water industry under this Government. Why do the Prime Minister, his Cabinet and his other colleagues defend each and every action of the water companies, rather than standing up for the customers who are being fleeced by them?
    The Prime Minister: About £15 billion has been invested in the water industry since privatisation, £1 billion more than originally planned. That is because over several decades in the public sector there were not sufficient resources for investment in the water industry or in other public utilities. Of course, there is investment
    774
    in them now, not least by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers as a shareholder. That union sponsors the deputy leader of the Labour party; it is one of the stakeholders in the Labour party, and also one of the shareholders in the water industry and in most of the other privatised industries. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. We have very little time. Keep quiet.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: My right hon. Friend will have seen the lead stories in today's editions of the Financial Times and The Times. Will he confirm that universities are, in law, private bodies, that their financial relations with their students are a matter for them to determine and that the Government have no intention of nationalising the universities?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly see no need for universities to introduce top-up fees. They certainly complain about how they have been treated by the Government. Between 1989–90 and 1994–95, university funding rose by 23 per cent. over and above inflation. I hope that the vice-chancellors will recall that when they consider their future policy.
    Mr. Ashdown: How does the Prime Minister reconcile his claim last night that the Conservative party is the only party interested in law and order with the fact that although he promised at the general election to increase the number of police officers on the streets by 1,000, the latest figures show that the number has fallen by 1,000? Is that what he means by saying one thing and doing another?
    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman looks more carefully at what is happening in law and order. If he does he will see that right across the range, for the first time in 40 years, crime is falling. He will also see the resources there for an extra 5,000 police officers—
    Mr. Ashdown indicated dissent.
    The Prime Minister: There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman's living in some Disneyland of his own and waving his hands about; those are the facts. It is the Conservative party that has toughened the law and order position time and again, and his party, and the Labour party, have been in the Opposition Lobby whenever we have sought to do that.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend give the House a firm undertaking that he will not take advice on law and order from the party that would change the meaning of the Sunday joint?
    The Prime Minister: I happily give my hon. Friend that assurance.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January. [10400]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Davies: To return to education, does the Prime Minister recall that his Government slashed school

    775
    budgets by £500 million last year, causing great difficulty to school heads? Does he recognise that the Government have slashed the higher education budget by £300 million this year, causing great difficulty to vice-chancellors? Why should our institutions and their students suffer because of the Government's economic failure?
    The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, the Government's economic policy is exceeding in a more spectacular fashion than that of any other Government in western Europe. Spending per pupil in the mainstream sector has risen by about 50 per cent. over and above inflation since 1979.
    Mr. Blunkett: The true figure is 4 per cent.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), Labour's education spokesman, is shouting from a sedentary position. It is a novel relief for him to do so, rather than be undermined by the Labour leader in every single thing that he says about education.
    On higher education, the hon. Gentleman would do better to refer to his party's policy document, which says that
    "Labour is looking to raise funds from individuals using"—
    [Interruption.] I apologise for my cold, Madam Speaker, but the reference to Labour's policy document stands. It reveals that
    "Labour is looking to raise funds from individuals using and directly benefiting from higher education."
    That is Labour's own policy document—I hope that it will not deny that policy.
    Mr. Thomason: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January. [10401]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that selective schools will remain a part of our education system? Did he hear the Leader of the Opposition yesterday ducking and diving on his party's schools policies?
    The Prime Minister: Not only yesterday. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman ducks and weaves. The hon. Member for Brightside says that he has no truck with middle-class, left-wing parents who preach one thing and do another. I cannot think who he might have had in mind. The hon. Gentleman tells us to watch his lips—there will be no more selection under a Labour
    776
    Government. The party's education spokesman says one thing, while the leader says another. Labour is split on education from top to bottom.
    Mr. Tipping: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 January. [10402]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Tipping: How would the Prime Minister describe someone who, before the general election, promised not to extend the scope of VAT, but after the election extended VAT and imposed it on fuel at 8 per cent.? Would he describe that person as a hypocrite or a liar?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should look at the economic performance that has been achieved under this Government. If he does so, I defy him to find any western economy that can match the current performance of this economy under this Government.
    Mr. Hawksley: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read of the four children aged 11 in Handsworth in Birmingham, who have been put through the fast-track education system and who have received the praise of the Leader of the Opposition? Is my right hon. Friend aware that all four have won places at a grammar school, and will he reassure the parents of those children that, under this Government, their grammar school places will be safe?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly offer my hon. Friend that assurance. He highlights yet again the shambles of the Opposition's policy. They say that they support grammar schools, but they oppose selection. They say that they support special treatment for pupils, but they oppose streaming. They say that they support parental choice for the shadow Cabinet, but for no one else.
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Saudi Arabia to discuss human rights. [10403]
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does not the Prime Minister think that it is time that the British Government put human rights before arms sales, sought an urgent meeting with the Saudi Government on the abuses of human rights there, explained why BBC broadcasts to Saudi Arabia have been censored and explained why the British Government, with their craven attitude towards that autocratic regime, are trying to deport Dr. al-Masari from this country?
    The Prime Minister: We and our European partners regularly discuss human rights with the Saudi Arabian Government and with others. I seem to recall that the hon. Gentleman has a rather unusual version of human rights, because it was him who said:
    "We assert the right of all people to follow their own conscientious beliefs even if it involves them in breaking the law."

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Just a moment—I have a point of order from the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton).
Mrs. Ann Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek to raise an important point of principle and seek your advice and clarification. Is not it a breach of parliamentary privilege that matters decided upon by the courts, for example by an anonymity guaranteeing order, should be raised in the House by means of an early-day motion, thereby exploiting parliamentary privilege to undermine our courts?
Madam Speaker: I was asked early yesterday morning to consider the early-day motion to which I know the hon. Lady refers. I have considered it very carefully, and I am satisfied that it does not breach any existing rule of the House. Specifically, there is no rule of the House to prohibit reference to matters subject to injunction.
I have, however, made it clear on many occasions that all hon. Members must use the freedom of speech that we enjoy in the House, and the freedom of the notice paper, with the greatest care. I think that it might be appropriate for this issue, which has not been looked at by either the Privileges Committee or the Procedure Committee for about 10 years, now to be considered by the Procedure Committee and I am making a reference to that effect.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I have given a ruling. There is now no further point of order on that issue.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order relates to the conventions and traditions of the House. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, will be replying for the Opposition on the water debate. I also understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland will not be here in the
778
House, because he is in another part of the country. I wonder whether you could give us a ruling on that matter, Madam Speaker, because I understand that it has long been the tradition of the House that, when a shadow Secretary of State is speaking in a debate, the Secretary of State is normally the person who replies.
Madam Speaker: I have no authority whatever to determine which hon. Members, which Ministers, or which Secretaries of State attend the House. That is for hon. Members and their parties to determine. The Speaker of the House has no authority in those matters.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This might seem an odd request—
Madam Speaker: It will be most unusual, if it is an odd request.
Mr. Banks: The next time that we have Environment Questions, could you remind the Secretary of State that he should address the House? I do not suppose that we Opposition Members missed much, but we could not hear what he was saying.
Madam Speaker: It is not such an odd request. Many Secretaries of State and Ministers tend to speak to the Member who has asked the question, which is not the way we proceed. All Ministers and all hon. Members speak to this House through the Speaker and they must refer to the Speaker the entire time. They must speak through the microphone at the Dispatch Box and not turn to any individual Member. To do so is a discourtesy to the Speaker and to the House and, moreover, the speech cannot be properly recorded by Hansard.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  MERCHANT SHIPPING
  That the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 3128) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
  Question agreed to.

Access to the Countryside
3.35 pm
Mr. Paddy Tipping: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law of trespass and to enable members of the public to resort on foot to open country in England and Wales for their recreation; and for connected purposes.
The Bill's principal aim is to amend the law of trespass to enable members of the public to resort on foot to open country in England and Wales for their recreation.
There is a long parliamentary history of such legislation. The reforming Liberal Member of Parliament, James Bryce, introduced the first access Bill in 1884. Unfortunately, that Bill and many successors have been blocked or emasculated by landowning interests in Parliament. Despite that fact, the demand and need to protect and extend the freedom of the public to wander on foot over uncultivated land is greater than ever.
Walking is today's most popular leisure activity. This is a time of pressure and stress. People need space in which to walk, unwind and reflect. The Bill will benefit walkers throughout England and Wales, from the chalk downlands of Sussex to the Cheviot hills of Northumberland, from the Cumbrian mountains in Wales to the Sussex coastline. In the forest of Bowland in Lancashire, the Arran hills of Wales, parts of the Pennines and the Chiltern escarpment, local people have been pressing for many years for a right to roam over uncultivated land.
There and in other parts of the country, there has been a tradition of open access—a de facto right to roam. Those rights have gradually been eroded. The piecemeal disposal of Forestry Commission woodland has meant that in recent years the public have lost the right to roam over an area about the size of the Isle of Wight.
Some months ago, my family and I were asked to leave woodland called Cotgrave forest in Nottinghamshire. Those woods have been walked by local people for years. The sale of the woods by the Forestry Commission to landowners has put an end to that access. The Bill will tackle that.
Against that background, it is important to stake out the rights and responsibilities of both walkers and landowners. The Bill gives a right to roam in the remote places—mountain and moorland, commonland, woodland and beside rivers. It is not an unrestricted right to roam. Exclusions are to be granted to take into account shooting and conservation interests. I fully recognise that there are a wide variety of stakeholders in the countryside. The Bill attempts to balance those needs.
Rights and responsibilities are linked under the Bill. It sets out responsibilities and a new standard of behaviour for the public while walking on open country. The first schedule describes in detail the prescriptions and restrictions put on walkers. It includes, for example, control of animals, litter and fires. Walkers will be regarded as trespassers if they break the restrictions.
The Bill is not set in tablets of stone. I see it as a vehicle for debate about the way forward, as it is a subject that can be riddled with prejudice. These are hard issues, which need careful thought and analysis.
780
Consultation on the Bill will be wide and has, indeed, already started. Conservation groups have an interest in the Bill. Walkers, like conservationists, want to lift the landscape and enhance the environment. We need to protect animal, bird and plant life.
I am grateful for the time and interest that landowning organisations have already given to the Bill. Meetings have taken place with the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union. While there is a commonality of interest and both organisations accept that there is a need for even greater access to the countryside, there are differences of view about how that should be achieved. I understand that the Country Landowners Association will produce its proposals on access later this year. I look forward to seeing them and I know that they will receive careful consideration and close scrutiny.
Suffice it to say that negotiated access—the voluntary approach—has failed to deliver substantial new access. I am pleased to report that both farmers and landowners have shown a willingness to take such discussions forward. They have reservations about the Bill and I acknowledge that it may be possible to refine and improve it. At this stage, the Bill should be regarded as the first step on a route to allow greater public access to open countryside. I hope that when it crosses its first stile today, it will be viewed as offering a signpost to the future.
I look forward to the day, perhaps under a different Government, when the Bill will become law. I believe that it is practical, reasonable and follows English legal precedent. It is practical in the sense that it provides draft legislation, which can be implemented on the ground. It is reasonable in that is not a utopian demand for everything that the access lobby would wish for in an ideal world.
Opponents of the Bill should accept it at face value and in good faith. To characterise it, as some have, as allowing unrestricted access reveals prejudice and vested interest. It is an attempt to address all countryside interests without causing substantial harm to any. It is a balancing act. Consultation will reveal whether that balance is right.
The Bill offers nothing alien. There is already a long-standing tradition of freedom to roam in Britain. Unfortunately, in many places it is under threat or has already disappeared. The Bill follows legal precedent. I praise the Ramblers Association and its legal advisers for all the hard work that they have put into drafting it. Wherever possible, it draws on existing legislation, principally the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
I am conscious that I have concentrated on the restrictions and exemptions in the Bill. That reflects my desire to reassure the many differing interests involved. However, in essence the Bill is about lifting restrictions. Its principle is freedom. It offers the prospect of substantial new access to the general public.
I was born in an industrial community in the West Riding, a place where "dark satanic mills" really existed. I can still recall the joy and exhilaration of walking, as a boy, over the tops of the Yorkshire dales. I truly felt that I had discovered England's "green and pleasant land" and, to a small extent, I felt that I shared Blake's vision.
Thirty years ago I was ordered off the moors in Yorkshire by gamekeepers even though I was on a public footpath. Yesterday I was in the hills and snow in the

781
south Pennines between Sheffield and Manchester. There was barely a building in sight, but we were not allowed to walk on open moorland. Large signs that said "Keep out" and "No public access" made progress impossible. I want those signs confined to the dustbin of history. They should be museum pieces.
People are looking forward to the year 2000 and the next millennium—a time of renewal, of hope and, perhaps, of increased spirituality. The Access to the Countryside Bill draws on the old, traditional rights to roam and puts them into a new legislative framework. Its passage would indeed be the way to celebrate the next millennium.
3.44 pm
Mr. Tim Yeo: I rise to oppose the Bill.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) by his speech, and the Bill prepared by the Ramblers Association by its text, have demonstrated how little the hon. Gentleman and his party understand the countryside and the needs of those who live, work and seek to enjoy recreation there. In pursuit of an aim that is widely shared among Conservative Members and among those outside the House, of greater access to the countryside—an aim, incidentally, on which we are making substantial progress, although the hon. Gentleman did not acknowledge that in his speech—he has produced a legislative dinosaur, a monstrosity that is flawed in five serious respects.
The Bill would give local authorities massive and totally unnecessary new powers. It would create a vast new bureaucracy with almost unlimited scope for disputes between parties and for delays in decision making. It emphasises the rights of the public without mentioning corresponding responsibilities. It threatens to criminalise innocent citizens who seek only to protect their property. It also damages the cause of conservation.
Significantly, those are the proposals not just of the hon. Member for Sherwood; he has the express endorsement of the Opposition Front Bench in the form of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who was quoted yesterday as saying that she fully supports the Bill and hopes that it may lead to the passage of legislation. As the Bill's approach is based on old Labour's attitudes, it is surprising that it has slipped past the notice of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), but perhaps his attention has been diverted elsewhere recently as he agonises whether to preach the education policy that he and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) already practise.
The tragedy is that the Bill is totally unnecessary. The Government are already working towards greater public access. For example, in the past five years alone, land management schemes have produced agreement for managed access to more than 90,000 hectares of land. Under the countryside stewardship scheme, statutory bodies have made available another 13,000 hectares, and substantial progress has been made towards the target set in the 1990 environment White Paper to bring up to a good standard the 140,000 miles of rights of way and footpaths that already exist, much of which is under-utilised at present.
The target of improving access to the countryside was specifically re-endorsed in last October's White Paper, "Rural England". Against that background, I deeply regret
782
that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to introduce the Bill now because, in so doing, he rejects the principle that better access to the countryside must be based on voluntary managed schemes. Overturning that principle, on which all recent advances have been made, is a recipe for dispute, delay, conflict and, ultimately, damage to the rural environment.
My first objection to the Bill is that it gives vast and completely unnecessary new powers to local authorities. Clause 6 places a duty on local authorities to secure access to any open country from the public highway if any person, regardless of whether he or she has local connections or not, considers that the existing access is somehow inadequate. Local authorities may require landowners to construct bridges, cut down ancient hedges or demolish stone walls, all at their own expense, to satisfy the whim of a council officer whose interest in the subject may have been aroused by a passing motorist or disgruntled neighbour. The mind boggles at the potential for local authorities hostile to local interests—as all too many, including the disgraceful Labour-Liberal Suffolk county council, now are—to intrude on private property and make mischief with valuable habitats and natural features.
My second objection to the Bill is that the extra bureaucracy involved and the inevitability of disputes about interpretation will cause countless problems. Clauses 2 and 3 purport to define what is and is not open country, but they raise more questions than they answer.
Years of argument will ensue before agreement is reached about specific areas of land. The onerous obligations placed on landowners—including, for that purpose, someone who may have only a quarter of an acre of rough grazing on the edge of a village—mean that there will be inevitable resistance to the designation of land as open country under the legislation.
The interminable delays already experienced when minor variations to existing footpaths are proposed, sometimes with universal local support, but objected to by some individual from a remote area, will be nothing compared with the delays that the Bill is likely to cause. The effect will be to halt, for a generation or longer, the steady current progress towards more access.
My third objection to the Bill concerns two new criminal offences that it creates; the first is obstructing access to open country, and the second is erecting notices that might deter the public from entering open country. Criminalising in that way landowners who may merely be innocently seeking to protect their property, or to keep people away from hazardous areas, may appeal to the hon. Member for Sherwood and his allies, but it is utterly irrelevant and deeply inimical to the needs of the countryside. Rural dwellers in Suffolk and other similar areas want help in protecting their property, not threats that may put them on the wrong side of the law.
My fourth objection to the Bill is that it imposes all those obligations on landowners, but—apart from references that the hon. Member for Sherwood made to not dropping litter or starting fires—it makes no mention of any corresponding duties on members of the public. That may well be what Labour means by a stakeholder society, and it reflects old Labour's tendency to emphasise rights while overlooking responsibilities, but the Bill even fails to acknowledge that the countryside is used for other recreations apart from walking. Activities such as riding

783
or bird watching are legitimate uses of the countryside, but they may sometimes come into conflict with unrestricted walking.
To curtail the right to roam over a specific piece of land, an application to the local authority would be required under the Bill. The Bill would thus involve, for example, a Riding for the Disabled group going on bended knee to a council lackey for permission to use rough grazing land made available for that purpose free of charge by the landowner. Similarly, a small tenant farmer hoping to enjoy a day's shooting with a few neighbours would have to apply to the local authority each time he wished to do so.
My final objection to the Bill is that nothing in it promotes the cause of conservation. Indeed, the strong probability is that conflicts will arise as the unrestricted right to roam affects areas that have hitherto enjoyed considerable protection and undisturbed peace. Even English Nature, the statutory body entrusted with great responsibilities by the House, will have to apply to the local council for land to be accepted for the right to roam, and such applications can be granted only temporarily and may subsequently be overruled at the whim of the local council.
Time does not permit a fuller explanation of the many other reasons for resisting the Bill. In conclusion, I return to the central issue of principle.
Good progress is currently being made towards improving access for everyone so that they may enjoy more of our countryside. That progress is achieved voluntarily, by agreement between the parties concerned, and generally involves landowners and others in the continuing management roles.
The Bill would bring all that progress to an immediate halt. Its consequences for everyone interested in the future of the countryside would be disastrous, and I urge the House to reject it by a huge majority.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 60.

Division No. 38]

[3.53 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Cann, Jamie

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Alexander, Richard

Clapham, Michael

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Armstrong, Hilary

Coffey, Ann

Austin-Walker, John

Cohen, Harry

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Corbett, Robin

Barnes, Harry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Battle, John

Cousins, Jim

Bayley, Hugh

Cox, Tom

Bennett, Andrew F

Cummings, John

Benton, Joe

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dalyell, Tam

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

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

Burden, Richard

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Byers, Stephen

Denham, John

Callaghan, Jim

Dewar, Donald

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Dixon, Don

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Dobson, Frank

Campbell-Savours, D N

Donohoe, Brian H

Canavan, Dennis

Dowd, Jim

784

Eagle, Ms Angela

Martlew, Eric

Eastham, Ken

Michael, Alun

Etherington, Bill

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Morley, Elliot

Faulds, Andrew

Mullin, Chris

Foulkes, George

Murphy, Paul

Fyfe, Maria

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Gapes, Mike

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Garrett, John

O'Hara, Edward

Gerrard, Neil

Olner, Bill

Godman, Dr Norman A

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Golding, Mrs Llin

Pickthall, Colin

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Pike, Peter L

Grocott, Bruce

Pope, Greg

Gunnell, John

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hanson, David

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Hardy, Peter

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Heppell, John

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Radice, Giles

Hinchliffe, David

Raynsford, Nick

Hodge, Margaret

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Home Robertson, John

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Hood, Jimmy

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Rogers, Allan

Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

Rooker, Jeff

Hoyle Doug

Rowlands, Ted

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Ruddock, Joan

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Sheerman Barry

Illsley, Eric

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Ingram, Adam

Simpson, Alan

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Skinner Dennis

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Janner, Greville

Spearing, Nigel

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Spellar, John

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Steinberg, Gerry

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Jowell, Tessa

Straw, Jack

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Khabra, Piara S

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Timms, Stephen

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Tipping, Paddy

Lynne, Ms Liz

Walley, Joan

McAllion, John

Wareing, Robert N

McAvoy, Thomas

Welsh, Andrew

Mackinlay, Andrew

Wilson, Brian

MacShane, Denis

Wise, Audrey

Mahon, Alice

Wray, Jimmy

Marek, Dr John

Wright, Dr Tony

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Ms Rachel Squire and

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Mr. Mike Hall.

NOES

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Harris, David

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Hawksley, Warren

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Hayes, Jerry

Beggs, Roy

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Jessel, Toby

Budgen, Nicholas

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Butterfill, John

King, Rt Hon Tom

Carrington, Matthew

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Chapman, Sir Sydney

McCrea, The Reverend William

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Maginnis, Ken

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Dover, Den

Mills, Iain

Durant, Sir Anthony

Moate, Sir Roger

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Neubert, Sir Michael

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Nicholls, Patrick

Gill, Christopher

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Powell, William (Corby)

785

Shaw, David (Dover)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Sims, Roger

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Yeo, Tim

Spring, Richard

Stephen, Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Thomason, Roy

Mr. John Greenway and

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Sir Kenneth Carlisle.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paddy Tipping, Mr. John Battle, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Ms Ann Coffey, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Stephen Timms and Ms Joan Walley.

Access to the Countryside
  ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE
  Mr. Paddy Tipping accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law of trespass and to enable members of the public to resort on foot to open country in England and Wales for their recreation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 March and to be printed. [Bill 49.]
Opposition Day
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Privatised Water Companies
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.5 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the deplorable record of the privatised water companies in England and Wales who have been allowed to use their monopoly position to drive up prices, profits and the pay and perks of directors while reducing investment, wasting water and harming the environment; and calls upon the Government not to proceed with setting up water agencies in Scotland which are clearly precursors of the same things happening in Scotland and to abandon its secret agenda to force metering on every household.
  Every week, 721 million gallons of water leak from the pipes owned and operated by Yorkshire Water, yet Yorkshire Water has been spending just £211,000 a week to identify and mend these leaks. Recently Yorkshire Water has been forced to spend about £3 million a week tankering water into West Yorkshire to make up for the water that is leaking away. It is spending 14 times as much on tankering as it is on stopping leaks. Nothing could better illustrate the wasteful short termism of Yorkshire Water. It is having to cough up £3 million a week for tankering because it did not spend enough on plugging leaks and did not have the forethought to prepare for the crisis that occurred in West Yorkshire last summer, which still continues.
  It is not only in Yorkshire that the bosses of the privatised water monopolies have been mismanaging the country's water supplies and ripping off the public for the benefit of their shareholders and themselves. It has been happening everywhere. We could not expect anything better. Water privatisation has been a rip-off from start to finish.
  Let us consider the basic facts. For a start, the Government gave the industry away to its new owners. When the Government sold the shares they obtained £5.2 billion for the taxpayer. But they gave the new owners much more than that in exchange. The new owners were given a debt write-off worth £5 billion and a green dowry worth £1.5 billion. In exchange for the £5.2 billion that they paid in, they received £6.5 billion of taxpayers' money plus the capital assets of the industry, a highly skilled and dedicated work force and a guaranteed income stream from being monopoly suppliers of water, something which none of their customers can do without.
  What has happened since then? Prices have increased. The main reason for that has been charging customers more so that more and more can be paid out to shareholders. The average delivered cost of water—
  Mr. Robert Atkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman provided that he asks a sensible question. If he does not, I shall not give way again.
  Mr. Atkins: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question. Does he expect that the charges for water will be less under a Labour Government?
  Mr. Dobson: In real terms, yes.

  787
  The average delivered cost of water is made up of three factors: first, the cost of operations; secondly, the cost of capital maintenance; and, thirdly, the return on capital. The average delivered cost to customers of a cubic metre of water has risen by 14 per cent. from 55p to 62.8p in the past three years. That is not the result of massive increases in the cost of operations, which has increased by only 3.8 per cent. Nor is it the result of capital maintenance costs, which have increased by 8.3 per cent. The massive change is because the return on capital has shot up by 32 per cent. In other words, customers are paying extra because more of their money is being siphoned off to the shareholders.
  That disgraceful situation does not seem to have been noticed by the regulator or the Government. If they have noticed, they must approve of it, because they have done nothing about it. But, of course, that is true about practically everything else to do with the water industry. The water companies have been allowed to get away with practically anything. Just look at the profits. The profits of the 10 privatised water companies have shot up to almost £2 billion a year. Average dividends to shareholders have shot up by no less than 55 per cent. There are some even more startling individual performances and pay-outs. Northumbrian Water's profits have almost doubled. They have increased by 91 per cent. No wonder it was targeted by the French, who wanted to buy it.
  Just as startling is South West Water, where profits have fallen but dividends have shot up by 41 per cent.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: How lucky for the shareholders that South West Water is not on performance-related pay-outs.
  In view of Yorkshire Water's appalling performance, not just now but over several years, its customers will find it hard to stomach the 60 per cent. increase in dividend that it paid out.
  Mr. Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Dobson: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Then, of course, there is the massive increase in pay and perks that water company directors have paid themselves. The best paid boss in each water company is now paid more than three times as much as when the companies were owned by the public. A really breathtaking example of boardroom greed is that of Thames Water. Before privatisation, the chief executive was paid £41,000 a year. The present chief executive, Mr. Mike Hoffman, is paid £371,000 a year—a cool 806 per cent. increase.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): If it is such a terrible thing, why does the union that sponsors the hon. Gentleman have a large shareholding in Thames Water, take the profits and use it to pay for the hon. Gentleman's research and his agent?
  Mr. Dobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw half of what he said? [Laughter.] I am in favour of accuracy when these accusations are being thrown around. The RMT, I am glad to say, pays part of the costs of my
  788
  agent. The RMT makes no contribution to anyone doing research in my office, and I now expect the Secretary of State to get up and withdraw that allegation.
  Mr. Gummer: I am happy to withdraw the second part if the hon. Gentleman will answer the main claim—that the RMT has money in a former nationalised industry called Thames Water, which, the hon. Gentleman said, was ripping off the public for the benefit of its shareholders. Its shareholders in this case are the RMT, which sponsors the hon. Gentleman. He says one thing and does another. It is hypocrisy again.
  Mr. Dobson: I expect the RMT—and I say this without consulting anybody—if it is a direct shareholder to make representations at the next annual meeting to reduce the dividends and to reduce the pay of this overpaid chief executive, because that is what it should do.
  Sir Donald Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: I shall give way to Donald in a minute, because he is a sensible person, but when we get to Yorkshire Water.
  At North West Water, the chairman's pay shot up by 667 per cent. from £47,000 to £360,000, although the present chairman is always quick to point out that he is not the same man. He certainly would not have turned out for just £47,000 a year.
  Mr. Gummer: If North. West Water is as bad as that, why does Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council have very large shareholdings in North West Water? Why does it also have very large shareholdings in South West Water, which is nowhere near Derbyshire?
  Mr. Dobson: I simply do not know the details of the case [Interruption.] Whatever the Secretary of State may do, for example flinging false accusations against me, I do not try to comment on matters about which I do not know the detail. What is fairly likely—although I do not know—is that Derbyshire county council has a pension scheme for its staff and its pensions advisers say, "You get a lot of money if you invest in these things," and that is what they have done.
  Let us be quite clear about the position. Four things have shot up since privatisation: profits, dividends for shareholders, bosses' pay and bosses' perks. All those increases have been paid for by another increase—the rise in water prices that customers have been forced to pay. Last year, the water industry made the highest profits since privatisation, while investment fell to its lowest level since privatisation.
  The Government claimed that investment had gone up, and it did at first, but it has fallen by 10 per cent. since 1990–91. That, of course, is the average; over that period, North West Water cut investment by 19 per cent., Thames Water by 29 per cent. and Northumbrian Water by 30 per cent. Almost inevitably, Yorkshire Water out-performed the rest, cutting its investment by 34 per cent. That is indefensible behaviour, but it is worse than that: it is a fraud on the customers.
  Sir Donald Thompson rose—
  Mr. Dobson: I will finish this paragraph, Donald, and then I will give way.
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has now addressed the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) as "Donald" on two occasions.
  Mr. Dobson: I am sorry, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: I accept the hon. Gentleman's apology. I am sure that he will see that it does not happen again.
  Mr. Dobson: I will indeed, Madam Speaker.
  As I was saying, that cutting of investment is a fraud on the customers. Part of the price formula agreed by the regulator allowed the companies to charge customers more to fund investment in maintaining the system. Needless to say, they have been allowed to charge the customers, but have not got round to spending all the takings. Anyone else who did that would be open to the charge of obtaining money by false pretences, but the regulator and the Government do not seem to mind, so the companies have got away with it.
  I will now give way to the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson).
  Sir Donald Thompson: The hon. Gentleman is on a good point, and I thank him for his courtesy in giving way. He and I share a photocopying machine. As I passed it this afternoon, I saw a huge wodge of Labour water documents. Who will be paying for those? Will the hon. Gentleman be sending money to the Serjeant at Arms, or will he be writing to you, Madam Speaker, with an apology? We all use photocopiers for one or two documents, but, as the hon. Gentleman is highlighting the problem of fraud, may I ask who will pay for that huge wodge?
  Mr. Dobson: I must tell the hon. Gentleman—if it is appropriate to say this to a former butcher—that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
  Sir Donald Thompson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am a butcher, but the hon. Gentleman has the tripe. [Laughter.]
  Madam Speaker: I see that that was enjoyed by Opposition Front Benchers, but it was not a point of order.
  Mr. Dobson: It was funnier than most points of order, I must admit.
  The Government also claim that the water industry is paying a lot of tax. That is not true either. The total mainstream corporation tax paid in the five years since privatisation is just £106 million; over the same period, the companies have made profits of more than £7,838 million. That is a tax rate of 1.3 per cent. The companies have paid another £580 million in advance corporation tax, but that can be set off against their future liabilities.
  The cumulative effect is that the water companies are rolling in money. One sure sign of that is the takeovers, and the rumours of takeovers. The cash in the coffers of the water companies makes them both potential predators and potential victims. They are rolling in money, so they are worth taking over; alternatively, they are rolling in money and so can afford to mount a takeover.
  790
  Northumbrian Water fell into the first category. It was worth so much, both in terms of assets and as an "income stream", that Lyonnaise des Eaux took it over to combine it with North East Water, which it already owned. So what is happening now? More than 3,000 hard-working staff from two companies face losing their jobs, while the boss of Northumbrian Water receives a payoff in excess of £1 million.
  Then there is North West Water. That is the company that managed to spend millions of pounds on a computerised billing system that did not work. It is the company that leaks most water—158 million gallons every day. It is the company that can only manage to find £8 million, spread over five years, to combat those leaks. Yet North West Water was so swilling in money that it could find no less than £1.7 billion to buy up Norweb. It has tried to tell me that none of that money comes from its water customer, but if you believe that you will believe anything. North West Water has water company assets, including real estate, that it got for nothing after privatisation, together with the guaranteed monopoly income stream from its water customers. Without that capital and guaranteed income behind it, every penny of which was paid for by people and businesses in the north-west, it would not have been able to afford the takeover.
  One of the ways in which companies have saved money has been to get rid of staff, and it shows in the constituency of the hon. Member for Calder Valley, the tripe merchant. Some of Yorkshire's problems were caused by reservoirs silting up and the channels that feed the reservoirs getting blocked because the company had got rid of the maintenance staff who used to clean them out. After the freeze and the thaw in the north-east, water companies there could not respond quickly enough because they too had reduced staff numbers in the name of efficiency.
  Talking of North West Water brings me back to the matter of leaks. As the National Rivers Authority stated:
  "Leakage is an area where in expertise the UK is without doubt a world leader".
  How true. No one is more expert than North West Water and Yorkshire Water, which waste about one third of their whole supply. Wessex Water, South West Water, Severn Trent and Thames Water lose one quarter of theirs.
  Sir Anthony Grant: Not Anglian Water.
  Mr. Dobson: No, not Anglian Water.
  All that water has been collected and purified, ready for use by domestic customers and industry, so customers have paid for all that process—they are just not getting the water.
  For a long time, the Government told the House that customers wasted more water than the companies. The only possible explanation for that was ignorance or lying. On average, companies are responsible for 78 per cent. of all the water that is leaked—on average, customers leak 22 per cent. If people are looking for a water waster, they need look no further than the nearest water company. Yorkshire Water, almost inevitably, is the worst, wasting 87 per cent. of its water supply, while careful Yorkshire customers lose only 13 per cent. Either Ministers did not know or they tried to mislead the House and the public.

  791
  We are entitled to know why from the Secretary of State, especially as Conservative Ministers have mocked both myself and several of my parliamentary colleagues when we have said, truthfully, that it was companies that wasted most water.
  That suited the Government's secret policy agenda, which they share with the regulator. They want to push for everyone to have a meter. Apparently, again, either they do not know or do not want to know that it would cost between £4 billion and £5 billion to install meters in every home, and an extra £500 million a year to run the new billing system. Apparently, they do not care about the consequences of forcing meters on poor families and pensioners, and they cannot say that they know about that because it has never been studied, not even in the pilot scheme on the Isle of Wight. They are just obsessed with the idea of introducing metering.
  The Government always try to blame customers. They gave the industry, when it was privatised, a code of practice for leaks. It refers only to customers' leaks. In the last Environment Bill, they slipped through a late amendment to require water companies to promote the efficient use of water, but not by the companies, only by their customers. It is all part of the push for compulsory metering.
  Mr. Robert Banks: I thought I heard the hon. Gentleman say a minute ago that Yorkshire Water had reported that 87 per cent. of its water was wasted due to leakage. I do not believe I heard the right figure. Would he like to rephrase what he said? Secondly, he must understand that a number of water companies, such as the York Waterworks company in my constituency, have been private companies for many years. It has been a private company for 150 years and it has an excellent record to report.
  Mr. Dobson: There are two points there. First, I think that the hon. Gentleman must have misheard me. I said that, of the water that is leaked in the Yorkshire Water region, 87 per cent. is leaked by the water company's pipes. As he would expect in Yorkshire, only 13 per cent. is leaked by folks who are rather careful and do not want leaks on their premises. Secondly, he is right: there are statutory water companies. They have existed for more than a century and they have provided a good service, generally speaking. They have proved to be infinitely more efficient at their jobs than were the privatised water companies, and, I must say, they pay their directors a hell of a lot less than do the privatised companies. Last summer, we revealed—for the first time in figures that people can understand—the scale of the leakage. The water companies leaked 826 million gallons a day, or 500,000 gallons a minute. We called for action to cut the leaks and to protect customers from the drought, but the industry's response was a statement by the Water Services Association which said:
  "Frank Dobson is not treating customers seriously—customers want the facts."
  The trouble for the water companies was that, for the first time, customers were getting the facts, and they did not like them.
  The water industry and the Government then issued a briefing, off the record, to the effect that the industry was investing £4 billion to deal with leaks. That was simply
  792
  not true, so we put out more facts which showed what the companies were really spending on leaks. They were based on figures that we received from each company apart from Southern Water and South West Water, which either could not or would not tell us. The total amount spent in England was £86 million, which is rather a long way short of the £4,000 million that the Government had originally claimed.
  At that point, the Secretary of State organised a photo-opportunity, said that he was very impressed by what the water companies had done and told us all to stop moaning and say what wonderful weather we were having. After an interval that the Daily Mail described as
  "10 Days that shook John Selwyn Gummer",
  the Secretary of State published a document that acknowledged the need to conserve water. As usual, however, he put the onus on the customers. A week later, he boldly stated that he might have to take action, but that he could not make up his mind until he had seen the National Rivers Authority report.
  Two months later, the NRA published its report. It vindicated our campaign and said that cutting company leaks was twice as useful as installing meters, and that the water regulator was not doing enough to require the companies to reduce their own leaks. Soon afterwards, even the water companies admitted that leakage levels were unsatisfactory, but said that they would set their own targets for reducing the leaks. The hapless Secretary of State agreed and said that he would not set mandatory targets. On the instructions of the Tory chairman, he still did not dare criticise the companies because that would be to admit that the Tory sacred cow of water privatisation was suffering from its own version of mad cow disease.
  Everyone now realises that the water companies are letting people down. Customers and businesses realise that they have been let down. The NRA has criticised them and, though a little late in the day, so has the water regulator.
  Sir Anthony Grant: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to paint a fair picture of the industry. If so, is he aware that, as well as improving water quality by 34 per cent., Anglian Water has in the past five years spent no less than £1.715 billion on improving water and sewage services? That is why customers in the Anglian Water area are receiving a much better deal, a fact with which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree.
  Mr. Dobson: It has to be said that the average bill for people in the Anglian Water area is considerably more than that for other people. However, in fairness to Anglian Water, customers receive a fair bit in return. My only objection to Anglian Water is that it is absolutely obsessed with the idea of water metering and wants everyone forced on to a meter.
  The chairman of Yorkshire Water has decided that he is giving up; the chief executive of South West Water has decided to give up; and the boss of Wessex Water, after his rather harrowing year as chairman of the Water Services Association, has taken his company out of that association because he no longer wants to be tarnished and tormented by the scandalous record of most of the other companies, in particular North West Water and Yorkshire Water. The boss of Northumbrian Water has, of course, disappeared altogether—which brings me back to Yorkshire Water.

  793
  Yorkshire Water's record on leaks is the worst in the country, as is its record on practically everything else. Even before this year, it had 69,000 unplanned interruptions of supply compared with the next highest number of interruptions, which was the 32,000 imposed by Thames Water. However, those figures do not give the full flavour of Yorkshire Water's gross incompetence. It has shown that it is simply not up to the job. The people of Yorkshire know that, and so do the businesses in Yorkshire. I suspect that the bosses of Yorkshire Water know that it is not up to the job, hence the premature but unlamented departure of Gordon Jones, the chairman.
  Yorkshire Water has been seeking drought orders to give it the right to abstract more water and cut off supplies to customers. After the most recent inquiry, the Government inspector said:
  "I listened to many experienced and qualified people on the likely effects of confirming this…order. These embrace such topics as health, emergency services, education, tourism and leisure, the implementation and operation of the Order, the effect on individuals, and particularly vulnerable members of society, and the implications for other primary legislation. One thing became clear. No-one felt able to predict with confidence or even appreciate the extent of the damage to the fabric of life and society if rota cuts were imposed. That public health would be threatened, education lost, employment opportunities denied, the vulnerable and public placed at increased risk and emergency services unable to fill their obligations were not matters of particular dispute."
  Everybody present accepted that
  "the lack of quantities of potable water for even those uses such as hospitals, together with the individual needs of dialysis patients adds to the concern."
  The Government inspector criticised Yorkshire Water not only for not knowing the answers to those questions, but for not having even addressed them before they were raised at the inquiry by the other people making representations. Having received the report, he eventually sent a letter to the Secretary of State on the matter. Despite that, the Secretary of State—ever complacent—has decided that because the drought order applications have been withdrawn for the winter,
  "it would serve no useful purpose to go further into these questions."
  The only person who does not seem to realise that Yorkshire Water is not up to the job is the Secretary of State. At the outset, he praised the company, saying that it was deploying its expertise in China and north America—not a popular line in my native county. Yorkshire people seem to think that to live up to its name, Yorkshire Water must first and foremost deploy its expertise in ensuring that Yorkshire people get the water that they need and have paid for.
  Mr. William O'Brien: May I advise my hon. Friend that there are still restrictions on the use of water in my constituency and the Yorkshire area even though the orders have been withdrawn? Those restrictions apply to all water users in certain areas, regardless of whether they have meters or not. So there is no advantage in this case of water metering.
  Mr. Dobson: I certainly take note of that. In recent times anyway, the supply of water to people in Yorkshire has been restricted more often that it has not been restricted.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Before my hon. Friend leaves the point about the Secretary of State's
  794
  complacency, may I ask him whether he is aware that the reservoirs supplying the Calder valley, Halifax and Kirklees are only one third full, even though they should be up to about 80 per cent. full at this time of year? Is he also aware that the £100 million that Yorkshire Water is belatedly going to spend on pipes is no long-term solution? We could be faced with exactly the same problem next summer. Nothing has changed, yet the Secretary of State does not seem to realise it.
  Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend, who together with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) has campaigned a great deal on this issue to the great benefit of the people of Yorkshire, makes exactly the point that I was about to make. Before I do so, I return to the question of Yorkshire folks and money. They want the services that they have paid for. They would like all that water that has been cleaned and shifted around the county and that is leaking away, and they would like it without having to pay anything extra for it.
  The other thing that Yorkshire people do not like is seeing the money that they have paid for water being invested abroad, or in shopping malls in Leeds or refuse tips in Doncaster. They think that the money they pay should be spent on ensuring that Yorkshire people get water. That may be a rather old-fashioned point of view, but I certainly share it.
  I warn the Secretary of State today that Yorkshire Water's problems seem far from over. There are still restrictions and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) has said, the reservoirs in Halifax and Bradford should be almost full at this time of year. At the moment some contain less than 30 per cent. of their full capacity. Next summer there could be even more serious trouble than last year, unless Yorkshire Water is forced to act. Clearly it will not take adequate action voluntarily.
  In view of what has been happening in Yorkshire, my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends from Scotland are right to try to resist water privatisation there. In England and Wales we need a new system, with a water industry regulated effectively in the interests both of customers and of the environment. But we shall not get that until there is a Labour Government.
  4.34 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the higher water quality, the improved standards of service to consumers, the increased availability of information and the increased exports which have been achieved as a result of substantially higher levels of investment and the removal from political control of the water industry through privatisation in England and Wales; looks forward to improved services in Scotland from the new public water authorities; and contrasts this with the arbitrary cuts from the investment plans of the nationalised water companies by the last Labour Government, including the six month moratorium on the letting of new construction contracts.".
  We have now heard a great deal about Yorkshire Water, so it would be helpful to make some comparisons. We could look back to how the water industry was run before privatisation, and compare that with what happened afterwards.

  795
  Before privatisation, the water industry was starved of capital. It invested less than half the sum now being invested. When the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) talks about leakage in Yorkshire, he is talking about pipes and infrastructure that Yorkshire Water inherited from the many years when the water industry was starved of capital. That happened not after privatisation but before, especially when there was a Labour Government.
  When Mr. Healey had to turn round in his taxi and come back because Britain was in such a mess, what did he do? He cut the already ludicrously low investment in the water industry so much that there had to be a six-month moratorium, during which nothing was spent on water infrastructure. That is the story of water in the public sector.
  Mr. Atkins: My right hon. Friend will recall that for a time I was the Minister responsible for water in Northern Ireland, where water is still in state ownership. One of the problems that confronted me was exactly the one that my right hon. Friend mentioned. During the 1970s there had been a moratorium on investment for some time. As a result, great sums needed to be invested, and if water was not to be privatised in Northern Ireland, because some concern had been expressed there, that money had to be found from somewhere by the taxpayer. The difference is that the privatised water companies can invest private sector money, whereas in Scotland and Northern Ireland the money still comes from the taxpayer.
  Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend is right. One must consider exactly what the sums would be. As the water companies are investing twice as much as before privatisation, if a Labour Government were to find that money somewhere else they would have to find £1.5 billion. Would it come from the schools programme, or from some other aspect of government?
  The Labour party must decide what it really means. If it wants investment, that can come only from the private sector; otherwise the money would have to be taken from other areas, and if Labour were in power it would find that impossible. The first question that we must ask the Labour party is: if it were in government, would it renationalise the water industry? I notice that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras did not answer that question. He has not been able to say, "Yes, we would renationalise" or "No, we would not renationalise."
  Mr. Dobson rose—
  Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us which he would do?
  Mr. Dobson: Since I took over this job I have said on innumerable occasions that, like most people in this country, I would rather like to take the water industry back into public ownership, but that the money to buy it back is not there, so we need a properly regulated system.
  Mr. Gummer rose—
  Mr. Dobson: While I am on my feet, I shall ask the Secretary of State a question, if I may. May I remind him that it was not the Labour party that nationalised the water
  796
  industry in the first place? It was owned and operated successfully by our big cities and towns. The Tory party nationalised water in 1973—and the Secretary of State voted for that.
  I have talked to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Howell—then Denis Howell—about what happened next, and he tells me that he went to the Treasury—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I would have stopped him by now if he were a Back Bencher as his intervention has been too long. What is good enough for Back Benchers should be good enough for Front Benchers.
  Mr. Gummer: We now know where we are. The water industry would not be nationalised under Labour, but it would be regulated in such a way as it to make it unable to raise the investment necessary to do the job. The hon. Gentleman says that he would politicise the water industry so that it would be under the control of a Labour Government, but what does the leader of the Labour party say? He says clearly that Governments cannot run companies. That is true of the water industry, too.
  The hon. Gentleman is offering the worst of every world. The industry would not be nationalised, but it would not be in private ownership either. It would not be able to raise money, and it would not be able to invest. It would not be able to replace pipes or stop leaks. It would not be able to offer higher standards, or do any of the other things that the hon. Gentleman knows must be done. The industry would be in real trouble because the hon. Gentleman would not he able to read the balance sheet to understand what was going on. When he explains how the finances work, it is clear that he cannot read a balance sheet. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) is leaving because she cannot read a balance sheet either, but she does not like to be told about it. It is not surprising for someone who cannot read a balance sheet to get the figures wrong.
  Let us consider investment.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I shall finish this point first.
  In the years immediately after privatisation, investment was particularly high because it had been so low before privatisation. The rules of the European Union and the Government were such that they demanded immediate investment to meet bathing water directives—
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier, Madam Speaker instructed hon. Members to speak into the microphone. The Secretary of State is not at the London Palladium, and we would like him to address the Opposition.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. The instruction was that all hon. Members should remember that they are addressing the occupant of the Chair.
  Mr. Gummer: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

  797
  A considerable amount of investment was made to meet demands to improve water standards, some of which came from this Government and some from measures to which we had rightly agreed in the European Union. We have now met most of those demands, but a further £24 billion of investment is needed between now and 2005. Under the previous system, that investment would not have been made and we would not have been able to meet either our own requirements or those of the EU. We can meet them only because of the present high investment, which is twice as high in real terms as under Labour.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I shall continue my argument.
  It is a question of not just investment but of what happens if there is no investment. Without investment, we will have dirty beaches. Labour Members object to dirty beaches, but when we say that we must pay to get rid of the muck they do two things: first, they suggest that we do not have to pay for it, and, secondly, they pretend that it is not their fault that the beaches are so dirty. Treating problems with beaches in the south-west is costing so much because, under Labour, there was no investment, and raw sewage went into the sea.
  Mr. John Gunnell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has had his back to you for quite a long time—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This matter can be left in my hands. I have noted when the Secretary of State's back has been turned to me, but it has not been for a long time. The right hon. Gentleman has swung about a little bit, and I take this opportunity to remind him that he must address me as the Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Gummer: I apologise for my natural athleticism, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall do my best to ensure that it is curbed.
  The necessary investment would not occur under Labour, and it did not occur when the industry was in public ownership. Labour knows very well that it cannot suggest that the industry should be taken back into public ownership—not for the reason the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras advanced but for a wholly different reason. It is because it would result in dirty beaches, lower-quality water and a failure to improve the infrastructure and to repair all leaks.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I shall give way first to the hon. Lady, and then to my hon. Friend.
  Mrs. Jackson: Is the Secretary of State really suggesting that there were no investment plans for the
  798
  water and sewerage industry before 1990? What credit does he give the countless people who served on and chaired water boards for nothing in the years before privatisation? Those people planned investment, read the balance sheets and understood every figure.
  Mr. Gummer: Before privatisation, investment was half its present level and, under a Labour Government, it would stop entirely. Some of the hon. Lady's friends may have sat on water boards, for which I honour them. They will have seen what the balance sheets said and will know that a Labour Government will not provide the money. They also know that, under Labour, the money will be stopped altogether.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Richard Burden: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I have already said that I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls).
  Mr. Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was asked whether water charges would fall under Labour, he said, "Yes"? Therefore, the investment that is clearly still necessary will have to be raised from general taxation. The hon. Gentleman did not give me the opportunity to ask him by how much tax would have to go up under Labour, but perhaps he has already given that information to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has not yet given that information to me, but I was coming to precisely that point. Labour says that the industry would not be renationalised, but that it would be put under political control and that prices would fall. Therefore, none of the investment that we are debating would be made—certainly not at current levels. Labour would decide whether one beach or another was cleaned up, and whether there would be leakage controls or not. It would make those decisions by pushing down prices and investment. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has explained to us precisely why the Leader of the Opposition said that Governments cannot run companies; I would add only that Labour Governments cannot run anything.
  Mr. George Robertson: Why must the Government privatise the water industry in England to get private investment, but not in Scotland, where the industry—which is not being privatised—is to raise private money? Why is it impossible to cap price increases in England, when the Secretary of State for Scotland has just capped the increase in water prices for next year at 6 per cent.?
  Mr. Gummer: I am interested to hear that, because the price increase cap in England has been reduced from 4 per cent. to 1.4 per cent. The hon. Gentleman is wrong: it is perfectly possible for the regulator to reduce the cap for the privatised water companies. Labour is in favour of devolution, which evidently means that Scotland can do

  799
  something that England does not and vice versa. It seems perfectly reasonable for Scots to make their own decisions. All I can say is that in England, before privatisation, investment was half what it has been since. The sadness is that Labour thinks that there is something odd about that, although it will not pledge itself to renationalise the industry.
  Mr. Burden: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman as he always puts his foot in it.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State confirm figures from his Department and from Ofwat showing that, taking public and private ownership together, average investment in the five years of the previous Labour Government was the same as the average investment since this Government have been in power? Will he further confirm that investment under Labour during those five years was higher on average than when the industry was in public ownership under this Government? If he says no, he will be misleading the House. I wish to help him not to do so.
  Mr. Gummer: I am interested that the hon. Gentlemen has to mix a period of public ownership with a period of private ownership to make his figures stand up. We are making a clear statement that, under Labour and Conservative Governments, public ownership meant lower investment than private ownership, and that, under a Labour Government, for six months public ownership meant no investment whatever. The Opposition cannot take that; they always have to find a situation in which privatisation can be blamed.
  I noticed, for example, that recently the Opposition rushed to say that the privatised water companies in the north-east were responsible for the fact that between 50,000 and 75,000 people were without water because of burst pipes. They did not mention that many more people in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where there are no private water companies, suffered in that way. I am not blaming that on public ownership; I am merely saying that the Opposition will blame everything, includeing the cold weather, on privatisation.
  Sir Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I must move on, but I will come back to my hon. Friend in a moment.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras spoke an awful lot about the water companies, but he did not answer the real questions. Those companies are now not only much more able to obtain investment but are much more efficient than they were. They are not efficient enough, but they are much more efficient than they were—those of us who are Members of Parliament in the Anglian Water region can see that from our postbags.
  800
  Since privatisation, the number of complaints about Anglian Water has fallen dramatically. The service is immensely better, and investment is considerably higher.
  My constituency waited year after year under Labour and Conservative Governments to have sewage in Felixstowe properly treated. Felixstowe is a major holiday resort and we wanted to do something about our beaches. We now have a major sewage scheme because of privatisation, and we recognise that we pay the cost of that in our bills. We are prepared to do so because we want the quality. In fact, the scheme will not just reach the quality asked of us by the European Union—although we enthusiastically accept that—but that which we need to cater for holiday makers in our area.
  We are also pleased that privatisation has been a success story abroad. Britain is now earning considerable wealth throughout the world because of the expertise of our water companies. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras obviously thinks that that is very funny as he has given one of his inimitable giggles, but I am talking about hundreds of millions of pounds of money coming back and bringing wealth to this country.
  We are now using our expertise in Malaysia, Mexico, Adelaide and Shanghai. Why? Because those countries see that our water companies are doing the job so much better than any others. There are only two countries in the world of which that can be said. The British and French are the only two countries whose water companies can command universal support for the work that they are doing at home, and therefore win contracts abroad. That must be good for the United Kingdom, but as usual the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and his friends attack the United Kingdom and try to destroy our major companies that are winning orders throughout the world.
  It is surprising that the Opposition do that when one sees just how many of their friends invest in those companies. I have mentioned, although I know that it makes them uncomfortable, the position of the sponsoring union of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.
  Mr. Dobson: It does not make me uncomfortable.
  Mr. Gummer: It may not, but it jolly well should. The hypocrisy of the hon. Gentleman would make me very uncomfortable. He says one thing and belongs to a union that is doing the opposite. If I was a Labour Member in Derbyshire, I would want to know what Derbyshire county council is doing and defending.
  Mr. Dobson: Derbyshire county council's pensions board.
  Mr. Gummer: Oh! The hon. Gentleman says that it is merely its pensions board. The chairman of the pensions board, a Labour councillor, explained that he did it because he thought it was best for the pensioners, and so it was. But the hon. Gentleman said that the company was ripping off the public for the benefit of its shareholders. That is hypocrisy—saying one thing and doing the other.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady, and I will tell her why. I dissociate her from

  801
  the hypocrisy of her Front-Bench colleagues. She is an honourable woman on this matter. I disagree with her, but I have never found her to say one thing and do something else. That is the difference.
  Mr. Dobson: Resign.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman says that she ought to resign. Evidently, members of the Labour party must resign if they are not hypocritical. Now we understand. The hon. Gentleman has called on the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) to resign for lack of hypocrisy.
  Mrs. Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to make comparisons of that nature in the House in a debate on such an important issue? He said that I am in some way more honourable that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. That is an extraordinary thing to say.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The occupant of the Chair is not responsible for the utterances of hon. Members. All I would suggest is that the best standards prevail.
  Mr. Gummer: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am that sorry the hon. Member for Hillsborough took my comments amiss, because I have genuinely accepted—
  Mrs. Jackson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No. I wish to dissociate her from what I have just said and I will give way to her later when we have moved well away from this subject.
  Sir Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No, I must move on, but I will come back to my hon. Friend, as I have promised.
  Privatisation has a number of great advantages for the public. For a start, it ensures that the people who control and police the companies and set targets do not own the companies. When the water companies were nationalised, that is precisely what happened. The Government owned the companies and set the standards, so of course they did not set high standards because they did not have the money to meet them. The Government set the standards that they thought they could meet. Under privatisation, we set up an independent regulator to set standards.
  During Environment questions earlier, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) was very concerned about drinking water and he highlighted the need for very strict standards. I think that he was surprised to learn that there were no such standards before privatisation. When the companies were privatised, we set those standards and gave powers to the drinking water inspectorate to ensure that the standards were met. We also ensured that the National Rivers Authority had both the expertise and the duty to control those aspects of water production that were in its remit.
  Mr. Dobson: The Secretary of State waited for the report.
  Mr. Gummer: Yes, I waited for the NRA to produce its report. I would have looked rather silly if I had acted
  802
  before an independent advisory committee produced its report. I can guess who would have been the first person to demand why I had acted without the information from the NRA. The hon. Gentleman must be more sensible about the issues of control and setting standards.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made comments—rather surprisingly, I thought—about the independent regulator which would be very difficult to make outside the House without clearly bringing the regulator's reputation and independence into discussion. There is no doubt that the whole industry, and those outside it, know that the regulator seeks to do his job as effectively as possible. As a result, he has been able to reduce significantly the amounts by which the companies have been able to raise bills.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No, when I give way, I shall do so to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Surrey (Sir M. Grylls). I wish to move on to the subject of profits.
  Mr. Dobson: To the best of my knowledge, I have never said anything in this Chamber that I was not prepared to say outside. I do criticise the regulator. He has not done a good job on behalf of the customer—I will say so publicly and privately and I will continue to say so.
  Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to say outside what he clearly said in the House, which was that the regulator did not understand the figures. The hon. Gentleman said that he could not have understood them; otherwise, he would have done something different. That is a serious thing to say to a professional man who understands the figures, particularly when it comes from a man who does not understand them and never has, which leads me to the subject of profits.
  The Labour party has been saying that the City would be safe with a Labour Government because the Labour party is new and has changed—it is not the same. Yet, when the Opposition talk about profit, we discover that they are precisely the same and have not changed at all. First, profits are bad. Secondly, the Opposition appear to have no idea that 40 per cent. of what they call profits are invested in the very infrastructure that they want to improve. They do not appear to understand that the profits also pay for investment. It is also true that, because of the profits, the companies are worth more and are able to borrow, so that the cost of present investment can be spread over the people who will benefit from those investments.
  All those things are possible only if the companies make profits, but the Opposition do not like profits. They would regulate the industry so that there would not be any. If there were no profits, there would not be any investment.
  As always, that brings us back to the fact that the Opposition want the investment but will never be prepared to pay the price. They know that investment is valuable and that is why their friends invest in the companies, but in the end they go back to the old Labour view of hating profits, and I will tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, why. It is because the hon. Member for Holborn

  803
  and St. Pancras has never made a profit in his life. He has never created a job and has never been able to make the kind of wealth that is possible for people in Britain because of what the water industry has been able to achieve throughout the world. All he can do is cavil and complain.
  Not every water company is good. Anglian is extremely good and has done very well indeed. Much of the work done by Thames Water is particularly good. That is why I am so pleased that the RMT has invested in it. As I drink Thames Water's product here, I am pleased with its quality. Some other water companies have done many extremely good things, but I would not have shared a public relations agency with Yorkshire Water in the past year. One or two things could have been put much better and I know that they will be because the water industry is in private hands.
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Yorkshire Water has invested and is investing a huge amount of money to rectify the difficult situation of the summer? It has also stated that it will not pass those costs to the consumer next year. Will he encourage the company not to pass the cost to the consumer the following year, as that is not clear?
  Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I shall certainly be keeping a close eye on Yorkshire Water. Although it has not starred as some other water companies, such as Anglian, have starred, there is no doubt that Yorkshire has been much better served by that company than by the nationalised industry. The company has invested and is investing and it is now subject to public control. Privatisation subjects companies to public control. If a company is owned by the public, they expect both the rate of investment and the rules.
  Sir Michael Grylls: My right hon. Friend is doing the House a great service in unravelling the extraordinary tangled web of Labour's policy on the water industry. The more the Opposition try to explain it and my right hon. Friend unravels it, the clearer it becomes that orderly regulation, which is what we have, would be replaced, under Labour, with disorderly interference by ministerial fiat, which is what ruined so many of the nationalised industries and made them such failures.
  Mr. Gummer: We should give some credit where it is due. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who speaks for the Labour party on these matters, once led Camden council, so he has experience of disorderly organisation. If there were someone who could run something with political abandon, the hon. Gentleman is that man. I just do not want my water to be in his hands. We will do much better with water in the hands of the professionals and with standards set independently by those who are able to set them without being concerned about the costs of implementation, apart from cost-effectiveness.
  Mr. Burden: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I will not give way again as I want to get to the end of my speech. This is a short debate and I must say one or two more things that will help the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) when he speaks.
  804
  First, I must thank the Opposition for this opportunity. Last year, not one of their Supply days was on the environment. They have no environmental policies and they did not raise a single environmental policy on the Floor of the House. That chimes with something else. I was pleased to answer Environment questions today, but we used to have an hour of questions—Environment is almost the largest Department in the Government and it had an hour for 25 years. To celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Department of the Environment, the Labour party asked whether we could have a shorter Question Time and whether it could be cut to 40 minutes. I wonder why. It is because the Opposition lose every time. Every time they ask a question, they get an answer and they do not like the answers. Every time they ask a question, they discover that they have got it wrong.
  That is what the Opposition discovered today. They have had to admit, first, that they would not nationalise the water companies; secondly, that they would go in for political interference; thirdly, that they would not be able to provide the necessary investment; fourthly, that they would have water companies in which their friends would no longer want to invest; and, fifthly, that they do not understand the balance sheets of the water companies or of any other company. That is what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has had to explain, and it is good that he has come to the House to give us this opportunity.
  I ask the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to help us again. I hope that we can have a debate on housing on the next Opposition Supply day. I would like him to outline Labour policy on housing because we did not hear it yesterday. I also hope that we can debate environmental matters. I look forward to hearing his views of the ozone layer and how he would deal, were he ever in a position to do so, with the big international environmental issues.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we can return to the subject in hand.
  Mr. Gummer: Today, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have been allowed to speak only about water and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has failed completely. He has shown that, under privatisation, we are investing twice as much in infrastructure and we have higher standards than ever before. This country has become the country to which other nations turn for advice on water and pay for the advice, which brings wealth to this nation. Under privatisation, water standards have risen as they never did before. We have been able to set standards, which never happened before. The hon. Gentleman shows that he is not fit to be part of a Government and that his party could not form a Government at any time.
  5.7 pm
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: We have just seen a performance that would have been better at the Palladium than in the House of Commons. It is a great pity that the Secretary of State did not address himself to the motion.
  I shall be brief, as many of my colleagues want to outline what has been happening with water in their areas. North West Water has its headquarters in Warrington, and my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman,

  805
  was right to say that North West Water loses more water between the reservoir and the tap than any other company in Britain. I believe it to be the most inefficient water company, although it has to compete with Yorkshire Water. Each day, just over 158 million gallons of water leak away, or 109,871 gallons a minute. If that leakage was stopped, 5,528,077 consumers could be supplied. That is the scale of the company's inefficiency.
  Despite the company's inefficiency, profits and dividends have gone through the roof since privatisation. Annual profits in 1990–91 were £215 million; in 1994–95, they were up by 32 per cent. to £284 million—or £540 per minute. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras mentioned that over the past five years, it has spent only £8 million on trying to reduce leaks. It is boasting that it will do something about them, yet even now it will spend only £65 million a year on reducing leaks. The modest target that it has set itself is to reduce leaks by the year 2000 from 30 to 24 per cent. By the year 2000, 24 per cent. of the north-west's water will still be flowing away in leaks.
  The cost of delivering water in the north-west has gone up by 21 per cent. since 1992. One would think that the people responsible for that sad state of affairs would be sacked. Not a bit of it. Instead of being sacked, they have been feathering their nests. The company has been a seat of power for the fat cats.
  Let us examine what has happened to the chairman of North West Water. In 1989–90, when the company was in public hands, he was paid £47,000 a year, and that is far too much. The same chairman, Dennis Grove, in the year before privatisation pushed up his salary to £97,000 a year, again far too much for the job that he was doing. It contrasts with the people who, when the industry was in public hands, gave their services for nothing. However, that is nothing compared with Sir Desmond Pitcher, who has pushed his salary up in 1994–95 to £360,000 a year—an increase of more than 300 per cent.—at the same time as the company is being run so inefficiently.
  There is also the case of the former chief executive, Bob Thian, who was paid £1 million to leave the company. I see that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber.
  Mr. Gummer indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hoyle: I had not noticed the right hon. Gentleman. I apologise.
  The right hon. Gentleman boasts that the water companies are going for contracts all over the world—in Argentina and Australia. That was certainly true of North West Water. However, those companies are doing nothing about the sad state of affairs in which water is leaking away at home and there is nothing for the benefit of people in the north-west.
  The same chief executive not only initiated that mistaken policy, but was the person responsible for the installation in the new head offices in Warrington of a computer that has cost millions of pounds and been difficult to get right. What did he get when he left the company? He got £1 million in compensation for all the mistakes that he had made. We never heard any
  806
  condemnation of those people from the Secretary of State. All we had was the knockabout stand-up comic act that we have had from him before.
  We can contrast the £1 million that was paid to Mr. Thian with the redundancy money paid to the thousands of staff who lost their jobs to keep up profits and pay the salaries of the fat cats at the top. Because of their inefficiency and the way in which they have allowed water to leak away in the north-west—we admit that last summer was a dry one, but it followed one of the wettest winters that we have ever had—we had a hosepipe ban last summer in most of the region. They also decided, at the height of the driest summer for many years and despite the drought, to empty three reservoirs in the north of the region. When there was a public outcry about that, they emptied only one reservoir—Poaka Beck in Cumbria. How stupid to empty a reservoir at the height of a drought to undertake maintenance. That is the sort crazy thing that happened.
  Even worse, the highly inefficient North West Water was allowed to take over Norweb, the region's electricity company, against advice from even the weak regulators in the electricity and water industries. Their advice was ignored. I was one among many who wrote to the President of the Board of Trade to ask him to refer that to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He did nothing about it and the merger was allowed. We in the region are paying a high price for that.
  The company is now called United Utilities, but it is really North West Water because most of the directors of Norweb left. I need not say that they did not leave empty-handed but with handsome pay-offs. A subsidiary called Vertex was set up to run telesales, customer services, meter reading and billing. Again, thousands of jobs will be lost.
  To push the job losses through, the company is going to derecognise the trade unions, when industrial relations in both the water and electricity industries have been very good. Recognition will be removed, so that thousands of people can lose their jobs. When they lose their jobs—and those employees have served both companies faithfully and well for many years—they will not get the £1 million that was paid to Mr. Thian or the handsome pay-offs given to the directors of Norweb. That shows the stupidity of not referring the matter to the MMC. It has put at risk not only the jobs of employees but the interests of consumers. It was a great blunder to put an inefficient company, with its present chairman, Sir Desmond Pitcher, in charge not only of water, but of electricity.
  A monopoly is being created in the north-west. Consumers cannot move from using North West Water or the electricity that is now supplied by the same company. It is an inadequately regulated monopoly. When we come to power, we must give attention to that and ensure that both those industries are properly regulated, in the interests of consumers and of the people who work in them.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I also welcome the fact that the Opposition have been kind enough, and, perhaps, candid enough, to have a debate on this subject. I look forward to other Opposition Supply days when we can debate education, defence and taxation, so that we can explore across the range the difference between what the Labour party says and what it does.

  807
  Ministers will not be surprised to hear me talking about water again. As a west country Member, I must have talked more about that subject than about any other since 1990. I shall look back at what has caused some of the water problems in the west country over the past six years or so and suggest one or two amendments.
  I have sometimes heard it said that South West Water has invested millions, if not billions, of pounds on cleaning up the waters around the west country. That is somewhat loose language. Millions, if not billions, have certainly been invested, but that investment has been made by the water charge payers in the south-west. It is the fault of nobody in the House that the European Community decided to identify 455 sub-standard beaches in the United Kingdom and that 30 per cent. of those were in south-west England. The south-west has a relatively small population, many of whom are of retirement or near-retirement age, so it is bizarre that a relatively small number of relatively impoverished people found themselves responsible for cleaning up 30 per cent. of the nation's coastline. That clean-up was done and financed—painfully—by the people of the south-west. The fact that it had to be done is neither here nor there.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Unlike the Secretary of State, the hon. Gentleman has attempted to blame the European Union for the directives on cleaning up our beaches, yet the British Government had adopted the regulations of the urban waste water directive before they were adopted by the European Community.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman speaks as a representative of the most "federast" party in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Taylor indicated dissent.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He should go away and read some of his party's literature. The Liberal party does not have a firm policy on much, but it has a very firm policy on complete and total integration into the European Community. I agree that, at times, the Government have found themselves being moved at a pace and in a manner that I would not choose, but it is a direct consequence of having to play our part in the European Community. The only party in the House that has always been consistently pro-European, and is therefore not in a position to make that point, is the Liberal Democrat party. If it were ever to play a part in the government of this country, there would be no question of trying to negotiate with our European partners on directives and other such matters. It would simply be told when to jump and the only question that it could ask would be, "How high?"
  South West Water plc has sometimes been criticised, not because it has had to clean up the coastline in that way, but because of the thoroughly insensitive way in which it has been done. There was a time when my postbag was full of letters complaining about the hike in water charges in the south-west. I pay tribute to South West Water for the courtesy and attention with which it has always dealt with my queries, but it was insensitive to how people in the west country felt about price rises. On one glorious occasion, the chairman of South West Water gave an interview in the Western Morning News to the effect that people in the west country were well off
  808
  and therefore able to pay. That judgment must have been framed by the fact that he had been looking in the mirror at the time. Some people in the south-west are paid a great deal of money and can therefore take that attitude to water charges.
  If hon. Members think that I am being slightly unfair to South West Water, I shall make a further point. As a result of efforts made by west country Members of Parliament and Ministers—I pay full tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins)—the regulator imposed a regime on South West Water, which meant that charges were capped at approximately the rate of inflation. That should have been the subject of great rejoicing in the west country, but South West Water immediately announced that it could not fulfil its statutory functions if its charges were pegged in that way, and it appealed. It took a whole year for the appeals procedure to go through.
  I have never been able to get to the bottom of the fact that South West Water paid about £1 million to present a case to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission showing that it simply could not manage on the moneys that it had. In a sense, that was correct and, ultimately, the MMC varied its position slightly. It said that, on some relatively minor aspects, the regulator had been too generous to South West Water and it imposed a slightly tighter regime on South West Water. There is no longer talk of South West Water being unable to carry out its statutory functions.
  People in the south-west are still faced with extremely high combined water and sewerage payments, but at least when they look into the future, they no longer see stretching before them extremely high year-on-year increases. That has been brought about not by the efforts of South West Water, but by the combined pressure of west country Members of Parliament and Ministers.
  That is the recent history of why this subject matters so much to people in the west country. Another reason why this debate is so important is that politics is about choices. When deciding which party to vote for, most people make the decision not because they think that one party is perfect and another is not, but on the balance of choice. They compare the parties' policies. Some people are probably saying, "We know what the Conservatives' position is on this; let us see what the Labour party has to offer us." They could do worse than look at the motion that the Labour party has tabled today. It is splendid stuff, with marvellously volcanic phrases about
  "the deplorable record of the privatised water companies".
  It goes on to talk about
  "prices, profits…pay and perks".
  If those marvellous alliterations do not get one salivating sufficiently, one can look at today's press wire, where the Labour party makes a great attack on water companies. One might reasonably think that, if the Labour party were to get into office, it would immediately put those fat cats to the sword and do away with all the profits. The difficulty is that one must always compare what the Labour party says with what it does.
  It is interesting to see what the Labour party does when it is in power. Labour local authorities, such as Islington in north London, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, have all acquired substantial shareholdings in water companies and other privatised utilities. The leader of the Labour

  809
  party lives in Islington, although he does not send his children to school there. Islington council has shares in 17 privatised firms and last year it bought £240 million-worth of pension funds and 24,700 shares in R. J. Budge (Mining). That name should make Labour Members shudder as if someone had trodden on their graves, because last year that company took over most of Britain's coal mines. That is the sort of company that Labour councillors are more than happy to invest in.
  Not all Labour Members are happy about that. Some realise that there may be a slight contradiction between their principles and their practices. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson)— I am sorry that he is not here today—who said:
  "The party is skewered if we buy shares, having attacked privatisation, and then just sit back and accept the cash."
  That is a marvellous thing to have said, although the hon. Gentleman will not say it here today as he will have been sandbagged outside.
  Let us see what has happened at Labour party conferences when the utilities have been debated. In 1994, a splendid motion was put down by the Labour party in Amber Valley, where people know a bit about privatisation and the iniquity of water supplies, because Derbyshire county council has a £700 million pension fund with 800,000 shares in water firms.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was kind enough to mention the plight of the south-west. He might have drawn to the House's attention the fact that Derbyshire county council owns 500,000 shares in North West Water and 300,000 in South West Water.
  Mr. Jack Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Nicholls: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but he must be patient.
  We need not fear or doubt that the next Labour Government will keep the water companies privatised. You must be joking—the Labour party nearly owns the water industry already.
  Mr. Thompson: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has had any experience in local government; I assume that he has at some time in his career. He may be aware—I certainly am—that local government investment in pension funds is strictly controlled. I was chairman of the investment panel of Northumberland county council in 1981, at a time when I did not want pension fund money to be invested in South Africa. We were not permitted to refuse to invest there; we were obliged to invest in South Africa. Similarly, now, local authorities must invest in companies that they are advised give the best return. They have no choice.
  Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting it in that way. I do have experience in local government and I am also a lawyer. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that those poor Labour-controlled authorities were bullied, or pressurised by law, into investing in companies that they describe as indulging in excess profits, rip-offs and so on, I reply that those
  810
  Labour, left-wing-controlled authorities were able to exercise a choice. They did exercise a choice and, as is so often the case with the Labour party, they exercised a choice in one direction and then preached an entirely different message.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would be interested to know of the way in which Yorkshire Water—I believe, on the advice and suggestion of the regulator and possibly the Government—treated local authority pension fund shareholders and individual shareholders. When those shareholders went to an annual general meeting to express their point of view, which was their right as shareholders, they were treated with the utmost contempt. Their points of view were not even allowed to be heard and considered properly by that meeting. That is the way in which water companies treat shareholders when they do not agree with the policy of the water company.
  Mr. Nicholls: I accept that, if the hon. Lady or I were to buy a share in a water company and attend an annual general meeting to try to make an argument or gather people on our side, it would be extremely difficult—even with the combined megaphone diplomacy of the hon. Lady and me—to argue our point.
  However, we are not discussing poor, humble little hon. Members with one share apiece. Large, Labour-controlled local authorities do not buy only the occasional share. They buy 300,000 shares in South West Water or 500,000 shares in North West Water, or are prepared to invest in a company such as R. J. Budge (Mining), which has committed what one would suppose to be the ultimate heresy for the Labour party, of buying up the privatised coal industry. If the hon. Lady wants to consider that, she should have a word with the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, who said:
  "The party is skewered if we buy shares, having attacked privatisation, and then just sit back and accept the cash."
  I had hoped that the debate would enable my constituents to make a choice. I had hoped that they would be able to listen to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and suddenly understand that an alternative might exist. What alternative was mentioned? None at all. Did we hear from the hon. Gentleman whether, under a Labour Government, the water industry would contribute less to environmental protection? Not a word. Would water charges be less? Oh yes, you bet they would, Madam Deputy Speaker, but where was the money coming from? The hon. Gentleman did not know.
  Judging by the number of people in the Gallery and the number of people in the Chamber, it might be supposed that the subject of the debate is not desperately exciting. It might be supposed that the debate will not yield facts that would be useful for a hypocrisy watch. It might be supposed that the debate is uninteresting compared with some of our recent debates about education matters.
  But as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are universal principles. One of them is that one must be tough on cant and tough on the causes of cant. The debate is worth listening to, if only for one reason. If the Government ever decided to introduce a new charter mark, they might do a great deal worse than to introduce a charter mark on hypocrisy; and in deciding who would be a worthy recipient of that award, they might take a look at the Opposition Benches.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The contributions to the debate bear out my suspicion that there is not much agreement across the Floor of the House. I hope that, in spite of that, there can be general agreement on the principle that access to an affordable, available and adequate source of water is one of the bases of a civilised society. I believe that the Conservative Government's privatisation of the water industry, and the way in which they have failed to regulate it adequately, have placed that in jeopardy. Water privatisation and the regulatory system have failed to provide an equitable and affordable deal for consumers in terms of costs, water provision and the environment.
  I shall discuss three aspects; first, the rosy picture painted by Conservative Ministers at the time of water privatisation; secondly, the way in which the regulatory system has placed private interests before the interests of the consumer, creating a huge and unaffordable burden for domestic water users and for the environment; finally, the ways in which the Government can start to tackle the problems caused by water privatisation.
  At the time of privatisation—as now—Conservative Ministers emphasised that they believed that privatisation was the best way to proceed. They argued that privatisation would give water companies a chance to raise capital in the market place, which the companies would invest in revitalising the water system and improving the environment while providing an affordable service. In reality, the monster that the Government created was what the National Consumer Council has described as
  "a monopoly supplier of an essential service to a captive market."
  I expressed that anxiety during the debate on privatisation, when I argued:
  "I do not believe that privatisation is best for the water industry. Also, one must consider whether, in privatising, one is giving adequate power to consumers and meeting environmental concerns. In any privatisation, the first consideration should be the ordinary men and women of this country, whereas the Government's primary consideration has been maximising the return to the Treasury"— [Official Report, 8 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 534.].
  The Government cannot argue, therefore, that the problems could not be predicted. On the contrary, Liberal Democrat anxieties have proved well founded. The regulatory system has shown itself to be incapable of adequately protecting the consumer. In practice, water privatisation has meant that the consumer has suffered while the private water companies, their bosses and their shareholders have flourished.
  Instead of raising capital for investment in the marketplace, the water companies have raised prices, forcing the consumer to pay a large proportion of the costs of investment in infrastructure and the environment. According to the National Consumer Council, domestic water bills have increased on average by two-thirds since privatisation, while profits accumulated by the water companies have increased by 20 per cent. a year from 1989–90 to 1992–93, and shareholders have made huge and increasing returns.
  That is obviously inequitable, and it is one of the fundamental factors that the Secretary of State failed to address in his claim that privatisation gave the water companies access to what he described as private finance, but which the hon. Member for Teignbridge
  812
  (Mr. Nicholls) more accurately described as consumers' pockets. The water companies have not primarily relied on raising capital by means of, for example, further share issues, which would have diluted the return to the owners and managers of those companies; they have primarily relied on raising money from the revenue stream—direct from their captive consumers. The Government cannot argue that those problems could not have been predicted.
  The regulatory system has obviously failed in that regard. If the industry had been priced and regulated properly, those problems might have been kept under greater control. Indeed, water prices could and should have been kept significantly lower if the Government and the regulator had demanded that capital should be raised for investment, instead of customers being used as a source of direct revenue.
  Why did Ministers not ensure that stronger action was taken on that? Presumably, they failed to do so in order to protect the returns of the large institutional shareholders who, when they bought into the privatisation, were given assurances on rates of return.
  The result of that weak regulatory system has been an increasing and unaffordable burden on water consumers—a burden that Conservative Ministers have failed to cut even if the rate of increase has been reduced in the past couple of years from what it was previously under privatisation.
  The burden of paying for water has fallen particularly heavily on low-income families, pensioners and those who live alone. Using Ofwat figures, the National Consumer Council calculated that a household on income support would spend 3.2 per cent. of its disposable income on water in 1994–95, compared with 2.5 per cent. in 1989–90. The burden has increased for those who are least able to afford it.
  In my part of the south-west, the burden is even more apparent. People in Cornwall and Devon are paying the highest water bills in the country. The average bill is more than £300 and many are paying bills of £600 or more. A pensioner living alone in the south-west may spend more than 9 per cent. of his or her income on water bills. Bill Fraser, the managing director of South West Water, announced his retirement yesterday. I hope that, with a change in leadership, the company will also take a change in direction and step up the pressure on Government to tackle the problem rather than relying on consumer payments.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is a fair man, so I hope that he will make it clear in his speech that there was no painless way of raising money to do what had to be done. Whatever we may think about the way in which it was done, it is misleading to suggest that there was a painless way of doing it.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seriously trying to suggest that it was not the combined efforts of west country Members of Parliament and Ministers who were prepared to take our side that persuaded the regulator that charges should be pegged. That was no mean achievement, bearing in mind that many of the hon. Gentleman's supporters did not believe that charges could be pegged, let alone reduced.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is correct in one respect: political pressure counts. The Government are

  813
  aware of the pressure that they are under in the west country as a result of the increasing water bills and they expect to lose seats as a consequence. That political pressure—which is echoed in Conservative Members' concern that they will lose their seats at the same time as the pressure is intensified by Liberal Democrats who expect to gain those seats—clearly had an impact on the Minister.
  Prior to the preparations for privatisation, the cost of cleaning up our coastline was spread across the country—however inadequately—through an equalisation scheme, which relates to the point that the hon. Member for Teignbridge raised. Privatisation imposed a huge extra burden on the people of the south-west who were required to pay for a greatly expanded clean-up without any proper system to distribute the costs—some 3 per cent. of the population were left to pay for cleaning up 33 per cent. of the nation's beaches. A national asset became a regional burden.
  That cost was emphasised last year by the chair of the South West Water consumers committee, who said that if the cost of environmental improvements—they are future improvements which are not yet in the pipeline—continues to fall solely on South West Water consumers, it will add £150 per year to their average bill. However, if the cost of the same clean-up were spread nationally and if everyone paid a fair portion of the cost of the national clean-up programme, it would add just £15 to the average bill.
  Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman advanced that argument in debate on the Environment Bill in Committee. I asked him then—and I do so again now—how his right hon. and hon. Friends who represent seats in other parts of the country, such as the erstwhile Treasury spokesman, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), would feel about inviting their constituents to pay more in order to clean up the beaches in the hon. Gentleman's constituency?
  Mr. Taylor: The short answer is that it is party policy. It is not difficult to argue that we should have clean beaches and clean water if it adds £15 to people's bills across the nation. It is more difficult to say the same thing to consumers in the south-west while adding £150 to their water bills. I would find it easier to argue the case for a £15 increase in Yorkshire than the hon. Gentleman would to argue the case for a £150 increase in the south-west. [Interruption.] If that is what the hon. Member for Teignbridge believes, that message will be relayed to all of his constituents come the general election.
  The Government cannot argue that there is no precedent for sharing the burdens. Indeed, the green dowry explicitly recognised the need to spread the cost of the clean-up. However, the levels were set far too low before the environment regulations were finally agreed, and they were never increased in response to the Government's decision to raise environmental standards. As I said earlier, the decision on environmental standards was taken by the British Government in advance of the European Community determination.
  The burden that the decisions have placed on the consumer is highlighted by the number of water disconnections. Higher water charges increase the
  814
  likelihood of disconnection for low income families. With that in mind, at the time of privatisation I sought a guarantee from the Minister that the 9,000 disconnections of the previous year would not be increased after privatisation. Unfortunately, the number of disconnections has increased. According to a study by the British Medical Association, there was a 48 per cent. increase in the number of domestic water disconnections between 1989 and 1994—little wonder, in view of the increasing bills that I have outlined.
  More worrying still is the fact that the number of disconnections may rise if plans to encourage budget metering go ahead. Low-income families with cards or keys for meters who cannot afford to charge them up will effectively disconnect themselves. Those disconnections will not show up in the official figures, and therefore will remain unaddressed. There will certainly be no room for the existing customer protection measures. I cannot accept that there is a need for those disconnections, when it was shown that there was no need for them in Scotland.
  I cannot forgive the fact that, in full knowledge of the burden on consumers that I have described, the Government have failed to reassess the charging system for water—despite having an opportunity to do so only six months ago. In an extraordinary decision last Easter, Ministers announced that charging for water would continue to be based on the outdated rates system. That system was abandoned for local government in the 1980s' as it was considered outmoded and unfair and based on valuations made in the 1970s. If it was considered unfair and outdated for use by councils in the 1980s, it cannot be acceptable for water charging by private companies in the 1990s. How can Ministers justify charges in the next century based on valuations from the 1970s?
  In addition, the valuations bring with them a system which, despite the rising prices that I have mentioned, gives no relief to those on the lowest incomes or those who live alone. That means that in high charging areas such as the south-west there is no help for people who are literally unable to pay their water bills. I remind the House that pensioners in my region may spend 9 per cent. of their annual pension paying their water bills.
  Despite that situation, Conservative Ministers have continued to disclaim any responsibility. In a letter to south-west Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament, the Secretary of State argued:
  "responsibility for water charges rests with the Director General of Water Services".
  Yet Mr. Byatt confirmed in the Western Morning News that price limits were based on environmental obligations laid down by the Government and that he had little room to manoeuvre.
  In addition to announcing that water bills would continue to be based on the rates system for the time being, Ministers argue in favour of introducing compulsory water metering as a new system of charging. I shall turn briefly to that issue. Metering creates huge problems for families on low incomes, as revealed by a recent Save the Children report entitled, "Water tight. The impact of water metering on low income families". Families with children are most likely to use more water for basic needs, and therefore have higher water bills. According to the report, under metering, families face huge pressure to cut their water bills and they try to save money by

  815
  "sharing baths, taking fewer baths or showers, washing clothes less often and flushing the toilet less".
  We have reached a worrying situation when a respondent to the Save the Children survey can say:
  "You have to bath the kids, but some people are afraid to bath them as it costs too much".
  Imagine what it will mean in the south-west, where families face higher than average bills under compulsory metering. Extra environmental burdens are to be imposed upon them and the water companies continue to take their ever-increasing cut. The risks posed to those families by cutting water use is not imagined or exaggerated. The British Medical Association has said that families who economise on water over a long period are at risk from a number of diseases.
  Water metering has its advantages, but Ministers must not contemplate it without the Government's first addressing the needs of the poor and the huge extra cost of introducing a compulsory system for every household. The Government do not answer those questions; they simply hope to blame the privatised companies for problems which they cannot bring themselves even to acknowledge. Meanwhile, the Government continue with the existing out-of-date, unfair rating system.
  Having set out my concerns about the charging system for water and the need for more effective regulation, let me consider for a moment last summer's drought and its environmental implications. The water companies emphasise the need for domestic water users to cut consumption. Although that is desirable, it is not the main issue. A report by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology points out that leakage from water company distribution pipes remains more than four times higher than that from customers' supply pipes. That backs up figures from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds that 500,000 gallons of water are lost through leakage every minute of the day. The combination of rising demand and leakage is putting huge pressure on our rivers and wildlife. Before we discuss cutting the amount of water that families use, let us cut the amount that water companies waste.
  Since the summer, water companies have committed themselves to an accelerated leakage control programme which will double the current rate of improvement, but as the current rate is only 1.2 per cent. per year it will be too little and too slow. The Secretary of State for the Environment has simply accepted the water companies' argument that that is the most efficient approach, leaving the water companies to take measures to minimise their total costs, including those of leakage, under the regulatory system. That may well be the best answer for shareholders, but it is unlikely to be the best answer for customers suffering water shortages or for an environment that is literally drying up.
  I come now to the measures that the Liberal Democrats believe would solve the problems facing water consumers and the environment. We have repeatedly proposed long-term and transitional solutions to cut bills and help consumers.
  It is widely understood that Environment Ministers accepted that the burden fell too hard on the south-west and asked the Treasury for more resources, but the Treasury turned them down. Frankly, the only reasonable solution is fairer national distribution of the burden of the clean-up. It is not viable for the present system to
  816
  continue. It is certainly not viable to seek continuing increases in the context of the present charging system, which offers no help to the poor or those living alone.
  Increased national investment would ensure that environmental improvements could be made without the burden falling unfairly on people in particular parts of the country. Our coastline is a national asset. It must be part of a national policy, not neglected as a regional problem.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Does my hon. Friend accept that if that were the case, there would also be an opportunity to draw down funds from the European Union as other countries do?
  Mr. Taylor: That is right. When the industry was privatised, I said that privatisation would block much of the potential European funding that is available to the public sector, but not to private companies.
  It is significant that neither Conservative Members nor Labour Front Bench spokesmen are willing to take action for my region. They all want to protect their voters outside the south-west. Let me remind the House that if the burden of the next round of environmental clean-up is distributed unfairly, as at present, it will add £150 to the average bill in the south-west. Yet if it is distributed evenly across the country, it will add just £15. That change will have to be made. Conservative and Labour must recognise that people in the south-west cannot afford to pay their bills.
  In addition, we could help poorer customers right away by replacing the old rateable value system as the basis for charging for water with the up-to-date council tax system. That more modern system would allow the Government to help low-income families and those living alone who are faced with unaffordable water bills. Disconnections from water supplies should be illegal, as they are in Scotland. There are many ways to get money out of people. We do not need to deny their children water.
  Both those moves should be combined with a tougher regulatory system. At present there is no way of penalising water companies for failing to meet agreed standards of service. Such penalties would encourage companies to raise their standards. Water companies must be encouraged to raise more funds for investment through private sector capital finance rather than directly from customers. Finally, to address the problem of future droughts and leakages, the Government must bite the bullet and introduce mandatory leakage targets.
  It is time that the Government put a fair deal for consumers above protecting the water bosses and their shareholders. If not, in the south-west in particular, the Government's time will soon be up.
  5.53 pm
  Sir Donald Thompson: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) to the south-west, where he expects my constituents to pay £15 a head to re-elect him. We have to look after our own beaches in Yorkshire.
  I have received more correspondence on this subject than I have on the community charge and the Child Support Agency put together. All summer, correspondence about Yorkshire Water rolled into my office. The Calder Valley, Halifax, Bradford and the old

  817
  woollen areas were always self-sufficient in water. The waterways, the reservoirs and people's houses were supplied by the system that was established by the woollen manufacturers. Consequently, we have no national grid and no way of fetching water into my constituency other than its falling from heaven. Yorkshire Water's predecessors must have known that for generations; yet they did nothing about it.
  I am convinced that, had there still been a nationalised industry or a water board industry, we would have been in the same position as 15 or 20 years ago, when we relied on standpipes. It did not come to that; none the less, Yorkshire Water was slow to spot the difficulties and abysmally slow with its public relations. It did not even attempt to bring water to west Yorkshire by other methods. At one time there was a call for Yorkshire Water to use the Army. It could also have asked the oil companies and other corporations that are accustomed to moving liquids for assistance. Ultimately, it had to resort to tankering and I am grateful for that.
  The response to people who objected to the tankers roaring past their homes was as insensitive as it was to my constituents, to industry, and to various parts of the community throughout the crisis. Dentists, for instance, faced special difficulties. Their premises are often in residential streets where the water was cut off. They found the prospect of rota cuts on alternate days terrifying, not simply because there would not be water on alternate days, but because on those days when water could be delivered, it would have to be boiled. That possibility was averted, but not without having the effect of terrifying firms which were encouraged, not very subtly, to manufacture elsewhere, or old people, who were worried.
  Yorkshire Water put up the backs of the people who wanted to help. My constituents are renowned for their common sense. They sent me here, so they must have common sense. They knew that it had not rained all summer and they would have helped Yorkshire Water. Eventually, they must have been tempted to leave the taps running on purpose, although they did not do so because they had too much common sense. Yorkshire Water threw away every chance of good public relations time after time.
  The only time the chairman of Yorkshire Water wrote directly and unprompted to me was when I asked a question in the House and it was reported in the Financial Times the following day. That put a rocket under the chairman, but letters from my constituents seemed not to stir Yorkshire Water. The chairman of Yorkshire Water and I had clashed before. In years gone by, he had an untidy site at a place that my constituents know as Lowfields, which is now an industrial estate. I had to use the procedures of the House to make him relinquish Lowfields and bring it back into proper use.
  Yorkshire people know that they can get nothing for nothing. They want Yorkshire Water to make a profit, but they are disgusted that the company should retreat first into the unregulated areas of its business before putting right all the damage and neglect that had occurred before privatisation.
  The Government could not at first believe that Yorkshire Water could be so slow or so insensitive and pedantic towards its customers. We must help Yorkshire Water to regain the confidence of consumers, including
  818
  my constituents and business generally. If we are to have the investment that has been urged, Yorkshire Water must regain the confidence of the City. As things stand, I do not believe that anyone in the City would say, "It is a good bet to put your money on Yorkshire Water." Unless it attracts investors, my constituents will be badly served.
  The problem will be back with us next year. It is not Yorkshire Water's fault, of course, that it has not rained. Similarly, it is not the Government's fault that the reservoirs are not filling at the usual rate. But that means that the problem will return next year. Accordingly, the Government must maintain pressure on Yorkshire Water. They must keep pushing. On behalf of our constituents, we must nag the Government as well as Yorkshire Water and its directors. We must ensure that the company recognises that the mistakes of last year are not repeated this year.
  6.1 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Last year, when it became obvious to everyone in West Yorkshire, apart from those holed up at Yorkshire Water's headquarters and perhaps Ministers, that we were faced with almost certain cut-offs if appropriate action was not taken, I wrote to the Prime Minister. I did so in August. I wrote also to the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Health. I asked for intervention and help.
  The Prime Minister took five weeks to reply. When the Secretary of State for the Environment replied, he tried to defend the indefensible. The Secretary of State for Health adopted a similar approach. It was left to the people—I concede what the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) said—and to local Members, local authorities and interested bodies to do all the shouting and pressurising. The Government abandoned us.
  The water industry should never have been privatised. We know that water is vital to life. The privatisation of the industry has been a spectacular failure by any measure, especially in Yorkshire.
  We hear much about hypocrisy these days. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has been chided by some of my hon. Friends for being two-faced, but I think that he has 10 faces. He was one of the many Tory Members who wandered enthusiastically into the Government Lobby to support the Government throughout consideration of the privatisation Bill. At that stage, Labour Members were warning of disasters. If we are talking about hypocrisy and double standards, the hon. Gentleman provides a classic example.
  On 9 January, Yorkshire Water announced that tankering would cease. No one was more pleased than hundreds of my constituents who lives had been seriously disrupted by the 24-hour operation. Janet Parsons, the secretary of the pensioners' association in Halifax, has been a doughty campaigner to keep the taps flowing. Janet told me that when she saw the tankers driving through narrow roads, up hills and in difficult areas in Halifax with "Water for Halifax" written on them, she thought that that was not life in a first-world country; she told me that it was like being in the third world, somewhere in the middle of the Sahara or in some other desert-like country.
  It could be argued, however, that the tankering should not have been stopped. It was costing the water company £3 million a week, but I am still not sure that the operation should have ended. We were glad, of course, when we

  819
  were told that 24-hour cut-offs would be withdrawn for the time being. We were pleased also when Yorkshire Water announced that it would spend another £100 million on new pipes and pumps. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that the crisis is over. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  The Halifax Courier, a newspaper which is read by the hon. Member for Calder Valley and by me, made it clear last night through its "Water Watch" that reservoir stocks in Calderdale stand at only a third of capacity. They should be about 80 per cent., but they are only 27.4 per cent. We are halfway through the winter and our reservoirs are only a third full. It does not take a genius to work out that we shall be in trouble unless there is massive rainfall or unless Yorkshire Water commits itself to doing something to take account of the long-term problem.
  The Minister should know that the people of Halifax and the surrounding areas, after the way in which they have been treated, despise Yorkshire Water. If he wants to do anything to help to improve the Government's poor electoral chances, he should stop digging when in a hole. The people all blame Yorkshire Water's mismanagement, but they know that at the root of the problem is the disastrous privatisation of a precious utility. There is no doubt that, if further cut-offs take place, there will be a disaster. It seems that even the Minister accepts that now. It took some time for the message to sink in.
  At the beginning of the crisis, Dr. Chris Worth, the public health director for West Yorkshire health authority, spelt out the consequences. He drew the attention of the Dewsbury inquiry to them, when he said that
  "the health of thousands of Calderdale and Kirklees elderly, frail and mentally ill people would be threatened, and I can foresee a situation regrettably where lives may be lost."
  The Minister should try to get that message through to the Prime Minister. The people of West Yorkshire demand that the Government concentrate on the health and well-being of those in the area. They should concentrate also on their jobs.
  The Government must abandon the stupid diversionary tactics in which they have been engaged over the past few weeks. The silly stunt of the chairman of the Conservative party will not bring a drop of water through taps in Halifax or anywhere else. The Deputy Prime Minister's manic outbursts will not move Yorkshire Water into action. Only the Government can ensure that action is taken, and that is the Government's responsibility.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) should be congratulated on playing a superb role in monitoring the privatised water companies. She has drawn attention to their pathetic and awful actions. She had the support of hundreds of Members when she called on the Secretary of State, through an early-day motion, to use his emergency powers to take over the running of Yorkshire Water. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to do so. If he cannot or if he will not, let him give the House a copper-bottomed guarantee that no authority or household will run short of water because of Yorkshire Water's mismanagement.
  It is not only Labour Members who are criticising Yorkshire Water. Local Tory Members, who voted for privatisation, are now taking it to task. In addition, local chambers of commerce have been active, both in Calderdale and in Kirklees. They have warned that, even
  820
  if there are limited cut-offs, 3,000 jobs could be put at risk. They have warned that businesses would close. Indeed, much damage has already been done by the antics and bizarre public relations of Yorkshire Water.
  What business man or woman in his or her right mind would want to invest in an area where the water supply cannot be guaranteed? I cannot think of a greater disincentive. The Government have no idea—if they have, they do not care—of the long-term consequences. They do not appreciate the damage that a privatised company has done to business confidence in west Yorkshire. They have put ideology and dogma before people.
  The Government's policy has not been supported by the majority of people. There was an excellent article in The Guardian this week on the privatised utilities, and on Yorkshire Water in particular. It is worth quoting Brian Rhodes, a Keighley business man, who said that
  "when water was privatised they"—
  his company—
  "installed a bore hole to supply their own water needs".
  He explained that
  "we knew a private-water monopoly would create havoc. But still they sent us that silly letter telling us to save water"
  and to relocate. "Silly sods", he concludes. Although I am quoting, I must agree with that. He went on:
  "We've just got £19m out of the Government to promote manufacturing industry in this area—but Yorkshire Water's done more in one summer to destroy any chance of bringing jobs here".
  We all know about the scandal of leakages. I shall not repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough said, but it is worth noting that, out of the massive profits that Yorkshire Water made, just £11 million was set aside—
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
  Mrs. Mahon: Certainly.
  Mrs. Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Before she leaves the question of leakages, does she agree that a 10 per cent. reduction in the leakage of 100 million gallons a day would have prevented the problems that were experienced in Yorkshire this summer?
  Mrs. Mahon: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right, but because of time I shall not repeat the points that she made earlier. That is a good point. The truth is that Yorkshire Water is at the top of the national league for wasting water supplies—103 million gallons a day are lost through leaks. That is gross incompetence and mismanagement.
  Yorkshire Water sacked half its work force—the people who understand about managing the industry. It is not accountable to anybody. It still has a leakage detection team, but only just. Before the crisis, Yorkshire Water had proposed bringing in a scheme called Operation 2000, which was to be implemented in October, which would have abolished the leakage detection teams. Yorkshire Water was going to sack the people who do all the valuable work up on the moors. Those people find out where the leaks are occurring and then gangs of locally employed people go along to mend them. Now we have wastage on the moors. Reservoirs are silted up from 30 ft to 100 ft. Often, the reservoir keepers are now

  821
  responsible not just for one reservoir but for 10. Two years ago, Yorkshire Water also considered replacing all its skilled workers with Securicor employees. That is the level of neglect that we have had from Yorkshire Water. Never again should it be allowed to bring the health and well-being of people in my constituency and in West Yorkshire to the point that it did. Sir Gordon Jones is going, but others should follow him.
  As for Labour councils and the RMT buying shares, I wish that they could buy the lot and then we would have some public accountability. I do not think that the Government really appreciate the anger in West Yorkshire. If we have cut-offs, I think that there would be a public order problem, because people blame Yorkshire Water and detest it for its actions. The fact that it is funding and setting up its own inquiry will not do; we want an independent public inquiry, as my hon. Friend said.
  Yorkshire Water said that it will invest another £100 million in pipes. We should look carefully at what that investment means. It means going to the already depleted rivers and taking even more water out of them. That will lead to a disaster in the environment. There should be a massive investment programme now, perhaps to get water from Kielder water. It is possible to go across deserts, so I do not want any nonsense about having to go up hills and down dales; it should not be beyond comprehension to do that now.
  What Yorkshire Water says that it will invest is too little too late. We do not trust it. We do not trust the Government with this precious resource which we all need. We want a general election, and then the people of West Yorkshire can show the Government exactly what they think about them and their privatisation.
  6.13 pm
  Sir Giles Shaw: I am grateful for the fact that the Opposition included the privatised water industries as a subject for debate. I must declare that I was, until March 1995, a non-executive director of Yorkshire Water. Since then, I have been a consultant on corporate and marketing affairs. I have lodged details in the Register of Members' Interests. I must also take great care that I do not operate in the debate as an advocate for Yorkshire Water, as that is clearly against the spirit of the debate. Having heard the generality of comments, including those of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), I suspect that even my courage will fail in the task of advocacy, because clearly Yorkshire Water is the spectre at this feast that the Opposition are quite enjoying.
  If ever there were an annus horribilis for Yorkshire Water, it was 1995. When I left in March, the reservoirs were full, it was a bright spring and there was not a cloud in the sky—but the falling percentage of rainfall led to an exceptional drought. It is not for me to go through the history of the matter, as that has been well established. I understand and most deeply regret the way in which Yorkshire Water managed to achieve, through a range of public relations propositions, letters to industry or other public observations, a series of gaffes which thoroughly damaged its credibility with its customers and, indeed, with others.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Giles Shaw: Forgive me, but, because of the time, I must press on.
  Added to that was the increasing public backlash against private utilities as a whole—which the Opposition have so well developed—aided and abetted by the media campaign about fat cats. I note that the media are somewhat shy about their own salary structures. No doubt they are seeking to protect their own sources, as is their wont. Yorkshire Water was vilified or satirised in the press—despised by some of its public and ostracised by most. That is not a welcome position for a public limited company to be in only six years after privatisation.
  Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) said, and as the hon. Member for Halifax just recognised, the fact is that, after all the trauma, not a house, hospital, retirement home, school, small firm or large firm was disconnected from supply or suffered a serious shortage of water. One of the reasons was that the area that was affected was extremely small, although the Yorkshire region is vast and the company has responsibility for distribution in the whole region. The area is crucial but very small in relation to total Yorkshire demand and provision.
  As my hon. Friend made clear, it was geographically and historically separated from the rest of the arrangements. Yorkshire has had grids for many years. The main grid, which runs from rivers in the north and east of Yorkshire, particularly the River Derwent, and across to Sheffield, was put in subsequently. Sheffield takes water from Ladybower reservoir. With a massive effort, the staff ensured, by working night and day, that everything was finally put in place. It moved resources by pipe transfer or road tanker and managed to maintain supply.
  The trauma was substantial for the company, for the people who were affected and, indeed, for the people in Yorkshire as a whole. It is very important that lessons are learned and not just in Yorkshire itself. I am happy to be able to reassure the hon. Lady that the emergency investment that is now taking place, where some £100 million is being spent to connect 10 pumping stations so that the grid can deliver 300,000 cu m of water a day into Leeds, Bradford, Calderdale and Kirklees, will make a huge difference to the problem. That is a short-term arrangement. Arrangements for the longer term depends on a review of resources and on longer-term decisions which have yet to be made.
  I now come to the lessons for the industry as a whole, as that is equally important. If the water industry is no longer to plan for events that are expected to occur once in 100 years, and ignores events that are expected to occur only once in 200 or 250 years, as occurred in relation to the extreme water shortage in the portion of the Pennine catchment to which the hon. Member for Halifax and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley referred, there will be a very major shift in what water companies must do to maintain supply.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—who, unfortunately, is not present now—has said that no eventuality, however rare, should result in a shortage of public water supply, and certain other hon. Members have said the same. The structure of water resource management must therefore shift markedly. The present industry—as defined in relation to what may occur once in 100 years—is not structured to meet such change.

  823
  There must be a public debate about whether we should create more water resources. For instance, should we construct further reservoirs? That might involve problems in a beautiful region such as Yorkshire. Should there be more reservoirs in the dales, or in the Lake district? Should there be more reservoirs on Dartmoor? None of those propositions seems feasible, but they must be considered.
  Alternatively, should we take more powers to abstract from rivers or to move volumes of water through the river system? The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) was anxious about abstraction, but we currently waste huge amounts of water through our river system. If we are to ensure that the public have priority in terms of supply, we ought to be able to act at certain times of the year. We should never go beyond the permitted amount of abstraction, and never infringe low levels of supply, but there is a case for saying that, with Yorkshire's massive rivers—largely located in the east of the region—abstraction could serve as a useful way of saving water.
  Another option is to require less control on the maintaining of river flows by releasing reservoir waters. Yorkshire Water already has to take such action in drought conditions. Again—this idea is no doubt dear to the hearts of Opposition Members—we could try to reduce leakage rates. I feel that that should definitely be tried during what ought to be an attempt to recover economic costs. In fact, the reason why leakage has never posed a serious threat to the viability of water supply is the astronomical cost of recovery, which has been estimated at approximately £400 million for a 1 per cent. leakage reduction. If such a figure must be contemplated, there will be major repercussions in the industry.
  Leakages are prevalent in areas containing many miles of piping. Yorkshire contains more than 30,000 km, going in and out of huge Pennine ranges, distributed up hill and down dale; heavy pumping is used in an attempt to enable the water to reach its destination.
  Finally, perhaps we should accept that 1995 is symptomatic of a pattern of climate change that will permanently alter the rainfall conditions that we may expect in the future. It may be a little early to take that view, but it must be taken into account.
  All those are big issues, affecting not just the structure of the industry but the terms under which it was privatised, and the terms under which the regulator ensures that certain standards of supply, abstraction and discharge are imposed on the 10 water companies. Water supply currently costs an average of 29p or 30p a day in my area, perhaps a little more; but, quite apart from that cost, we may have to look again at the general question of how the supply is to be costed and paid for. That will lead to numerous questions. Essential fuels such as gas and electricity carry an understandably high price when delivered to the consumer, as opposed to the cost of water, which can be measured in pence. The high price of energy, and the fact that fuels carry a safety hazard, make it essential for closed systems to supply households by means of meters.
  Water metering, however, is a vexed issue among the public, although it is the regulator's preferred option. I believe that Yorkshire Water conducted a substantial public consultation exercise, as a result of which it accepted the public's view that imposed metering was not
  824
  acceptable but that metering should remain an alternative. It must be accepted that the industry should have proper regard for consumer wishes, and the lessons of 1995 clearly suggest that the idea of wholesale metering should be abandoned. I do not think that it is acceptable to consumers.
  Unlike gas and electricity, the water industry is responsible for the maintenance of a huge slice of our natural environment—hence the heavy legislative load on discharges from sewage works, and the gradual improvement of rivers under the obligations laid down by the National Rivers Authority as well as the EU. I am delighted to learn that, during the past week, a salmon was found way up the River Don, having apparently succeeded not only in travelling so far upstream but in spawning. There have been genuine improvements in our aquatic environment.
  Supporting access to reservoirs and catchment areas imposes an entirely different responsibility, which does not relate to the commercial supply of potable water. Water companies must recognise such obligations, which play an important part in establishing relationships with the public in the regions.
  All those issues are raised by the spectre of continuing water shortage, and of permanent damage to the cycle of replenishment through autumn, winter and spring. I do not feel that that is likely to happen as a result of events in 1995. In Yorkshire, although the eastern slopes of the Pennines were severely affected, many other parts of the region suffered less; even the aquifers that are so important to Hull and Humberside were able to continue unimpaired.
  Nevertheless, I suggest to Ministers that the problems of 1995 should be assessed, given the possibility that they will occur elsewhere, even in the near future. It would surely be wise to conduct the fullest possible analysis of the recent past. There should also be better forecasts of whether the current conditions represent a trend, or whether—in economic parlance—we are merely experiencing a blip on the meteorological graphs. Given the availability of such evidence, industry, regulators and Government should reach a consensus on the extent to which the lessons learned in 1995 should fashion their policies for the future.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Jack Thompson: May I try to correct some misapprehensions that were created earlier? The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) spoke of Labour authorities' investments in water authorities. As I tried to make clear to him, there was no choice. A local authority with an investment panel must take the advice of pension fund advisers; if it does not, and makes a mistake, it can be surcharged.
  The water industry was never nationalised; it was regionalised. That was one of the problems. I was a member of a water authority in my region when Kielder was built—when, incidentally, it was under regional control rather than privatised. One of the country's main problems is the fact that we do not have a proper water system. We have grids for electricity and gas, but no grid for water. It makes no difference whether the industry is nationalised or privatised: both electricity and gas have been privatised, but they have grids. We should aim to create such a system for water in the future. Yorkshire

  825
  would not have experienced the problems that it experienced this year if the water from Kielder had been piped through rather than carried by tankers. That could easily have been done.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: It was suggested in 1973 that a lake should be built from Kielder to Yorkshire, because Yorkshire would need the water by the early 1990s. The lake was never built, however.
  Mr. Thompson: A pipeline already takes water from Kielder down to the Tees; it is halfway there.
  I want to concentrate on the effect of privatisation on my constituency, and on events that took place early in January, when 50,000 of my constituents had their water cut off for four days. Briefly, the problem arose because, apparently—the water authority there has just discovered this—the reservoir that feeds my constituency is the highest in the region. During a series of bursts and leaks, in the Tyneside area in particular, all the water drained out of the system and the reservoir feeding my constituency was left, one may say, high and dry. We had no water for four days. The water authority story's was that that was necessary because it had to maintain the water supply to Tyneside.
  We had two water authorities in my constituency then: Northumbrian Water and North East Water, which is owned by the French company Lyonnaise des Eaux. Northumbrian Water was a free-standing company at that time. The pipeline feeding my constituency was owned by North East Water but operated jointly by Northumbrian Water. The water was maintained on Tyneside—I have no criticism of that—at the expense of my constituency and, I think, because North East Water was the dominant partner in the arrangement. It maintained the supply to Tyneside at the expense of my constituents.
  The real problem is the weakness in the system, which has now been identified but which, apparently, could not be identified before. If one has to live for a prolonged period without water, or at least with a limited supply provided by tankers at street corners, one quickly begins to appreciate the value of this basic need which is often taken for granted. I personally must declare an interest as my home was one of those affected.
  From the water companies' own information, it was apparent that a potentially serious situation was developing between Christmas and new year's day. The companies claimed that the deep frost, followed by a thaw, and their staff being on holiday, contributed to the position. It seems that they were unaware that it turns colder in the winter and that the risk of water mains bursting increases during these months.
  Even when those companies were aware of the emergency, little information was given to consumers. Householders, commercial premises and some industrial units learned of the loss of their supply when they tried to turn on their taps. Hot water and central heating systems, and commercial and industrial operators were seriously affected.
  Total confusion reigned. People were not made aware of the emergency or informed adequately of the emergency provisions, limited though they were.
  826
  Although Northumbrian Water admitted that it had mobile loudspeaker equipment, it was not used. After people had been obtaining from tankers and bowsers for some days, they were advised by postcard to boil the water. The whole exercise was an example of incompetence or, possibly, a lack of interest in consumer welfare.
  After the emergency and pressure from me and from other community representatives, the companies decided to offer £40 to each householder, £80,000 to Wansbeck district council and a belated £13,000 to Castle Morpeth borough council, both of which are in my constituency. Commercial premises, however, such as shops, pubs and the numerous social clubs in my constituency were advised by the water companies to claim from the insurers. Some insurers are refusing to pay out, claiming that the loss of the water supply was a deliberate act by the water companies—an argument with which I agree. Business was lost because of the actions of the water companies.
  Coincidentally, as the massive problems were arising, Northumbrian Water, in this free market system, was taken over by Lyonnaise des Eaux, making all the water and sewerage industry in north-east England a monopoly. Last week, it announced the inevitable reorganisation of management, with probable job losses associated with the takeover on the agenda.
  The most significant happening was the decision of Northumbrian Water's chief executive, David Cranston, to quit. He leaves after receiving a salary of £189,000 a year for 1994–95—I understand that that is to be paid for the next two years as well. That has increased by 232 per cent. since privatisation. He realised between £800,000 and £1.2 million from shares and share options after the sale of Northumbrian Water.
  Last October, Mr. Cranston sought and obtained a meeting with a northern group of Labour Members to plead for our support against the takeover. That was a nice pay-back for his efforts in giving financial advice to the Government on how to process the privatisation of the industry. His reward is greater than the total sum paid to my constituents and the local authorities put together.
  When the industry was privatised, Labour Members often warned that the consumer would suffer. My constituents paid a high price. Capital investment by Northumbrian Water fell from £110 million in 1990–91 to £77 million in 1994–95—a 30 per cent. reduction. Sustained investment could have been used to correct the fundamental fault in the supply system to my constituency. That is a prime example of profit before people.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: This has been an interesting and lively debate. It could almost have been completely about Yorkshire Water had it not been for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made sure that the inequities in other parts of the privatised water industry were also drawn to the House's attention.
  It is remarkable that, contrary to custom and practice, the Cabinet member who is responsible for the matter raised in the Opposition motion—the Secretary of State

  827
  for Scotland—is away from the House in some other part of the country. There was a day when that convention and courtesy mattered.
  Mr. Michael Bates (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): He is in Scotland.
  Mr. Robertson: The Secretary of State may be in Scotland—so could I be—but some of us believe that the House comes first and that, if there is a debate on a subject that is in his province, he should be here, and he knows that. In Stirling yesterday, at the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee, a great song and dance was made about the fact that I did not speak from the Dispatch Box, but I was there—as I have been at all that Committee's meetings. The Secretary of State chooses not to be here tonight, and for two and a half hours or more no one from the Scottish National party was here either.
  We have now been left in charge. The Minister dubbed by the Scottish Daily Record the "big drip" will—appropriately—answer on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on the subject of the water industry. He has been landed with a real problem. The animated little Secretary of State for the Environment is not sitting beside him, and no wonder because he left a sizeable grenade in the Minister's pocket.
  During his leaping around at the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State told the House à propos the water industry that, in England and Wales, the investment would not be forthcoming in the public sector, but the hapless Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for the water industry will have to come to the Dispatch Box and tell us that Scottish water will remain in the public sector. He, presumably, is going to find all the investment that the Secretary of State for the Environment said would be absent if a different model had been chosen for England.
  Many of my hon. Friends have made much of Yorkshire Water's performance during the summer, and I am not surprised. A level of anger built up in that part of the world about the lamentable performance of that privatised water company. My hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) have put their finger on a saga of incompetence, failure and waste which will go down in the history of the water industry as unsurpassed.
  The Minister, if he dares move across the border and into English territory, will have a job putting up a defence, although the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), who told us that he was not going to act as an advocate for Yorkshire Water, managed to read out what was preciously close to a press release for that beleaguered company.
  The debate has highlighted what has happened in England and Wales since privatisation. It is a salutary warning for those of us in Scotland who see the prospect of privatisation looming on the horizon. It is a tale of waste, fat cats, inefficiency, bloated profits, personal aggrandisement and of course, at times, pure farce—all occurring simultaneously at a time of declining investment in a vital industry.
  The Government's intention has always been to privatise the Scottish water industry. That ambition lives on in the hearts of many people, including the new Secretary of State for Scotland. The Government were prevented from privatising it only by the sheer force of
  828
  public opinion in Scotland. A Labour-led campaign and a violent upsurge in public opinion stopped the Government in their tracks and prevented them from doing in Scotland what they have already done in England.
  In eight weeks' time, Scotland's water and sewerage services will leave locally elected control for the first time in 150 years and be handed over to three super-quangos staffed by handpicked people who are ready to do the Government's bidding and who are accountable only in the loosest possible sense to the public.
  In 15 months' time, however, there will be a general election. I have no doubt, and the people of Scotland have no doubt, that if the Tories were somehow to get back into power, their secret agenda to privatise the Scottish water industry would remain.
  The Government's private agenda is already under way. Privatisation is happening, drip by drip, in the unique form of the private financing package that the Government have carefully designed to get the private sector into the water industry with minimum risk and maximum profit—it is feather-bedding of the private sector in a crucial sphere.
  Sir Hector Monro: Before the hon. Gentleman makes any more thoroughly irresponsible statements about water privatisation, I have to ask whether his conscience does not prick him a little because his campaign began on a totally incorrect basis. The decision to go to a public water authority was made long before he started his campaign against privatisation.
  Mr. Robertson: I should like to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who has come into the Chamber at the end of the debate specifically to hear my speech. I believe that he does not want Scotland's water to be in the private sector. It was he who agreed, under pressure, that a ban on disconnections should be included in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994, for which I pay him due tribute. I do not think that he has any intention of seeing Scotland's water industry in the private sector because he knows the dangers that would follow.
  The right hon. Member for Dumfries is retiring at the next election, and there will not be a Conservative Member of Parliament for Dumfries after that. He cannot trust Ministers any more than we can. If he trusts the Secretary of State for Scotland with Scotland's water, it will probably be the first time in his life that he has trusted him. The right hon. Gentleman should take his plaudits and go away into happy retirement, but he should certainly not leave the NHS and the water industry in the hands of people who might conceivably still be here after the next election.
  The Government have designed this type of private financing specifically to ensure that their friends do well out of it. However, it is hard to think of a better way for the Government to reduce their public standing than by threatening the water industry. It is small wonder that they now have an 11 per cent. approval rating in the opinion polls, which I believe is 8 per cent. less than the Canadian Tories received in the general election when they were reduced to two seats in the federal Parliament.
  The emperors in the Scottish Office arrogantly dismiss public opinion with a flick of their wrists, ignoring and rejecting the fine, long history of locally elected water authorities in Scotland, which have been efficient,

  829
  reliable, safe and cheap. The Government reject the logic of keeping a direct line of accountability to the people who use and depend on public water supplies. They reject even the revolutionary public health record that, a century ago, was the justification for municipal control of water and sewerage services. They reject it all in the name of a purely ideological obsession with centralisation and the hoarding of control.
  The Government's secret agenda is still to put Scotland's water industry into the same fat cat system that the Government have inflicted on water consumers in England and Wales. However, the emperors of the Scottish Office have been found to have no clothes. Isolated, remote and doomed, they sit wasting their last few days in office.
  The contention that people have in relation to what the Government are doing with the Scottish water industry has not been invented by the Opposition. In March 1994, Strathclyde regional council, having taken all the legal advice that was available, put the question to the people of Strathclyde—half the population of Scotland—in a referendum. The council took its courage in its hands and issued ballot papers throughout the region. The turnout for the referendum was 71.5 per cent., which exceeded everyone's expectations—it was certainly more than I had warned the council that it might expect—and 97 per cent. of those who voted said no to the quangoisation of the water industry. Those are the facts; that is the truth and the evidence.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the publicity put out by the Labour party in Strathclyde did not merely say no to water quangos, but said no to privatisation? Is not that a total distortion of the facts as that is not what we have done in Scotland?
  Mr. Robertson: It was open to the Tory party to put out its own propaganda. The ballot paper, which was read and understood by the people who answered, asked whether people agreed with the Government's proposal for the future of water and sewerage services in Scotland. The ballot paper was legally drawn up, and people understood it. Even in the Tory heartland—in Eastwood, in the west of Scotland—95 per cent. of the people voted no in the referendum. I suppose the Minister is saying that all those people read the leaflet and were confused, taken in and mystified by it—that that can be the only explanation for 95 per cent. of the people voting no. The people spoke in that referendum, but the Government chose to ignore the popular view.
  I see that the unacceptable face of the Scottish Office, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) has joined us in the Chamber. I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the noise level will rise, but the quality of the contributions to the debate will decline markedly.
  Why should we suspect that the Government want to privatise the water industry? We have only to look to what the Prime Minister said in March 1993. He said:
  "Privatisation means a better, more efficient service for the consumer and no more subsidies from the taxpayer. I have no reason to doubt that water privatisation in Scotland will be effective and efficient, as elsewhere."—[Official Report, 9 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 783.]
  830
  Those are the words of the Prime Minister, blundering into something that he did not understand, but giving away the underlying case.
  In the consultative document on water, 15 lines were devoted to describing the scheme which the Government ultimately chose, but 216 lines were devoted to describing the privatisation option. Anyone who believes that the new Secretary of State for Scotland, who was on television only a few weeks ago saying that Thatcherism has a lot to offer Scotland, is going to stand back and say, like the right hon. Member for Dumfries, "I won't touch the water industry. It can remain in public hands", must be living in a dream world.
  The Government have chosen a completely new system to finance new investment in Scotland's water industry. The Chemical bank, in an independent report, said that the system did not pass
  "any reasonable value for money test",
  and that the "build, own and operate" schemes will privatise Scotland's water industry "drip by drip". The schemes are little more than sweetheart deals to get the private sector into the water industry with minimum risk and maximum profit.
  The Chemical bank report went on to say:
  "The guidelines are misconceived. Their use imposes an excessive and unnecessary burden on ratepayers. There are other ways in which the private sector can finance public projects at a cost comparable with the use of the public funds."
  Labour would not hesitate to use the private sector in schemes to help with new investment in the water industry, but we will not choose schemes that mean privatisation by stealth or privatisation by the back door. Scotland's water industry has an impeccable record in public hands. Investment in the water industry is possible in the public sector, and it can be done well. There is no need, no rationale, no justification for going ahead with the quangoisation and, ultimately, privatisation of water in Scotland. At the next election—the sooner it comes, the better—the people of Scotland will teach the Government a lesson for what they have done so far.
  6.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): This has been an exceedingly interesting debate. I have learnt a lot about Labour policy on water. I have learnt a lot that confirms that the Labour party does not understand the slightest thing about running business. [Interruption.]
  Opening the debate, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) gave many figures relating to the privatised water companies. He talked about everything and nothing. The one thing that he did not really talk about, however, was investment. We all know that the water industry requires significant investment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment described very clearly the remarkable success that has been achieved south of the border through the privatisation of water companies.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to Yorkshire Water. I have also learnt that, although Yorkshire Water is clearly not one of the stars of the privatisation process, many of its problems, as I understand them, have been brought about by the extremely severe drought in the summer. It would be

  831
  unreasonable of any hon. Member not to accept that there was exceedingly severe weather and that lessons must be learnt from the experience. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends have taken steps to obtain independent reports to confirm that the actions of Yorkshire Water are indeed all there—[Interruption.]—and that it is taking sensible measures to ensure that the problems do not arise again.
  Many hon. Members have referred to leaks. The Government obviously take the problem of water leaks extremely seriously and we have made it perfectly clear that losses from pipes in some water company areas are too high. We expect water companies to set and fulfil demanding targets for reducing leaks. Indeed, water service companies have given a commitment to achieve within 10 years the lowest levels that best international practice suggests. Some companies have already announced their plans. Others will do so in the next few months. The Director General of Water Services will consider whether the targets are sufficiently rigorous. If they are not, legislation is already in place to set mandatory levels where necessary.
  Many hon. Members, especially Labour Members, were unreasonable about the conditions that Yorkshire Water had—and still has—to face, and their observations were in contrast to the very thoughtful and responsible comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw).
  The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) made points about European support for privatised companies. I can confirm that, as I understand it, provided the relevant criteria are met, privatised and publicly owned water companies have exactly the same access to European support. He also referred to methods of charging. We think that charging by volume is important to ensure sustainable use of water in the long term. The Government—certainly south of the border—encourage companies and customers to switch to meters, but are not forcing them to do so.
  Since I was able to obtain a press release issued by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) before he stood up, his speech was nothing short of what I expected—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I am having great difficulty hearing what the Minister is saying. He has the right to a fair hearing, as was given to the Opposition spokesman.
  Mr. Kynoch: I was referring to the press release on the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton which I managed to obtain. In it, he persisted with scare stories and distortion, which he is more than capable of, as he has shown throughout the discussion of the future of water in Scotland. Unfortunately, like his hon. Friend the Member for—[Interruption.] I cannot remember his constituency, which goes to show I have been attending too many Scottish Grand Committees and have become better on Scottish constituencies than those south of the border.
  That leads me comfortably to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is in Shetland with the leader of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland on official engagements. At least my right hon. Friend has deigned to lead the debates on law and order and education in the Scottish Grand Committee. The hon. Member for Hamilton seems to put those matters below water privatisation south of the border.
  832
  During the debate, the hon. Member for Hamilton referred to several issues concerning whether the Government intend to privatise water north of the border. I repeat quite clearly once and for all that the Government have no intention of privatising water north of the border.
  The reorganisation of water in Scotland became necessary for several reasons. First, as south of the border, we faced the problem of having to achieve significant investment in, the industry over the next 10 to 15 years. Secondly, we have reorganised local government, and it would be ridiculous to put water into the hands of the 32 new authorities. Doing that would have resulted in very small water authorities which would not have had the benefits of economies of scale necessary to attract investment.
  I therefore regard the creation of three new water authorities as the most sensible way forward, having recognised the very strong feelings of the people of Scotland. There were about 5,000 responses to the consultation document that was put out in 1992. The Government paid attention to those responses and went for a route that kept water in the public sector in Scotland.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: Is it not the case that some of the criticism that applied to Yorkshire Water, especially recently after the cold spell, applied to an even greater extent in Scotland, where many people's supplies were cut off? Was not water in the hands of local authorities?
  Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton referred to the Chemical bank report, but that is of course —unfortunately—not the whole story. The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that the private finance initiative is much more than simply getting funding from either the private sector or the public sector. It is about trying to get the innovation and design skills of the private sector into public sector projects.
  In the Chemical bank report, there was indeed a capital project, which—I think—in public sector terms was valued at about £145 million. At the last count, I understand that the private sector had quoted a value of about £60 million for it. Significantly reduced capital costs put a totally different complexion on the arguments in that report.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton has clearly stated that he does not believe that he should not be using the private sector; he simply believes that he should be using it for funding rather than for bringing in private sector skills. I strongly dispute his assertion and argue that he will not find cheaper finance by that route. Indeed, he will have a problem in Scotland. Not only will he have to fund his new local government structure with a tartan tax, he will have to introduce a special tax to fund the future of the water industry.
  The one thing that we have learnt in this debate is that the Labour party south of border has committed itself to a very distinct policy on water in England and Wales. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras clearly stated that he would not renationalise the privatised companies, but that he foresaw their being brought back under political control. He also said that he would bring about a reduction in prices in real terms south of the border, but he did not say how he would fund that policy. Even at this

  833
  late stage in the debate, I challenge him to say whether he would put taxes up, or whether he would reduce services in the NHS or in education. If not, how would he fund it?
  Mr. Dobson: We shall reduce the outrageous profits that those companies make, and the outrageous pay that the bosses give themselves.
  Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman does not recognise the basic facts of financial life—that those profits were made in order to invest in the water industry. The sooner he looks at the investment figures and realises that investment is now more than double what it was when the Labour party was in power, the better for him. If his financial policies ever have to be put into practice, God help the country. I strongly urge the House to support the amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
  The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 303.

  Division No. 39]

  [7.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clelland, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cohen, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Connarty, Michael

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Corbett, Robin

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Corston, Jean

  Ashton, Joe

  Cousins, Jim

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cox, Tom

  Barnes, Harry

  Cummings, John

  Battle, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dafis, Cynog

  Beggs, Roy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Davidson, Ian

  Bell, Stuart

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

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

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Benton, Joe

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

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Denham, John

  Berry, Roger

  Dewar, Donald

  Betts, Clive

  Dixon, Don

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Dobson, Frank

  Blunkett, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Boateng, Paul

  Dowd, Jim

  Bradley, Keith

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Eastham, Ken

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

  Etherington, Bill

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Burden, Richard

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Byers, Stephen

  Fatchett, Derek

  Callaghan, Jim

  Faulds, Andrew

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Cann, Jamie

  Foulkes, George

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Fraser, John

  Chidgey, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Galbraith, Sam

  Church, Judith

  Galloway, George

  Clapham, Michael

  Garrett, John

  834

  George Bruce

  Madden, Max

  Gerrard, Neil

  Maddock, Diana

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mahon, Alice

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mandelson, Peter

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marek, Dr John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Maxton, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meacher, Michael

  Gunnell, John

  Meale, Alan

  Hain, Peter

  Michael, Alun

  Hall, Mike

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hanson, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hardy, Peter

  Milburn, Alan

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Miller, Andrew

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Henderson, Doug

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Heppell, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hoey, Kate

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Home Robertson, John

  Mudie, George

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Murphy, Paul

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

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hoyle, Doug

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Olner, Bill

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hutton, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Illsley, Eric

  Parry, Robert

  Ingram, Adam

  Pearson, Ian

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jamieson, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Janner, Greville

  Pope, Greg

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jowell, Tessa

  Radice, Giles

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Randall, Stuart

  Keen, Alan

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Reid, Dr John

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

  Rendel, David

  Khabra, Piara S

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rogers, Allan

  Litherland, Robert

  Rooker, Jeff

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rowlands, Ted

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAllion, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCartney, Ian

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McCartney, Robert

  Short, Clare

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Simpson, Alan

  McFall, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKelvey, William

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

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

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin (Belfast S)

  McNamara, Kevin

  MacShane, Denis

  Snape, Peter

  McWilliam, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  835

  Spellar, John

  Walley, Joan

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stevenson, George

  Welsh, Andrew

  Stott, Roger

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Straw, Jack

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wilson, Brian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Winnick, David

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Wise, Audrey

  Timms, Stephen

  Worthington, Tony

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wray, Jimmy

  Touhig, Don

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Turner, Dennis

  Tyler, Paul

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Vaz, Keith

  Ms Ann Coffey and

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Mr. Eric Martlew.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Coe, Sebastian

  Alexander, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Congdon, David

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Couchman, James

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cran, James

  Ashby, David

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

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Day, Stephen

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Dicks, Terry

  Baldry, Tony

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dover, Den

  Bates, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dunn, Bob

  Bendall, Vivian

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Body, Sir Richard

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Elletson, Harold

  Booth, Hartley

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bowis, John

  Evennett, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Faber, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Forman, Nigel

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Forth, Eric

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Burns, Simon

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Burt, Alistair

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Butcher, John

  French, Douglas

  Butler, Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Butterfill, John

  Gallie, Phil

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Garnier, Edward

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Cash, William

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Churchill, Mr

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Clappison, James

  Gorst, Sir John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  836

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mates, Michael

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Merchant, Piers

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hannan, Sir John

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Harris, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Norris, Steve

  Hendry, Charles

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hicks, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Page, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Paice, James

  Horam, John

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pawsey, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jack, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jessel, Toby

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Richards, Rod

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Riddick, Graham

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Key, Robert

  Robathan, Andrew

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Robertson, Raymond S.

  Knapman, Roger

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

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

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knox, Sir David

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sackville, Tom

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Legg, Barry

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Sims, Roger

  Lidington, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spring, Richard

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Sproat, Iain

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Madel, Sir David

  Steen, Anthony

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stephen, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Stern, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stewart, Allan

  Marland, Paul

  Sumberg, David

  Marlow, Tony

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sykes, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  837

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Watts, John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Thomason, Roy

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Whitney, Ray

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Whittingdale, John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wilkinson, John

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Willetts, David

  Tracey, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Trend, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trotter, Neville

  Wood, Timothy

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Yeo, Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Walden, George

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Mr. Derek Conway and

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Gary Streeter.

  Ward, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the higher water quality, the improved standards of service to consumers, the increased availability of information and the increased exports which have been achieved as a result of substantially higher levels of investment and the removal from political control of the water industry through privatisation in England and Wales; looks forward to improved services in Scotland from the new public water authorities; and contrasts this with the arbitrary cuts from the investment plans of the nationalised water companies by the last Labour Government, including the six month moratorium on the letting of new construction contracts.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.15 pm
  Miss Joan Lestor: I beg to move,
  That this House fully recognises and accepts the United Kingdom's share of global responsibility towards the elimination of poverty and calls on the Government to make steady and measurable progress towards honouring its pledge of the United Nations overseas aid target of 0.7 per cent. GNP; deplores the Government's failure to play a more central role in the delivery of multilateral aid, both within the EU and other multilateral organisations, and the damaging effects of its policy on the bilateral programme at a time when global poverty is increasing; and calls on the Government to establish an aid programme which is better equipped to meet the needs of the world's poor.
  Some people may wonder why we have chosen overseas development as the subject for debate this evening. There has been no obvious recent Government announcement or policy change on which to peg this debate. No major international conference is being held this week that is directly relevant to the United Kingdom's aid budget. It is increasingly clear, however, to those of us who care about the UK's role in global development that the Tory Government are selling the British people and the world's poor short.
  In a nutshell, the Government are prepared to trade short-term electoral bribes in the form of tax cuts at home against the development of an effective and sustainable aid programme throughout the world. That strategy, fed into the Chancellor's autumn statement last year, permeated two Government documents—the ODA's fundamental expenditure review and its senior management review, which I hope to address later.
  I do not doubt for a moment that the Minister will mount a robust defence of the Government's track record. He will, no doubt, talk about quality as opposed to quantity; about supporting programmes that are recognisably British, as opposed to multilateral, in origin; and about the high regard afforded to British aid throughout the world. You see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been reading the Minister's ODA press releases.
  For all his claims, however, the Minister cannot disguise the fact that the Tory Government have demonstrated, and continue to demonstrate by their actions, that their overseas aid policy is morally, politically and intellectually bankrupt: morally, because by cutting aid—and the Government are cutting aid, make no mistake—they are demonstrating that they attach a low priority to the alleviation of poverty in developing countries; and, politically, because the cuts announced in the Budget were a crass response by erstwhile Tory liberals to the demands of the right. I am sure that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury found the world's poor to be a soft target.
  Such actions grossly misjudge the mood of the British people, who have an admirable record of enthusiastically supporting appeals for help to the developing world. A Harris poll conducted last autumn revealed that 79 per cent. of those interviewed wanted the aid budget to stay the same or to be increased.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: From what the hon. Lady is saying and from the Opposition

  839
  motion, it is clear that she will be focusing on official development assistance, and it is right that she should do so, but does she accept that that is a slightly monocular view? Are not private flows from this country to developing countries of great assistance to the development process?
  Miss Lestor: I accept that there are private flows and they are very welcome, but I am talking about the Government's record, not other people's record. It cannot be right to say, as I presume the hon. Gentleman meant, that although the Government are failing in their responsibilities, other people are making up the deficiency. That is not the subject of the debate.
  The Government's intellectual bankruptcy is striking. Their figures, in response to my recent parliamentary question, show that a mere 10.5 per cent. of British bilateral aid in 1994–95 was spent on basic needs. That is well short of the commitment to 20:20, to which the British Government signed at the social summit in Copenhagen in 1995. So much for focus on poverty.
  I have no doubt that the Minister will claim that the Government's overseas development programme aims to reduce poverty, but such a claim simply does not tally with their economic and social agenda at home. In short, a poverty focused programme of investment and assistance abroad would be a very uncomfortable mismatch with the Government's approach to the alleviation of poverty in the United Kingdom.
  The Opposition believe that the values of social justice and human solidarity are as relevant abroad as they are at home and that Britain has a clear moral obligation to help to combat poverty and alleviate suffering, wherever they occur. Unlike the Government, the Labour party has a vision of development that is coherent with its domestic policy, and which is rooted in traditional Labour ideals about fairness, rights and participation in society. We believe in the rights of people everywhere to a decent livelihood and the ideal of an international society in which we all benefit culturally and economically from development.
  Nor is that a narrow vision of self-interest. Development can be about improving the global environment, reducing enforced economic migration, creating new export opportunities and reducing the threat of war. Those aims are to be welcomed, but the vision must be wider. It must be a vision of global inclusion, not exclusion, and of interdependence, partnership and mutual learning.
  Visions need a practical anchor. What does our vision mean for the hard choices that face British development policy and especially British aid? How do we ensure that the ODA's claimed poverty focus is paramount? What does the ODA mean by poverty? Which forms of aid—project aid, programme aid, and aid delivered with the assistance of NGOs—are best suited to achieving significant and lasting reductions in global poverty? What are the implications of increased aid contributions to eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Mediterranean for aid programmes in Africa and the Indian sub-continent? Have the Government decided that there should be a sharp geographical focus to the delivery of aid?
  What should be Britain's role, as an active participant in the European Union and the United Nations, in the development of aid policy and aid delivery? Those are the
  840
  questions that people are asking and they demand thoughtful answers. If we do not receive such answers tonight, it will show that the Government have chosen to pursue a policy of cuts—to the bilateral programme and to the multilateral programme—as a result of which Britain's standing and influence in the world and its role as a leading provider of aid will take a hammering.
  The Opposition are not prepared to stand by without comment to watch British Ministers abdicate their responsibility to the world's poor and cause lasting damage to them and to Britain's reputation. May we have an agreement that aid resources must be focused on the poorest people and the poorest countries? There must be no more Pergaus, for example. Will the Minister assure us that the channels for delivery of aid will be chosen specifically for their real impact on poverty? What evidence does the Minister have that different channels do better or worse at poverty reduction?
  In recent years, we have seen a dramatic shift in the proportion of aid allocated away from project aid and towards emergency programmes. What efforts are being made to ensure that emergency aid is linked to and consistent with longer-term development objectives?
  The main report on the fundamental expenditure review, which was published in December 1995, raises profound issues about the future role and work of the ODA. I was pleased to hear that the Minister proposes to make a statement to Parliament in the near future. I do not intend to discuss the report at great length today, but there should be no misunderstanding about the process. It is not, as the remit of the FER suggested, merely a search to improve the effectiveness of the ODA: the report is fundamentally about reducing what the ODA does. It is about cutting the aid budget still further, cutting aid projects and programmes and cutting British contributions to various UN agencies.
  We support some proposals in the report, but they cannot be allowed to conceal the true nature of the exercise. It has been accurately described by leading NGOs as a "rationalisation of decline", and was described today by Christian Aid as
  "a mean policy to take us into the 21st century".
  One of the issues raised in the FER report is the future of multilateral aid. Britain is, of course, a partner in several multilateral programmes. The search is in the EU for a new vision after Lomé. Following the Government's deplorable 23 per cent. cut to the European development fund in 1995, how does the Minister propose that Britain will be able to play a constructive role in the future of EU development programmes?
  The Opposition want real improvements to EU aid and development programmes, especially in relation to poverty focus, participation and accountability. We endorse the recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that the role for the British Government is
  "to engage with fellow member states and the Commission in seeking to develop a realistic framework for delivery of EU aid".
  How can a Cabinet that contains the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), and the Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), possibly play the constructive role in European development policy that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee suggests?

  841
  Is the Minister seriously suggesting cuts to the United Nations Children's Fund and to the United Nations development programme? As the Minister will know, both programmes have recently undertaken reform and are among the most efficient in the UN system. I recently met the new executive director of UNICEF, Carol Bellamy. She is clearly someone of drive and enthusiasm who will continue to build on UNICEF's outstanding work on behalf of children worldwide. I know, too, that Ms Bellamy met the Prime Minister, who I understand was also impressed.
  I fail to understand how Ministers can endorse the work of UN agencies, such as UNICEF, and at the same time undermine them by proposing to reduce their funding. That is the height of hypocrisy and the world's children will suffer as a result.
  I understand that in my absence yesterday—I was speaking at a conference in Dunblane organised by the excellent Scottish Education and Action for Development organisation—the Minister made some interesting claims during parliamentary questions, which were so ably handled by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, do not praise him too much. The Minister's claims bear revisiting tonight because I have no doubt that they will form the nub of his response.
  The Minister stated:
  "Britain's aid programme is the fifth largest in the world."
  That may be true in money terms, but not as a percentage of gross national product. The Minister further admitted that the Government have an on-going commitment
  "to maintaining a large and effective aid programme".
  The obvious implication is that he anticipates a slide down the league table. Given current expenditure plans, perhaps he is only being realistic.
  In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley rightly pointed out that Britain is in
  "13th place in the real terms of gross national product."
  We share that position with Italy. That GNP figure is based on the latest available figure—1993—supplied by the British aid statistics annual report.
  The current and future picture, however, is less clear. The fundamental expenditure review predicts a further reduction to 0.26 per cent. in 1997–98. As that was drafted before last year's budget cuts were announced, a more realistic figure would appear to be 0.25 per cent. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that when he speaks.
  How far down that list is the Minister prepared to see us fall? Under the last Labour Government, the figure stood at 0.52 per cent. and was rising towards the UN target of 0.7 per cent. The longer the Conservative Government are in power, the steeper is the climb back to that target. In their first year of office, a Labour Government will start to reverse that decline.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: How much?
  Miss Lestor: I will repeat the commitment.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Amazing.
  Miss Lestor: There is nothing amazing about it. A Labour Government will start to reverse that decline in
  842
  their first year of office.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Don't give way".] No one is trying to stand up. They are on their bottoms, mumbling, but they are not standing.
  Mr. Forman rose—
  Miss Lestor: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] All right, I will give way.
  Mr. Forman: Is the hon. Lady aware that any ratio that is a proportion of gross national product can be increased, if that is the Labour party's commitment, either by reducing GNP or increasing the aid budget? Which does she intend to do when she is in office?
  Miss Lestor: The trouble with me is that as I get older I get kinder. Perhaps I should not have given way. I made it perfectly clear. We can be judged on our record. When we left office the figure stood at 0.52 per cent. and was rising towards target. The longer that the Government are in power, the steeper is the climb back to the target, but a Labour Government would start to reverse that decline in their first year in office.
  I hope that I may now continue. Yesterday, I was rather taken aback by the Minister's bold admission that
  "There is no doubt that the bilateral programme will face reductions…we have admitted that—as we switch to multilateral aid."—[Official Report, 29 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 637–38.]
  Did I miss something, or was that the first time that a Minister has come clean about a deliberate policy to switch resources from the bilateral programme, which the Government claim to hold dear, to the multilateral programme? Only last autumn, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the bilateral programme a ringing endorsement, saying that
  "in a tight public spending round…the planned allocation for bilateral aid is likely to be little changed from that set out in last year's departmental report. British bilateral aid is internationally recognised for its high quality and for the substantial share going to the poorest countries in Africa and Asia, and that will continue."— [Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1060–61]
  We welcome that statement.>
  The Prime Minister, no less, told us:
  "I intend to ensure that multilateral contributions do not swallow up bilateral aid."—[Official Report, 28 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 262.]
  Resources are to be switched, we are now told, from bilateral to multilateral programmes. Which statement is correct? I would be grateful for clarification. According to last year's ODA report, in any case, bilateral aid to Africa was set to fall by £17 million or 5 per cent. in real terms, bilateral aid to Asia and the Pacific by £25 million or 10.9 per cent., and the total bilateral budget by £102 million or 9.6 per cent. If that is what the Chancellor calls "little change", I would hate to see his idea of a substantial cut.
  It is worth reminding the Minister that those are the very countries—our "traditional partners" as he called them yesterday—that he claimed Britain would not neglect.
  One further matter puzzles me about the Minister's comments yesterday. If resources are to be "switched" from bilateral to multilateral programmes, how does that square with the
  "lower forecasts for this multilateral aid"

  843
  to which the ODA budget press release last November referred? Is the Minister talking about a switch and a cut at the same time?
  This country's contributions to the World bank, the European Union and the UN agencies are undoubtedly significant and it is important that Britain maintains its influence in the delivery of aid. How does the Minister justify our position among the G7 countries, or in the EU, on the basis of cuts to the overseas aid multilateral programmes—the 23 per cent. cut in the UK contribution to the European development fund, for example, and the threatened cuts to UN agencies and the United Nations development programme?
  Taken with cuts at home to institutions with internationally recognised reputations, such as the BBC World Service and the British Council—the latter is due to suffer a 28 per cent. cut in its development grant in aid in the next three years—it is easy to see how an impartial observer could conclude that Britain is undertaking a structured withdrawal from its global responsibilities.
  The British Council's dilemma bears closer study. The Government have gone on record, quite rightly, to support its work, describing it as the principal agency for cultural relations, yet, by cutting support funding without saying where future activities should be concentrated, Ministers are showing a cavalier attitude to the scope and focus of its activities.
  Of course, aid is only one way, although a most significant one, in which poverty can be alleviated. The Government amendment refers to the debt burden, which shackles so many of the poor countries. We welcome the lead that the Government have taken on debt relief, but surely the Minister must acknowledge that the debt problem remains acute in a substantial number of countries. Opposition Members believe that the intolerable burden of debt that continues to be borne by many of the world's poorest countries is morally unacceptable and a serious barrier to their prospects of sustainable economic development.
  The accounting costs of debt in regions such as Africa is the diversion of financial resources from capital investment, health care, education, sanitation and other essential services into the coffers of external creditors. The real cost, however, is paid by ordinary Africans in the form of higher infant mortality, poorer standards of nutrition, shorter life expectancy and increased illiteracy. I was glad to learn that a series of seminars have been arranged next week by the Debt Crisis Network to highlight that problem. I shall meet the people involved. Kenneth Kaunda, the ex-president of Zambia, is among those who will speak about the debt burden in parts of Africa.
  There is an urgent need for a new international initiative to relieve the burden of debt, both bilateral and multilateral. We need to press for international agreement on an 80 per cent. write-off of official bilateral debt owed by the poorest countries, which is crippling them and their development. We must also consider the low-income countries, with more debt relief in that direction and, perhaps more important, talk to the World bank and to the IMF—as I hope to when I visit Washington shortly—about more resources to fund debt relief. Those actions would be of real help to countries that find themselves in an impossible position.
  844
  Responding to the needs of the world's poor requires not only intellectual vision but the moral and political courage to put it into action. The Government have demonstrated that they have neither. Labour has that vision. A Labour Government will have that moral and political courage.
  7.27 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "acknowledges the United Kingdom's important role in helping reduce poverty and suffering in poorer countries and commends the Government for maintaining a substantial and effective aid programme which is the fifth largest in the world; applauds the Government's intention to maintain a bilateral aid programme next year which will be as large as that which had been previously planned; welcomes the central role the United Kingdom plays in seeking to make multilateral aid more effective; and commends the Government for the increasing poverty focus of the aid programme and for the leading role it has played in seeking a comprehensive solution to the debt burden of the poorest countries.".
  The United Kingdom's official aid programme is one of our greatest national assets. It is one of the main links that we have with many countries in the developing world and one of our main means of securing the principal goal of our foreign policy, which is a more prosperous and stable world. Together with the huge contribution made by British trade and investment and our notable efforts in relieving the debt burden of many developing countries, the aid programme plays a highly significant role in reducing poverty and suffering throughout the world.
  The Government are fully committed to maintaining a substantial and effective aid programme. We are the sixth largest economy in the world in absolute terms, yet we have the fifth largest aid programme. The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) kindly admitted that. Three of our G7 partners—the world's biggest economies—give more as a percentage of gross national product than we do, and three give less. Those figures ignore the crucial role played by the British private sector, which the hon. Lady was pleased to dismiss. When our aid flows are combined with private sector flows, our total contribution to the developing world exceeds the 1 per cent. target that the United Nations set as a benchmark. That is a significant achievement and one that we can be proud of.
  At the same time, a responsible Government must balance the many and growing public expenditure priorities and demands. Our overriding goal is a more prosperous Britain with sound public finances. Hard choices have to be made.
  Hon. Members are well aware that the total amount available for aid was reduced in the autumn statement by £124 million in 1996–97 compared with our previous plans. The aid budget will still be £2,154 million in 1996–97 and will grow to £2,201 million in 1997–98 and to £2,270 million in 1998–99. In that total, we expect bilateral aid in aggregate to be no less than we announced in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office departmental report last March. That is because a number of multilateral institutions are expected to spend less money in the immediate future than we had anticipated a year ago.
  For example, the replenishment of the European bank now under discussion seems likely to involve a lower paid-in element and a longer period for disbursement than

  845
  we had forecast. The Asian and African Development banks have advised us of a slower rate of drawdown of existing pledges than they had forecast earlier. The reduction was made in the knowledge of those lower requirements. The European development fund has also advised us of reduced forecasts.
  The new spending level represents a significant transfer of resources and shows that the Government have resisted the major cutbacks in aid that have affected so many other donors. The United States programme faces deep cuts; the Italians cut aid by 35 per cent. last year and the Canadians are cutting aid by 20 per cent. this year.
  As the hon. Member for Eccles said earlier, volume is not everything; more important is impact. We have maintained a strong aid programme because aid works and because it is something that Britain does supremely well. Our Overseas Development Administration is internationally recognised as one of the most effective Government aid agencies in the world. Our bilateral programmes are among the most successful in bringing about a real transformation in the lives of the poor in the world's poorest countries. Britain's intellectual leadership in the institutions through which we spend our multilateral aid has been significant in ensuring that the British taxpayer's money is used efficiently and effectively.
  However, the ODA could be even more effective. We have recently carried out a fundamental expenditure review, or FER, of its activities and organisation, to which the hon. Member for Eccles referred. That review was thorough and wide ranging. It involved consultations with non-governmental organisations, recipients of aid and others. Copies were sent before Christmas to the Libraries of both Houses. We are encouraging a debate about its findings. I suppose that the contribution of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) at Question Time yesterday could be said to add to that debate.
  I am pleased to be able to explain some of the errors that people have made about the review. I shall explain what the review found and what the Government propose to do about the findings. The review concluded that there is a continuing need for the UK to provide substantial flows of concessional aid. It also recommended that we should clarify the purpose of the ODA's work by better defining the aid programme's basic goal and aims. The Government have accepted both those conclusions. We shall define the ODA's purpose as improving the quality of life of people in poorer countries by contributing to sustainable development and reducing poverty and suffering.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: If that is the aim, could special attention be paid to what is happening in one of the poorest countries, Nepal? A delegation led by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) visited the research station at Lumle, where there may be cuts, about which the right hon. Gentleman and I met the Minister, Lady Chalker. Could special attention be paid to the issues involved in that?
  Mr. Hanley: Yes, certainly. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development referred the matter to me when I met our high commissioner from Nepal only last week. I shall consider the matter and reply, if I can, by the end of the debate.
  846
  We accepted the main conclusions of the FER. We shall support the four principal aims that relate to the FER: good government and economic reforms; human resource development; the productive sector and the environment; and our stewardship of multilateral development institutions and the development aspects of wider economic policies.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Within those aims, will my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure that fair distribution methods are adopted for the aid? For example, a high proportion of aid-assisted students in Britain come from a tiny elite that uses the aid as a sort of patronage that bears little relationship to fair distribution. That is just one example of the difficulties—which I realise that any aid programme will have.
  Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are proud of the fact that some 9,500 students and trainees were supported under the aid programme in 1994–95. Other training schemes exist. We have special schemes not only for the Commonwealth but for all overseas students in the United Kingdom. The number of overseas students in higher and further education in the UK has more than doubled in the past decade, from 50,000 to 123,000. I realise that my hon. Friend is talking about the distribution of the benefits of that programme. I shall certainly examine that matter, with reference to what he said.
  The hon. Member for Eccles also referred to where we shall spend bilateral aid in future. The FER recommended that we concentrate further our country programmes. That policy has been evolving for some time, has the full support of many NGOs and is being pursued by other advanced donors.
  The starting point for any debate has to be that the ODA is working in more countries than ever before and undertaking more complex activities. New demands have arisen because of the collapse of communism and the need to help the countries of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union as they move towards market economies and full democracy.
  It does not make sense in the long term to retain such a widespread network of aid activities, because the world is changing. Many countries are graduating out of aid. Some of the countries of east Asia are becoming donors themselves. We expect that in the medium term, many of the countries of central Europe will simply not need aid programmes as such. Concentrating a greater share of country programmes on a limited number of recipients that both need aid and can put it to good use will help to raise the quality of bilateral aid. It will also help to increase the poverty focus of the programmes, which is our most important goal.
  The development indicators for need are worst for sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. They contain the vast majority of the world's very poor countries. We also have much influence in those regions, which is why our aim is to concentrate aid increasingly on them. That does not mean that we shall abandon countries where our support is still needed. There is still much to be done, for example, in helping eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union and the countries of the Caribbean. We have a strong commitment to the dependent territories that still need our aid.

  847
  As I said, some countries will graduate from aid when conditions are right, just as Korea and Singapore have. We shall continue small programmes in most cases through British partnership schemes and scholarships. Many countries will continue to benefit from the substantial contributions that we give multilaterally.
  Ms Diane Abbott: Will the review result in cuts in aid to the Caribbean?
  Mr. Hanley: We have still to decide on the amounts to be given to various countries. We must also see whether, in the regions that I described, the amount of aid needed can be used effectively and efficiently. The Caribbean will certainly put its case to us with its usual enthusiasm. Although I cannot make commitments at this point because matters are still being discussed, we shall not abandon countries that definitely need our support.
  A greater concentration of substantial bilateral programmes will be progressively achieved. Last year, 70 per cent. of bilateral aid went to the 20 largest recipients. We aim to increase that concentration ratio gradually over the years. We shall do so very gradually, not radically as the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley suggested yesterday. Although concentration countries will not necessarily be the same from year to year, the key is how effective our partnership is in ensuring that the aid is used effectively. I hope that my explanation of that important aspect of the FER will dispel fears generated by the media that aid will be limited to only 20 countries. That is simply not true. While we shall target better a limited number of large programmes, many other countries will continue to receive aid, too.
  Mr. Forman: I applaud the policy of concentrating and focusing aid. Will there be a degree of what I might describe as "Commonwealth preference" in that policy? Many countries with the greatest concentrations of poor people happen to be in the Commonwealth.
  Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right to say that we have a continuing interest in and commitment to the other countries within the Commonwealth. I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, but I believe that the case for aid will be on a country-by-country basis, and I would not expect an overt preference for Commonwealth countries. Preference will be given to countries in need. However, I shall look at the issue and write to my hon. Friend with the answer, which my right hon. and noble Friend might be able to give when she returns from Africa.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Minister keeps saying that countries will graduate out of aid and that the Government will be increasingly selective about which countries should receive aid. Does that mean that, looking to the future, the Government have abandoned the 0.7 per cent. target that was restated in the 1992 Rio summit as being desperately needed by the world's poor countries?
  Mr. Hanley: No, we have not abandoned our goal of 0.7 per cent. We continue to hold that objective when funds allow. We are at 0.31 per cent. and diminishing by a small amount because we are ensuring that our economy is strong enough for us to achieve the 0.7 per cent. in time.
  848
  I have been explaining how our bilateral aid will be better targeted in the future. The FER also had important things to say about the growing contribution that we make through multilateral aid. This year, multilateral contributions are set to exceed bilateral programmes for the first time, almost entirely because of rising contributions to the European Commission's aid programme. More of our multilateral aid goes through the EC than through any other channel—about £600 million last year.
  The multilateral share of our aid is set to increase further, although, as I explained, the rate of increase is less than previously forecast. The ODA will need to put more of its effort into improving the quality of multilateral aid and exploiting opportunities to use it to support UK interests and priorities.
  The FER is also clear about that. It recommends that the ODA adopt a high-level aim that relates directly to its multilateral aid work. The objective is to make multilateral aid more explicitly subject to the same strategic disciplines as bilateral aid. For example, we shall strengthen the ODA's capability to influence the European Community's development operations.
  Strategies for the main areas of multilateral aid will be produced regularly, to ensure that the ODA's control over the uses to which multilateral aid is put is reinforced. There is no question of the UK being less committed to the multilateral aid system. We have been at the forefront of attempts to make multilateral aid more effective. In the European Union, we have pressed for closer co-ordination among member states; in the United Nations, we have contributed valuable ideas on management reform; and we are beginning to make headway in promoting reform in a number of agencies.
  But the World bank group of institutions is at the centre of the global development effort. The World bank group's objectives and the ODA's aims are closely linked. The institutions' quality is reflected in the richness of their collective experience and their record of success. The UK will continue to give them our full support. In particular, we want to see a substantial eleventh replenishment of the International Development Association.
  The hon. Member for Eccles seemed to be surprised that we were shifting from bilateral to multilateral aid. On the contrary, it is well known and will continue for some time. As I have said in the House before, a high proportion of our multilateral aid spending is determined by negotiated or assessed international commitments. The size of the EC aid budget is decided by all member states acting together, and by the European Parliament. The UK does not have sole control, but the ceilings were set at the 1992 European Council in Edinburgh. We are in the middle of that shift, although the ratio of bilateral to multilateral aid is currently approximately 50:50. Last year the ratio was 60:40. The shift should be seen within the total aid that we can produce.
  We can also be proud of our record on developing country debt. We have taken the leading international role in seeking a comprehensive solution to the official bilateral and multilateral debt burdens of the poorest, most heavily indebted countries and have written off more than £1.2 billion of their aid debts. Twelve countries have now benefited from the higher rates of debt relief—67 per cent. in some cases—available at the Paris Club of Government

  849
  creditors under the Naples terms first proposed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor. Since December 1994, more than £2.5 billion of bilateral official debt has been restructured on Naples terms. We have gained widespread recognition that additional measures must be taken to deal with the multilateral debt burden of a number of the poorest countries. In response, the International Monetary Fund and the World bank have agreed to submit such proposals at their spring meetings in April 1996.
  The UK will continue to be at the forefront of international thinking, policy and action on development. We shall maintain strong programmes of research, which underpin our capacity to influence others and promote effective development. We have announced a further increase next year in our joint funding scheme for non-governmental organisations, and we shall continue to support the societies that send British volunteers abroad at a substantial level. The Commonwealth Development Corporation expects to expand its annual level of commitments by some 12 per cent.
  We shall continue to respond to humanitarian emergencies, building on the outstandingly successful work of British experts and non-governmental organisations, which we have supported to great effect in Bosnia, Rwanda and elsewhere. We are putting increased effort into the role of aid, both in conflict prevention and in promoting a long-term approach to complex emergencies. The aim is to encourage the return to development, and we are beginning to see the fruits of that approach in several parts of Africa.
  Opposition noise about public expenditure reductions obscures the fact that we expect to deliver a bilateral aid programme no less substantial in aggregate than we had planned before the reductions. That programme will be increasingly concentrated on those who need it most and can use it most effectively. I am proud of our aid programme; the Government are proud of their aid programme; and I commend the Government's amendment to the House.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Cuts in the overseas aid budget are to be deplored, and it does the debate no good when people say that other countries, such as the United States or even Canada, have cut their aid budgets even more than we have. Such comparisons are odious, and no answer to the problem.
  Ministers talk about the great advantages of the flow of private capital in development. Private capital can be an aid to development, but I have never known it to be altruistic. Private capital goes overseas and to the underdeveloped world because it believes that it can obtain a good return. It is bogus, therefore, to include private capital inflows to developing countries in the category of aid.
  I accept that overseas aid policy must have clear objectives and must be geared to countries in greater need. Of course we want aid to be directed to sustainable development and of course we want to lead countries out of need for aid, although I have never subscribed to the opinion which is held in some parts of the House, especially on the Conservative Benches, that there is an aid-dependency culture in some countries. No country wants its development to be held back simply to obtain aid.
  850
  I do not subscribe to the theory that a good aid policy depends on our self-interest. We benefit from overseas aid, but that should not be the primary reason to provide development aid. We have a responsibility to ensure that aid policy, whether multilateral or bilateral, helps the people in the greatest need and is directed to countries in whose future we have a direct interest and influence. The Minister conceded that one of the Government's aims would be to give aid where there is a possibility of influencing development.
  Aid is desperately needed in Angola. I understand that in the next couple of weeks Baroness Chalker is to go to Angola. When she does so, she should remember that the United Kingdom was involved in the peace process which sought to bring to an end two decades of civil war and culminated in the Lusaka protocol in November 1994. Yet after all that time, more than a year later, the peace process is in serious danger. It hangs in the balance.
  The United Nations Security Council will meet on 8 February 1996 to decide the future of the UN mission in Angola. The United States is making noises to the effect that it is fed up with the situation and wants to walk away from the problem. We know, however, that one of the reasons for the difficulty in the peace process is the behaviour of the United States' surrogate, Jonas Savimbi of UNITA.
  At the donor conference in September 1995, attention was drawn to the fact that, according to estimates by the United Nations children's fund, almost one in three children in Angola dies before reaching the age of five; 280,000 Angolans live as refugees in neighbouring states; only 41 per cent. of the population has access to safe drinking water; the urban population has increased from 15 per cent. in 1970 to about 50 per cent. in 1995 as people have fled the country because of the war; life expectancy for Angolans is 45 years.
  Having heard those statements, anyone would say, "That country needs assistance." Yet at the round table donor conference in September last year, although the United States pledged $190 million to the reconstruction fund, France pledged $140 million and the Netherlands pledged $60 million, Britain fail to donate a single dollar, a single penny. The reason was that at the time the Government were busily involved in the argument about the further expenditure review. It is disgraceful that the Government of a country so closely interlinked and involved in the peace process, and in the pressure on the Angolan Government to concede massively to UNITA, should stand back and refuse to give any money. If Angola is to have a real future, Baroness Chalker—one of whose responsibilities is to participate in that type of argument—must tell the United States to make it clear that Savimbi must keep to the agreements that have been signed. There is a massive wish in Angola for peace. The peace process needs to be confirmed and money needs to be given.
  Governments influence overseas aid and overseas development policy in many ways. Cash is important—I do not deny that—but giving cash makes no sense if the Government's negotiations on trade matters can negate the entire development policy. I draw the Government's attention to the trade negotiations between South Africa and the European Union. Things are at a crucial stage.

  851
  For years, every hon. Member said, with equal sincerity—I would not want to recall the past and quarrel with people who held a different view from me at the time—that we wanted the end of apartheid. We all said that we wanted a democratic Government in place in South Africa. We wanted that, not only because it was a theoretical democratic exercise, but because we wanted significant development for the people in southern Africa. None the less, the negotiations have stalled as a result of the way in which the European Union is approaching them.
  Detailed discussions finally started in December 1995, after a long period of pre-negotiations. It is almost two years since the Berlin conference to discuss the relationship between South Africa and the European Union. Negotiations are in danger of stalling because France, supported by Germany and some southern European countries, is drawing up a list of "sensitive" products to be excluded from the negotiations. A list is accumulating, and circulating among member states, of products amounting to 58 per cent. of South Africa's agricultural exports to the European Union. What is more, it has now been suggested that before negotiations can be completed, "impact assessments" should be made of the impact on the European market, not only of potential South African produce, but of free trade agreements in general. Those may cause enormous delays.
  The Italians, who currently hold the presidency of the European Union, believe that they can achieve a deal that can be signed during their presidency. If that is to happen, it is imperative that the United Kingdom pulls out all the stops to urge the other EU member states to allow a speedy start to the detailed talks and to resist a growing protectionist momentum against South Africa.
  Although some minor trade concessions were made last year, the European Union gives South Africa a worse deal than most countries outside the western world, including many with a higher per capita income. South Africa is often said to be a rich country, but it has an extremely low per capita income. About 58 per cent. of its population is illiterate. There is desperate unemployment.
  Those things must be considered in the round. Development policy is not a simple matter of bandying around figures to say that this will work this way and that will work that way. It is about real people in real situations. I hope that in discussing overseas aid policy the Minister and Baroness Chalker will not take a monocular view, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) eloquently put it. I hope that they will not adopt tunnel vision and seek to defend their policy, or to make progress with their policy only in the narrow sense of percentages of gross domestic product. Those are important, but they are not the whole story.
  It is not good enough for the Government to say, "We aim eventually to reach the UN target figure, but in the meantime we shall go backwards until we can afford it." This country can certainly afford it, and I believe that the vast majority of people in the country would be willing to contemplate an increase in our monetary programme. I hope that the Department is not isolated but is able to influence wider foreign policy. Otherwise, the whole mess will collapse like a pack of cards. It will not matter from the point of view of our influence, but the most
  852
  desperately needy—the men, women and children who depend on the sensible progress of our aid policy—will be the ones who suffer.
  8.9 pm
  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who made several comments with which I agree. I shall refer to the issue of national self-interest, which he touched upon, in my short remarks.
  I had the great privilege to be a Foreign Office Minister for four years, and for two of those years I answered for the Overseas Development Administration in this place. I was enormously impressed by the quality of the British aid programme and by the quality of advice that I received as Minister defending the Government's policies. I am pleased that some of those who advised me are present today and I note from the tabulations attached to my right hon. Friend's brief that he receives the same fulsome advice. Although I worked extremely hard, I must confess that sometimes it was rather like boxing with one's eyes blindfolded. I hope that my right hon. Friend does not feel the same way.
  I welcome the aid programme because I see it as an extension of the British diplomatic initiative—the British interest. Those who criticise the aid programme because they do not believe in aid or because they believe in charity more than the British national interest should consider the Japanese position. Japan's aid programme is about four times as large as ours in money terms.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Hear, hear.
  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Japan's aid programme is smaller than ours as a percentage of gross national product, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman should temper his enthusiasm to support his hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), who opened for the Opposition.
  When the Japanese give aid, the four-wheel drive vehicles and other manifestations of Japanese commercial clout arrive shortly afterwards. I believe that the attitude of most decent people in Britain to aid is a reflection of their attitude to the conduct of their lives: they are mindful of their own self-interest while doing what they can afford to help others. When it comes to aid, I sometimes wish that the Opposition would recognise that self-interest is no bad thing. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North touched on that issue in his speech. Of course it is not a primary objective of our aid programme, but I believe that it must be given greater emphasis.
  Opposition spokesmen often seem to be in the grip of non-governmental organisations, such as those involved in the World Development Movement, which deny the national self-interest. On occasion, I feel that Opposition speeches are not directed to the House and to the nation, but to the NGOs to which I have referred.
  The British aid programme is a good programme because it is targeted largely at the poorest countries; I do not wish to see that change. However, I am a strong supporter of the aid and trade provision and I believe that everything about that concept should be encouraged. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend Baroness Chalker and her colleagues in another place found it necessary to cut the ATP this year in their fundamental expenditure review

  853
  and that it will be cut further. I am greatly disquieted by Labour party proposals, which lack any substance or detail, to reform the provision still further if Labour were elected to Government.
  There can be nothing wrong in principle with development projects which are proposed by British companies. I cannot accept the view expressed by the World Development Movement that the aid for trade provision should be abolished. I think that that would be insane. In that context, I shall comment about the Pergau experience because I believe that my criticisms of the Opposition were characterised by Labour Members behaviour on that occasion. When it was all over, the Foreign Secretary said:
  "We must ensure that British companies are not disadvantaged in bidding for worthwhile development projects against competitors who can afford soft finance".
  I wholly agree with that. Whatever mistakes were made during the Pergau episode were made in good faith by Ministers acting in the national self-interest. However, we heard only howls of indignation from Opposition Members, which showed that they were more concerned about pleasing those who get at them in the Lobbies than about supporting our national self-interest.
  Ms Abbott: No Labour Member would argue against the Government providing soft finance for private companies bidding for projects, but we do not regard it as an appropriate use of money that the British public believe is being spent on aid.
  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: I hope that the hon. Lady will provide more details, if she intends to make a contribution to the debate, about what she wants to be done about aid and trade provision. I shall be interested in what she says because I believe that arguments in favour of aid provision which do not also favour national self-interest are unlikely to enjoy public support. Anyone who wants the aid budget to increase—I include in that category the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mrs. Abbott) and the World Development Movement—must realise that my constituents will be easily persuaded that aid provision should be increased only if the argument for increased aid is combined with national self-interest.
  Because I believe that the national commercial and diplomatic self-interest must be served by the aid programme where possible and reasonable, I shall comment on multilateral aid provision and the European Union.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North referred to trade relations between South Africa and the European Union and I heartily agree with what he said. It is absurd that the European Union should make selfish provisions of the kind to which he referred and I found his contribution most helpful and illuminating. It is a cause of great irritation to many of us that so much of our aid is diverted from our bilateral programme to multilateral aid, particularly into the European Union, where we contribute about one sixth of its expenditure from our bilateral aid. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister say that negotiations will be hastened in an effort to improve the European multilateral programme.
  854
  It has always seemed curious to me that the European Union should have an aid programme. I cannot see why it should in principle, but nonetheless I recognise that it is a matter of history and that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have more important arguments to pursue within the European Union. However, as a former Foreign Office Minister, I recall one incident involving the chief minister of a Caribbean dependent territory who was anxious to build an education college in his country—which undoubtedly would have been named after him and boosted his ego. I received advice, which I was happy to accept, that it was an extravagant and not particularly worthwhile initiative in aid terms and we refused to grant aid. The chief minister in question—the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) knows to whom I refer—then went to the local European Union representative and his request was approved.
  Although I am aware of my irritation regarding many aspects of the European aid programme, I know that Britain is more successful than many other countries in obtaining contracts for our non-governmental organisations and consultants out of multilateral programmes. We benefit from spending multilateral aid on organisations originating in Britain. That is very good news indeed. Here I declare an interest as I was an observer at the recent Palestinian elections, under the auspices of the monitoring exercise organised by the European Union. The hon. Member for Eccles declared in her opening remarks that British influence is taking a hammering. If she had observed the Palestinian elections, she would have found that to be profoundly untrue. I have some reservations about the size of the European operation and other matters, but I shall not dwell on that aspect today as I wish to congratulate the British people involved.
  Four of the 30 European Union administrators were British and they were in a position of great influence; we had six long-term observers and our effort—especially that of one British administrator, who is an expert in organising elections throughout the world—helped the Palestinians to design their electoral system. British officials spent several months with leading Palestinians, who were deeply grateful for their advice. That involvement was a great success for the European Union and for the United Kingdom at little cost to ourselves, and as Palestine emerges as a nation we shall certainly benefit from our participation.
  We shall also benefit from our aid programme to the Palestinians. Over the next three years, the British contribution, which is substantially but not exclusively funded through the European Union, will be about £80 million. It is quite a large programme for a small emerging country and that initiative will do our standing with the Palestinian people even more good.
  There are several small programmes such as those in sewerage and public health; there is a mini know-how programme and a Bank of England initiative to help the Palestinians set up a monetary authority. They are small schemes and, once again, they are extremely well targeted, fashioned and constructed and they will put our officials in contact with leading Palestinians. I believe that those initiatives will follow the principle that I have enunciated in that they will be good for the Palestinian people and the British self-interest.
  8.22 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd). I well remember his fine work when he was a Minister. I am sad, however, that the chance to speak on Britain's overseas aid programme has been provided by budget cuts. I support the retention and expansion of the current budget which was so well managed for so long by Baroness Chalker.
  On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I thank the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen for their recognition in the motion of the value of British aid, and the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) for her fine and moving speech. My colleagues and I share their dismay at the Government's continual reduction in targeted assistance to the poorest of the poor. I consider that part and parcel of the Government's deliberate ignorance of the plight of the most needy people, domestically and overseas.
  Mr. David Faber: Does the hon. Lady recall what she said on 19 June last year in response to the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), who is now her hon. Friend? She said:
  "Despite the passionate commitment of those hon. Members, they were just rotating old and outdated statements that bore little relationship to the reality of today's overseas aid programme".— [Official Report, 19 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 109.]
  Does she still agree with her words then?
  Miss Nicholson: Yes. That was before the current budget cuts. I supported the Government on this and many other matters last summer and last autumn and I am desperately sad that my loyalty and my belief in the value of statements by Ministers and supporters have been rubbished by their actions. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman raised that point.
  My personal experience of the effectiveness of British official aid spans three decades: first, as a volunteer in India and Africa; secondly, as a salaried member of staff of the Save the Children Fund and other organisations such as Plan International; and, thirdly, since I entered Parliament, as a volunteer again. I have considerable experience in these matters.
  What is the purpose of government aid? We all know the Government's main stated aims. They are to support economic reform, to enhance productive capacity, to help achieve good government, to finance activities directly benefiting poor people, to promote human development, to promote the status of women and to help to tackle environmental problems. We all agree with those aims, but are the Government giving the Department the tools to do its job?
  Until last autumn, Britain's performance was not brilliant, but at least there were small increases in aid spending in 1994. Plans were also approved for further small increases for 1997–98. We were the fifth largest aid donor, but our contribution was less than half that of No. 4 on the list—Germany. In 1994, we spent 0.31 per cent. of our GNP on aid. We were 12th equal with Finland and below such countries as Luxembourg, Switzerland and Portugal. Neither the scale of our aid nor our aid-GNP ranking reflected our strong and special bilateral links with many of the world' poorest countries, unlike donors such as Sweden and Luxembourg.
  856
  The stated objective of the former Foreign Secretary was to punch above our weight. To do that, we need to concentrate on our strengths. Our bilateral experience and long expertise give British aid its quality and make our voice on development matters universally respected and more important than those of many other countries.
  Even with the planned increases in 1994, our bilateral aid was set to shrink from £1.1 billion to £945 million by 1997–98. Bilateral aid to Africa alone was to fall from £318 million to £280 million in only two years. Yet much of that money is still needed to support economic reform and good governance—two of the Government's main aims.
  The aid cuts announced last November, far from modestly increasing the aid budget for 1996–97 and 1997–98, will cut spending to significantly below even this year's spending. In each year, more than £120 million has been axed from previous years' spending, representing a cut of about 9 per cent. in the amount expected to be spent in the last financial year. At 1994–95 prices, the cost will be at least –200 million in each of the next two years, compared with the total for 1994–95. That is more than two thirds of total private United Kingdom aid flows.
  First, is it true that nearly all that money will have to come from bilateral aid? Secondly, as fast-spending aid to support economic reform and good governance is the easiest to cut, what impact will those cuts have on our leverage in pursuit of those aims, especially in Africa? How much will go to Africa in 1997–98?
  The Government's aim to help the poor—especially women—has wide public support. It is carried out in partnership with excellent British voluntary agencies such as Oxfam, Plan International and the Save the Children Fund. Plan International has Ian Buist, a former ODA eminence, as a director. Can the Minister assure us that previous plans for the joint funding scheme and other partnerships with such agencies will not be affected by the cuts? What about our contributions to the United Nations Children's Fund—UNICEF—whose concerns loom large?
  The Minister stated this evening that he wishes to improve the quality of multilateral aid, but how do the Government expect to maintain Britain's influence in the multilateral aid agencies, including the European Union, if they take the axe to our bilateral programmes? Who will listen to us if we do not put our money where our mouth is?
  During the previous financial year, the Government said that when many major donors face difficult decisions about the size of their aid programmes, the increase in the United Kingdom's aid programme reconfirms the Government's commitment to international developments. I deeply regret the fact that, by this year's decisions, so soon afterwards, they have trampled that commitment into the dust.
  The fundamental expenditure review, the FER, changes ODA priorities. It drops the unique focus on women, yet women and their children make up 80 per cent. of all refugees and displaced people. Is the Minister content that that should happen, given that in the poorest societies women and girls bear the heaviest burdens of illiteracy and hunger, as well as child labour?
  The review focuses a higher proportion of expenditure—85 per cent.—on only 20 countries. Is the Minister comfortable with the fact that in many mid-level

  857
  economies, and even in wealthy nations, where millions of refugees eke out their lives, sometimes for 30 years, the official British attitude will now be survival of the fittest? Surely he must know that no GNP statistic allows for vicious or ignorant social policies and that high national wealth does not lead to automatic redistribution or to tolerance towards minorities. Aid is about people, not about classroom economics. The Government have turned their face against asylum seekers coming into the United Kingdom. Surely the Minister knows that funds spent preventively in difficult regions help people to stay at home.
  Given the fundamental changes of focus that the FER recommends, will the Minister refer proposals to the House for debate rather than take decisions within the Department? That would restore a sense of political balance that is sorely missing. Opposition Members have always taken overseas aid more seriously than the Government. In 1979, the Labour Government were spending 0.5 per cent. of GNP on aid. The forecast within the FER, before budgetary cuts were known, was that the percentage would fall to 0.26 per cent. The percentage must now be lower still.
  The first ODA Minister, Barbara Castle, went into the Cabinet on 18 October 1964. Lynda Chalker still waits outside the door.
  Recently, there was comment on Japan. It spends 0.29 per cent. of its GNP on aid. That is a higher percentage than was forecast for the United Kingdom before the budgetary cuts. That is not good.
  Sadly, UNESCO has been badly weakened because it lost more than one third of its financial resources after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom and the United States 11 or 12 years ago. They have denied it their full co-operation. Its director-general, Dr. Federico Mayor Zaragoza, made that very point to one of the Minister's colleagues when he came here last December for the 50th anniversary of both UNESCO and the United Nations. It is clear that multilateral co-operation between rich and poor countries is not one of the Government's top priorities.
  At the same time, we need a global perspective of participatory knowledge about a changing planet, co-operation in the advance of scientific understanding, the selection of appropriate uses of technology and the social and economic implications of the information-communications revolution, which are critical. We must take account of all those factors and their effect on cultural creativity and development, which will be denied to poorer nations unless the United Kingdom and the United States participate.
  If the Minister does not know the facts, let him say so. The World Service debate recently revealed Government ignorance. The Foreign Secretary claimed credit for the Government in introducing the Rwanda service, the Kinyarwanda-Kirundi lifeline. In answer to a question from the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
  "I am informed that it is funded through the BBC World Service, which is funded by the Government."—[Official Report, 16 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 558.]
  That is just not true.
  858
  The current cost of the project is £124,000 a year. Since April 1995, it has been funded entirely externally, with £85,000 provided by six British non-governmental organisations: Save the Children, Christian Aid, HelpAge International, Action Aid, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and the British Red Cross. It is appropriate to raise the matter in this debate because £39,000 comes from the ODA. That is a very different picture from the one painted by the Foreign Secretary.
  I keenly regret the planned cuts, but I am relieved that their effect is at least partly alleviated by our membership of the European Community. Through a network of multilateral and bilateral agreements with developing nations—many of them are members of the Commonwealth—development assistance and trade advantages are given and administered by the Commission's external services. Non-governmental organisations—many of them British—receive financial support for their vital work, which is now to be at least partly ignored by the Government.
  I draw special attention to the work of the European Community humanitarian office, under Commissioner Emma Bonino, whom I had the pleasure to meet recently in London at the ODA. I wish also to mention the fine work of her director, Santiago Gomez Reino; her deputy director, Donato Chiarini; and senior official, Richard Lewar-Towski. The office ensures that urgent, humanitarian aid reaches the most dangerous parts where others may well fear to tread, not only throughout former Yugoslavia but in northern Iraq and its southern marshes, as well as Chechnya and other parts of the Russian Federation that are caught up in a bloody civil war.
  Will the Minister think again about his response yesterday to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who is in his place? The hon. Member for Salisbury described the European Union's aid as being "of inferior quality" and said that it
  "dilutes our traditional aid effort into parts of the world with which we have…little in common".—[Official Report, 29 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 638.]
  The Minister did not reject that, perhaps, ignorant view out of hand. After all, Iraq is a former colony or protectorate of the United Kingdom. He said that he understood what the hon. Gentleman had said. Will he now support the EU aid package, against his colleague, as he holds ministerial responsibility for it? Who is right—the Minister or the poor who benefit from EU aid? May I say that "little in common" is not a criterion that I have heard before in terms of aid distribution, save one of the lowest sort? It is surely need combined with value for Britain, not shared interests between donor and recipient, that mark out proper development aid. I hope that the Minister will agree with me and not with the comment of yesterday that he appeared to endorse.
  This year, 1996, is the United Nations year for the eradication of poverty. I am ashamed that the British Government have started the year in such a desperate fashion. I beg the Government to reconsider the cuts. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I support the motion.
  8.37 pm
  Sir Jim Lester: This is the first time that I have been able to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) since

  859
  she crossed the Floor. It is my experience of the hon. Lady that she has a good heart even if she is misguided in the way in which she seeks to view the future.
  There are Conservative Members who do not approve of any reduction in aid. Many of us made that clear before negotiations took place. That may be why we have maintained the bilateral aid programme at the same level despite the other reductions.
  Despite the pledge made from the Opposition Front Bench this evening, a Labour Government would face exactly the same pressure. There is the problem of holding public expenditure. That has been tackled for as long as I can remember by means of equal pay for all Departments, with the exception of those responsible for education, law and order and health. That means that no attempt is made to evaluate the value and success of individual Departments and what they achieve in terms of money spent.
  The World Service and the British Council have already been mentioned. In public expenditure terms, they have exceptionally small budgets, yet any reduction in what they spend has a greater effect than elsewhere. The left-wing newspaper the Financial Times has an excellent editorial today that explains the position rather better than I have. I have always felt—perhaps because I have always had an interest in international affairs and overseas development—that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is a Cinderella department. It has a small budget in public expenditure terms, yet it goes through the same process year on year of review and reduction.
  Having said that, I believe that the reduction in the ODA's budget this year is enough to sadden people like me, but it is not enough to cause me to despair or revolt, and it was nothing like the scare tactics that were used by some who should know better. We can handle the reduction. It is within manageable terms, and it is in the whole concept of the FER. It is a time of significant change anyway in the delivery of aid and the bilateral aid programme relative to our European multilateral programme, which I support. Intellectually, I have never understood why we cannot conceive of 15 nations working together and being able to do far more in the fundamental provision of essential elements in other countries—I am thinking of my recent visit to Uganda. Fifteen nations working together could provide the infrastructure that President Museveni recognised is needed first and foremost before he is able to start to look at poverty reduction. Bilateral aid programmes cannot do that.
  We can look at ways of easing aid to the countries whose overall income is increasing and target aid to the countries that are in poverty, and the poorer countries. I welcome the statement that was made by my right hon. Friend about the increase in the pound-for-pound scheme, because NGOs overall face real problems in terms of the reduction of their direct contributions from the public. They are increasingly valued by Governments, yet they want to maintain a degree of independence and not be seen as arms of Government. The pound-for-pound scheme is an excellent example where that co-operation can be carried forward. My advice to the NGOs with which I am involved is that, if they concentrate on the sheer professionalism that we have, no one could accuse them of being an arm of Government; they would simply be the best vehicle of ideal grassroots aid in whatever country they work.
  860
  We also need to watch the prevailing mood in the decline in aid flows at a time of increasing need. It is not acceptable as an excuse that others are doing worse, although one should be conscious of that. I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the 11th replenishment of the International Development Association, as it is critical. The United States let down the international community and itself because of the way in which it dealt with that replenishment. I was distressed when I was on Capitol hill, speaking in Congress, to find the degree of isolation that currently permeates those two bodies.
  The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon mentioned economic migration. That has been a growing issue over the years which we have discussed in the House in terms of domestic legislation. Some of us are less than happy about it. Unless all the developed countries recognise that the transfer of resources, from whatever source, to the least developed countries takes place and the people are made more comfortable and given hope in their own countries, economic migration will grow and grow.
  I welcome the fact that, increasingly, we are beginning to look more objectively at the total needs of the least developed countries. The aid flows, from whatever source, are vital, but just as important is investment from the private sector, which has worked so dramatically in the east, and, of course, the halfway house of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which is able to bridge the gap between direct investment, where a return is expected immediately, and investments that can take longer to develop the countries that need it most. We are also looking at the reduction in debt. We are looking objectively at the report of the all-party group, which I chair, on the objective analysis of debt, be it bilateral, commercial or multilateral. We must make urgent progress in resolving the outstanding debt over and above the Paris Club negotiations.
  I welcome the work that has been done by the working party within the World bank and very much hope that the untimely leap will not prevent progress in moving towards writing off on a case-by-case basis debt that can never be repaid.
  A great deal of work has gone into the report. I hope that we shall be able to see the results and that it liberates domestic funds that are currently paid to the bank for investment in areas of the world that face the greatest problems.
  The hon. Lady said she was going to Washington soon. I saw the president of the World bank in December. He very much welcomes parliamentary interest in the House in the World bank and its responsibilities. He is prepared to come to the House and address the all-party group or any other forum that we can arrange. I hope to do that in the near future and to talk about the debt situation and about being accountable to parliamentarians, many of whom write regularly to him or his predecessors about the changes in structural adjustment and about using it objectively, not to create further poverty. There are good signs that comprehensive progress is being made, and that is the only way in which the gap can be closed between the developed and the developing world.
  One is wary of suggested reductions to multilateral aid unless it is, as the Minister explained, for humanitarian work which is no longer necessary. Many of us are concerned about the United Nations and its future. It has

  861
  many problems. One of the principal problems is that the majority of its members are not interested in international affairs. They are members of the club because they feel that they should be. They pay their dues and demands at the last possible moment, and when asked to do anything, many of them, unless it directly affects them, are reluctant to do so. Britain's support for the United Nations is vital as its goes through its reorganisation phase.
  Britain, unlike the nations that I have described, has a different history. I am sure that every hon. Member present is proud of that history. We are one of the most international countries in the world, with an outlook, influence and trade that reflect that. The former Foreign Secretary said that Britain punches above its weight in every genuine sense. The amount that we spend on foreign service aid and the various organisations that we support is very small, but the gain is almost impossible to calculate. Many of us are concerned that the constant chipping of relatively small sums from organisations, from his budget and the ODA budget, are contrary to our long-term interest in every sense. I hope that these words are listened to with great care as we approach the next round of negotiations.
  8.47 pm
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: As always, it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester). He and I see eye to eye on many of these issues. I notice that even he is saddened by the cuts in overseas aid. Those are strong words for him. I wonder just how saddened he must be before he leaves the Conservative Benches and joins his former hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) somewhere on the Opposition Benches. I can assure him that there will always be a very warm welcome for him.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) demonstrated eagerly and ably, overseas aid expenditure is to be cut by an amount that would be enough to fund this year's combined programme to Africa—of Action Aid, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Christian Aid, Oxfam, Save the Children and the Worldwide Fund for Nature.
  It is a fair bet that one country will not be affected by the Government's cuts. It has been named as one of the world's most corrupt. Its people have suffered at the hands of their Government from some of the worst human rights violations this century. Its Government systematically uses military force to underpin its harsh authoritarian rule. It is not one of the world's poorest countries. Despite all that, however, British aid to it has doubled in the past six years, and is due to increase again this year. The country is, of course, Indonesia.
  My concern about Britain's relations with Indonesia arises in part from my visit to the territory of East Timor in 1989 as a member of an Inter-Parliamentary Union group. Indonesia illegally annexed East Timor in July 1976, following a bloody invasion of the territory in the previous year; about 200,000 people were slaughtered as a result of that invasion. Since then, I have closely followed developments in Indonesia and East Timor, and recently conducted research into the bilateral aid programme. The main findings of my report have been submitted to the National Audit Office, which is now carrying out a detailed investigation.
  862
  Britain's commitment to Indonesia's ruling regime strikes me as remarkable, but not surprising in view of the Government's amoral and highly selective approach to overseas aid and development. Last year, the Minister for Overseas Development, Lady Chalker, said that
  "where a Government turns its back on democracy, ignores accountability, flouts human rights and allows corruption to flourish, our aid will only be of a humanitarian nature to help the people in real need."
  When she visited Kenya last year, Lady Chalker said:
  "We have concern about treatment of opposition parties, about the treatment of the press. We have heard very disturbing reports about some legal cases. We know the horrors of ethnic tensions that this country went through. And we know the evils of corruption."
  Strangely, however, when Lady Chalker visited Indonesia a few weeks earlier, she was conspicuously silent on the issues of human rights and corruption. Rather than expressing her views, she put her signature to an aid-related loan for £80 million.
  It is not as if British aid were helping to alleviate poverty in Indonesia. Only a tiny proportion of it is spent on the vital purposes of poverty reduction and human development; much of the rest is focused on high-cost, prestigious transport, power and communications projects, many of which are of dubious developmental value.
  At present, about two thirds of aid to Indonesia is accounted for by aid and trade provision and, Commonwealth Development Corporation expenditure. It is clear that the aid programme is part of an overall strategy that gives priority to the promotion of British business and the sale of British arms. Indeed, as everyone knows, Britain is a major supplier of arms to Indonesia. It is therefore not surprising that aid to that country has increased from £33 million in 1992–93 to £51 million in 1994–95. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether it will be one of the countries of which he talked that would graduate from aid. Perhaps there will be other considerations.
  The Government's attitude to East Timor illustrates the point only too well. Despite persistent statements to the effect that they do not recognise Indonesia's annexation of East Timor, they have provided funds and personnel for projects that include East Timor as well as Indonesia. They have also approved export licences for military equipment that has been used against the defenceless East Timorese people.
  Aid money has been used to provide maps and other land data concerning East Timor for Indonesia's Ministry of Transmigration. That is a particularly disturbing example of the misuse of British aid. The Indonesian Government have used transmigration to control the population. Officially, the objective is to. Reduce overpopulation in densely populated parts of the country, and to settle the transmigrants in underpopulated parts such as East Timor. An essential part of the programme, however, is the colonisation of outlying regions with Javanese peasants who are more loyal to President Suharto. The deliberate aim is to undermine non-Javanese societies and cultures.
  Britain's assistance has made a real contribution to the integration of East Timor within Indonesia. In practice, the Government have not only recognised Indonesia's annexation but aided it. Furthermore, it appears that the Secretary of State may have acted unlawfully in approving the project under the Overseas Development

  863
  and Cooperation Act 1980. It is generally known that Britain has contributed militarily to the subjugation and oppression of East Timor. Everyone knows about the highly controversial £500 million deal for the sale of more Hawk aircraft to Indonesia. Foreign Office officials have dismissed eyewitness accounts of the sighting of the aircraft in East Timor; assurances given by President Suharto that the aircraft would not be used against the Timorese have proved worthless.
  Only a few months ago, the British journalist Hugh O'Shaughnessy saw two Hawks make a low pass over Dili, the capital of East Timor, as part of the security forces' campaign of intimidation and terror to warn the people against staging any public protest to mark the fourth anniversary of the Santa Cruz massacre that had resulted in the deaths of 150 unarmed civilians. Noam Chomsky once described the west's proclaimed commitment to human rights as
  "one of the great lies of modern history",
  and the Government have provided ample evidence to support that assertion. As we know, they would be much happier if persecuted and abused people were prevented from coming to Britain in the first place, and in that regard the East Timorese are proving a bit of a problem.
  In September, five young Timorese men applied for asylum after taking refuge in the British embassy in Jakarta. Their application stated that
  "military brutality has become a fact of everyday life in East Timor—a military brutality which has consisted of sudden arrest, rape, intimidation, terror and slaughter".
  In the event, Portugal granted the five asylum while Britain dragged its feet.
  The military brutality referred to by those asylum seekers includes the activities of the Indonesian national police. The INP is part of the Indonesian armed forces; it is essentially a paramilitary force, which, in areas such as East Timor, is wholly under the command of the local military. The primary role of the armed forces, including the INP, is to maintain internal security. That has led to serious human rights abuses by the police throughout Indonesia, yet our Government have been providing training awards for INP officers since 1979 as part of our aid programme. A consultancy unit established under the training project is available to advise and assist the East Timorese police authorities if required, and the Government have admitted that officers trained under the aid programme may subsequently serve in East Timor.
  In March 1990, the Government approved the police management training project, involving expenditure of £713,000. The project claims to have as its objective the improvement of the quality of service of the INP, through the establishment of a consultancy unit which advises senior management on strategic change. The Government have stated that they hope that the assistance that they have provided
  "will influence all receiving it and help develop respect for human rights in East Timor."
  In view of that statement, the support for the INP must be a completely ineffective and inefficient use of aid money.
  The Overseas Development Administration's "Guide to Aid Procedures" specifically states:
  "ODA considers non-military security organisations such as police forces…as legitimate beneficiaries of the aid programme…However, each request for such aid must be considered most carefully in terms of both general human rights and the rights of the
  864
  individual, taking account of the circumstances of the country in question. For instance tasks assigned to police vary widely from country to country and could be of a para military nature".
  Again in the words of the ODA, in doubtful cases, a request for aid must be referred
  "to higher authority or for Ministerial approval."
  I have strong doubts about whether correct procedures were followed before police funding was approved. If it was approved, it would be interesting to know which Minister approved it.
  The Government's argument is that, in introducing officers to western approaches to policing, they are aiming to improve respect for human rights. That assertion is plainly ridiculous. Why is it that these officers receive no training in human rights issues? Why is it that the British consultants working under the project have had no formal training in human rights issues and do not even provide advice on such issues?
  In the United States of America, in evidence to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about similar training for Indonesia, the executive director of Asia Watch said:
  "These police are part of the armed forces, who are responsible for torture on a routine basis. Their role in practice is to get information from suspects by any means possible and to administer summary punishment as they see fit".
  He added that
  "to give them additional training with US funds as long as the structure in which they operate remains unchanged would be utterly irresponsible."
  The degree of our Government's responsibility in training the INP within the aid programme can be judged by the records of certain officers who have benefited under British-funded training. For example, Colonel Hindarto was trained in Britain, subsequently became Jakarta's chief of police, and was clearly influenced by his British training in carrying out his duties. The Jakarta Post reported last year:
  "Even…Hindarto admitted…that officers had a strong tendency now to shoot people caught red handed at a crime 'in order to give the public a greater feeling of personal safety'".
  The article adds that
  "Hindarto said he fully supported his subordinates in the shooting cases and that police sometimes are forced to resort to shooting criminals in self-defence. Since January 1995…police officers have reportedly shot 25 criminals, 19 of which died."
  In a sworn statement made last year in Lisbon, an exile described the treatment meted out by Hindarto, when he was chief of police of a region that included East Timor, to one victim who was accused of involvement in a demonstration that preceded the Santa Cruz cemetery massacre. The man was hit in the face with gun stocks, kicked and severely punched. He was kept naked for the first five days of his detention, tortured and burned on his face and body with cigarette butts. During the 40 days of his detention, he was repeatedly beaten and hit with bars of iron and gun stocks. In his statement, the exile states:
  "His head was the target, consequently he is mad now".
  The statement includes examples of other atrocities, all carried out when Hindarto—a man trained under the British aid programme—was the chief of police.
  It is difficult to identify the reasons for the Government's support for the INP. However, as the Indonesian armed forces perform a dual security function, perhaps the Government are looking to foster their

  865
  influence over senior officers such as Hindarto who are potential buyers of British arms. In any event, there is, once again, no consideration for human rights and poverty reduction.
  A few years ago, I initiated the investigation into the Pergau dam by reporting my concern to the National Audit Office. Unfortunately, I do not think that the Government have learnt one lesson from that case as they persist in funding projects which are, at best, developmentally unsound and, at worst, positively harmful. Sadly, it seems inevitable that support for such projects will continue so long as the Government remain ideologically opposed to considering the needs of the poor ahead of the needs of British arms manufacturers and business elites.
  The Government spend much time and effort proclaiming that human rights and good governance are important criteria that govern their foreign aid policy—no doubt the Minister will confirm that yet again tonight—but it is clear that, in the case of Indonesia, that litmus test is not being applied and that a huge amount of public money is being spent on projects that are of no obvious benefit to Indonesia's poor and are devoid of developmental merit.
  Projects that positively support the repressive Ministry of Information and the brutal national police and which aid Indonesia's illegal annexation of East Timor are a shocking indictment of the Government's handling of the bilateral aid programme—an indictment that the Government have a duty to answer.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. David Faber: As so often on these occasions, we are a little short of time, but I should like to begin on a personal note and pay a warm tribute to my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker who, until a couple of weeks ago, I was honoured to serve as parliamentary private secretary. Just before Christmas, I and many others from the Foreign Office and the world of aid—and, indeed, representatives of foreign Governments—attended a reception at the Foreign Office to mark her 10th year as a Minister at the Foreign Office, the vast majority of which time has been spent as Minister for Overseas Development.
  My right hon. and noble Friend has, throughout, been a tireless campaigner on behalf of developing nations when negotiating with the Treasury at home and in ensuring the effective delivery of aid to those who need it. It is largely because of her personal efforts and expertise that Britain is now seen as a good friend to countries in Africa, the Commonwealth and, indeed, throughout the developing world, which recognise the value and efficiency of British aid above that of almost all other countries. There can be few other Ministers who command the respect that she does among those who deliver the aid and, more important, among those who receive it.
  As we have heard, the United Kingdom is the fifth largest aid donor in the world, and the programme for 1996–97 will be worth £2.154 million. In 1994, about 55 per cent. of our aid programme went on bilateral aid, 55 per cent. of that went to Commonwealth countries and two thirds went to the poorest countries. Last year's Budget settlement will mean that the planned allocation
  866
  for bilateral aid for 1996–97 will be little changed from the forecast set out in last year's Overseas Development Administration's departmental report, but the Department's new plans take into account lower forecasts for multilateral aid such as that channelled through the World bank and the European Union.
  The Opposition motion deals again with the well argued issue of the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product being spent on overseas aid. The Government have consistently reaffirmed that we will work towards that target, but have said, quite rightly, that we cannot set a timetable as any decision on achieving that target must always depend on an overall review of public expenditure, year on year.
  In fact, as the House knows, we currently spend some 0.31 per cent. of GDP on overseas aid, which is higher than the average 0.29 per cent. of all the countries represented on the development assistance committee.
  It is interesting to note that, once again, the Opposition refuse to set a timetable for achieving the UN target, presumably because it represents a too easily costed spending promise, although we heard from the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) that the trend will, Labour hopes, be reversed in the first year of a Labour Government. Rather, the motion speaks of "steady and measurable progress", a phrase that is, I think, vague and woolly enough to be supported by almost every hon. Member. Of course, Labour's 1992 general election' manifesto contained a pledge—repeated at the 1993 conference—to achieve the 0.7 per cent. target within five years. That pledge would appear to have been dropped.
  Nor can I let go the speech made by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) for the Liberal Democrats. Unfortunately, she is no longer in her place, but I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will report to her what I say. I fear that the hon. Lady may have misunderstood my intervention. I was not in any way doubting her ability to speak on overseas aid. She has a long and good record of doing so in the House. I was doubting the remarkable change of mind that she appears to have had since June last year. I should like to quote further from the speech that she made at that time. She spoke of
  "The primacy of the market for freedom and wealth creation"
  and of the Government's objective being quite superbly achieved during the past 15 years. She continued:
  "I was very surprised that Opposition Members, with their constant bleating about old-style socialist policies—moan, moan, moan—failed to acknowledge that great British success story."—[Official Report, 19 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 108–9.]
  I have no doubt that she is well able to speak for the Liberal Democrats on overseas aid, but I doubt the fact that, as recently as June, she was singing a very different tune.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: How long did it take the hon. Gentleman to decide that the poll tax should be repealed?
  Mr. Faber: I was not in the House either when the poll tax was initiated or when it was repealed.
  I, like many other Conservative Members and Conservative councillors, have had a pleasant couple of weeks reading the fascinating document "Towards 1996", which the Liberal Democrats Whips Office has produced.

  867
  I tried hard, while reading it this afternoon, to find a reference to overseas aid. The only reference to the Liberal Democrats' policy on overseas aid that I can find in the entire document is about the fact that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) cares more about Bosnia than he does about anything else.
  The central aim of the British aid programme is poverty reduction. Our strategy is based on seeking to inspire broad-based economic growth, on investing in people, and on providing social safety nets where they are needed. Short-term relief for emergency aid is only part of that strategy, although it is overwhelmingly the most publicised.
  Across the globe, 300 million people are affected by disasters—and the number is growing by a staggering 10 million a year. An increasing number are victims of violent conflicts. Last year, there were 56—mostly internal—wars, compared with 46 in 1990. Civilians all too often bear the brunt of such tragedies. I learnt the staggering statistics today. At the beginning of this century, 90 per cent. of all war casualties were military; now, 95 per cent. of all war casualties are civilian. Conflicts also lead to huge movements of populations. The number of refugees increased from 13 million in 1989 to 23 million last year.
  Those of us who have seen at first hand the pain and suffering in the former Yugoslavia can only despair at those figures, but we can also take pride in our country's response. The ODA responds every year to between 50 and 100 emergencies, allocating more than 300 grants. In the previous financial year, those grants totalled £334 million and went to 71 countries.
  Perhaps this is a suitable moment, since I am not sure that I have heard it said this evening, to pay tribute to all those who are paid or volunteer and who work so hard, often in appalling conditions, to deliver our aid overseas. We should especially remember the families of the three British soldiers who were killed in Bosnia at the weekend while going about their duty of implementing our foreign policy.
  Emergency aid is only a small part of the overall programme. Contrary to the wording of the motion, there have been some marked falls in relative poverty around the world over the past 30 years. Life expectancy in the poorest countries has increased by more than 12 years. Infant mortality rates, such as in India where they have halved, have fallen steeply. There are still huge variations however, as some countries progress and others do not. That is why we target aid to the places where it is most needed.
  In June 1994, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development praised the quality and effectiveness of our aid. Two thirds of our development aid goes to the poorest countries in the world. British aid works at all levels. In the local community, we target poverty reduction projects, often in support of a local non-governmental organisation. We often work with Governments to help improve standards in, for example, health or education provision. We use aid, too, to help speed up a broader policy of institutional reforms in promoting, for example, good government and sensible public expenditure. We have written off more than £1.2 billion-worth of debt, and led the way in implementing the Trinidad terms.
  868
  Most crucially, we recognise the vital importance to developing countries of free trade. Trade brings in three times as much foreign exchange to developing countries as does aid. The United Kingdom provides half of all the European Union's private investment, and it is the third largest investor in the world, after the United States of America and Japan.
  Our aid programme is wide and effective. The Opposition motion says that our multilateral aid is suffering because of our bilateral contribution. In the current year, our multilateral contributions have exceeded our bilateral aid for the first time. Although an appropriate balance should be struck, it is clearly important that the money should be well spent, so I hope that, when my right hon. Friend the Minister winds up, he will say a little about the checks and balances that we can exercise in Brussels to ensure that that is so.
  We all want multilateral spending to be as effectively delivered as is our own bilateral spending, and we want the United Kingdom to get proper credit for the contributions that it makes through the European Union, for example, which is not always the case now.
  I am sorry to refer again to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon, but in conclusion I can do no better than quote what she said at the end of her speech on 19 June:
  "this evening I urge hon. Members to discard the rag-bag of items proposed by Opposition spokesmen and to give the Government's amendment their whole-hearted support".—[Official Report, 19 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 110.]
  9.15 pm
  Ms Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) made a powerful case from the Dispatch Box. She made the moral case for aid, but I am afraid that I do not share her optimism about the moral sensitivities of Tory Ministers, so I intend to make the practical self-interested case for aid.
  I begin by emphasising that it is important to put all the issues connected with aid and development in the wider economic context. That is why I welcome the fact that the Government motion refers to their work on debt.
  The first point to be made about aid is that it is quite wrong to present it, as many Conservative Members do, as though it were merely a question of charity and of handouts to undeserving black and brown people. The fact about the flows of money between Britain, the European Union, America and the third world is that more money flows from Africa, India and the rest of the third world in debt repayments than flows to them in aid.
  If we put aid, especially the vexed question of debt repayment, in the wider economic context, we can see it more clearly. As there is a brief mention of debt in the Government's motion, we must not forget how the debt was incurred.
  The history of the debt crisis of the 1970s and 1980s is a fantastic tale of the agents of international banks criss-crossing the third world urging dictators to take on debts. Much of the money never touched the borders of the countries that ostensibly borrowed it. Instead, it was safely stashed away in Swiss banks. Much of it was spent on arms, and most of it never trickled down to the people of the countries concerned, in whose name the debts were incurred.

  869
  There is something very cruel and unfair in the fact that, as we approach the millennium, the people of some of the poorest countries in the world are toiling to pay the interest on the interest of debts incurred in their name by long-past military dictators.
  The Government speak of their record on debt, and Opposition Members commend them for their efforts in relation to the Trinidad terms and in trying to change the way in which the World bank looks on debt, but, sadly, past efforts at debt reduction have focused on two categories of country—countries such as Mexico and the Philippines, where it was politically convenient for the United States to forgive debt, or the very poorest countries.
  There are, however, many so-called middle-income countries, such as many of the nations of the Caribbean, with social conditions that would require the Government to consider debt reduction for them much more seriously than they have hitherto. The Trinidad terms were worthwhile, as they did not involve huge sums of money, but they only began to chip at the weight of debt—even for the poorest countries—and they did not help the deserving populations in many so-called middle-income debtors.
  If the issue of aid is to be viewed properly, it must be considered in the context of this country's work on debt reduction and its role in the International Monetary Fund and the World bank. A review of the terms of some of the structural adjustment programmes that we are forcing on third-world countries is long overdue, as the record of such programmes is not wholly good. In many countries that have had structural adjustment forced on them by the IMF and World bank, living standards, education and basic health care available to ordinary people worsened in the 1980s.
  Sadly, in recent years we have witnessed the redirection of flows in aid and other multilateral assistance from the poorest countries in Africa to eastern Europe. Opposition Members want, of course, help to go to eastern Europe, but not at the expense of the very poorest peoples of the world. At this point, I wish to echo what was said by the lion. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) about the Commonwealth preference. Many people were sad to hear that there is a possibility that the ODA will cut aid to any part of the world, but in particular to the Caribbean.
  I travel regularly to the Caribbean, particularly to Jamaica, where my family comes from. It is sad that although people in Jamaica and the Caribbean hold the Commonwealth link in the highest esteem, Ministers speak of it in the Chamber in a cavalier way. Countries all over the world have Chambers that are replicas of this one, and one can step out of the tropical sunlight into such a replica. Those countries hold the British and Commonwealth link in the highest regard, yet daily people see Ministers turn away from the Commonwealth. I think that there is a case for a Commonwealth preference in relation to aid.
  I feel most strongly about the Caribbean. It is all very well for Ministers to look at the totality of GDP figures in the Caribbean, but the figures mask the increasing poverty and decline in basic social services in health and education. The sugar and banana industries in the Caribbean have collapsed following the impact of Lomé,
  870
  and the ill-effects of the north American free trade agreement have meant that trade that might have gone from America to the Caribbean is now going to the NAFTA counties.
  What do the Government think the consequence will be of their cuts in aid to the Caribbean? I can tell them that it will not he an increase in self-reliance. Rural labour will not be getting on their bikes. The consequence will be an increase in the drugs trade. Where traditional agriculture has collapsed in the Caribbean, it has been replaced by the illegal drugs trade. There is no point in Ministers talking about a war on drugs while the Foreign Office and the ODA pursue policies designed to create the economic conditions in which the drug trade flourishes.
  There are historic links between this country and the Caribbean. Many people from the Caribbean fought for this country in the war or helped the war effort, and there is a large Caribbean community here. There is an ever-growing drugs menace in the Caribbean, and the Government should think seriously before cutting the already low level of aid to the Caribbean.
  I have spent today in the Committee considering the Asylum and Immigration Bill, and I do not wish to bring the details of that Bill into tonight's debate, but in the context of immigration and asylum we hear over and over again about the waves of economic refugees and how the continents of the world are being criss-crossed by refugees driven by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse—war, famine, poverty and pestilence. What is the point of introducing increasingly punitive and criminalising measures against economic refugees if our aid programme does not address the causes of economic refugees? I am not saying that it is practical at this point for Britain to open its doors to economic refugees, but it is heartless and impractical not to aim aid and development work at dealing with the causes of economic refugees. Our aid should be directed at some of those countries to help development and growth.
  Conservative Members have the idea that a practical approach to aid means misusing aid as a form of soft loan for arms deals and dubious construction projects. That is wholly impractical. Aid should be used to promote growth and development, which is the only effective check on the waves of economic refugees. Surely nobody seriously believes that people leave Africa, the Indian sub-continent and other parts of the third world to sit in damp council flats in Hackney and live on benefits. They leave because they are driven to do so by poverty.
  Our aid programme should not be directed to help arms dealers: it should be directed to the relief of poverty. The aid programme should not be abused in other ways. It is bizarre that Dominica is getting extra aid—alone in the Caribbean—because it is willing to take a refugee who is inconvenient to the British Government. That is another abuse of the aid programme.
  Although the Prime Minister claimed in the Queen's Speech that the commitment to overseas aid would be maintained, ever since the Conservatives came to power investment in aid has gone down and down. There is not just a moral case for aid but a present-day, economic, internationally self-interested case for aid to cement the strong relationships with Commonwealth countries, such as those in the Caribbean. We should continue to deliver an aid programme that is in the interests not of construction companies or arms dealers but of the poorest people in the world who need relief from poverty.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on his speech. He said much that I would have wished to say, so I need not repeat it. I strongly support the Government motion. I shall speak briefly about three aspects of aid—poverty and suffering, multilateral aid and increasing the poverty focus.
  On the question of poverty and suffering, I wish to draw attention to the worldwide premature abandonment of the high profile accorded to the problem of acquired immune deficiency syndrome over the past few years. That work has not been mentioned in the debate so far, but it is crucial. Human immune deficiency virus rates are stabilising in some parts of the world, but the epidemic is continuing to spread at an alarming rate.
  Many countries with weak health and social systems are finding it virtually impossible to cope with the growing numbers of people falling ill. In certain African cities, the rate of HIV infection is as high as one in three adults. In rural Zambia, mortality among hospital nurses had soared from 2 per cent. in 1980 to almost 27 per cent. by 1991.
  There have been many successful interventions by the world community, and Britain—I am proud to say—has been in the forefront. Where funds have been invested in community activities in the past three years—for example, in parts of Tanzania and Thailand—there have been impressive successes in slowing the rate of growth of the HIV epidemic.
  There have also been large-scale changes in sexual behaviour, which 10 years ago people said was quite impossible. There has been a clear-cut decline in conventional sexually transmitted diseases from north-west Europe to Thailand and from Costa Rica to Zimbabwe.
  There are still many concerns. I hope that the future focus of the Overseas Development Administration budget will not affect programmes aimed at preventing the spread of HIV at a time when the epidemic is continuing to spread at an alarming rate. It is important to remember that, while 93 per cent. of the people with AIDS live in developing countries, only 8 per cent. of HIV and AIDS funding is allocated to those regions. It is also important to remember that the World Health Organisation has estimated that up to $3 billion is needed every year for basic prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases in developing countries, yet only 10 per cent. of those funds is currently available.
  British international trade is of prime importance when considering the aid programme, and private flows simply cannot be ignored. They complement Government donations—taxpayers' donations—and the contributions of non—governmental organisations.
  I sometimes wonder what my constituents in Salisbury would make of the debate, which has been esoteric to say the least, when what they understand to be meant by overseas aid is the sort of charities for which they work so hard—for example, Oxfam, which has such a strong base in our communities.
  What on earth do our young people think when they hear us rabbiting on as we have been tonight? Their idealism is unmatched anywhere in the world, as far as I can tell. It is undiminished in the younger generation,
  872
  compared with how we felt 20, 25 or 30 years ago. What do they think when we are not talking about how they can get involved?
  We have to face some difficult problems. Humanitarian emergency aid is one. I know of no one, whatever his or her political leaning, who wants to cut that—it is accepted by everyone. However, most people understand the aid programme to be poverty focused aid—water and food, usually in Africa and perhaps in India and Pakistan. What about India and Pakistan? Are we really talking about the British taxpayer supporting the poorest people in those countries, when, at the other end of the economic scale, they have the capacity to develop nuclear industries?
  I was interested to receive press releases from the Overseas Development Administration in October and December. Of Shanghai, I read:
  "Rapid development is taking place."
  The ODA also says that
  "Shanghai is China's biggest municipality and industrial centre, supporting heavy and light industry as well as township and village enterprises."
  So why is our aid programme providing £2.8 million
  "to help combat industrial pollution and improve the municipal water supply"?
  Similarly, I do not think that my constituents understand why the overseas aid programme is spending £8.4 million on the new international airport that is being built south of Nanjing. It is not as if the Chinese do not have an airport in that province—they have, but they do not think that it is big enough.
  Of course, the Government must promote British interests and support British companies overseas, but those are important issues and they raise questions about the aid framework and particularly about aid and trade provision. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that the time has come for more scrutiny of the provisions—for example, the concessional financing arrangements—which would benefit our aid programme. I am not arguing that such arrangements should not be made, but they are misunderstood and a stronger case can be made for them.
  On 13 February, a further concessional financing arrangement will be signed between the United Kingdom and China, which will double that arrangement. That is the sort of thing that we should tackle.
  Finally, on multilateral aid, it was a pleasure to be criticised by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) for being ignorant—I then realised that I must be on the right track. Her comments were somewhat premature, however. It is true that I do not boast about my knowledge as shamelessly or as often as she does, but I yield to no one in my support of UK overseas aid, not just as parliamentary private secretary to Chris Patten, but for many years before that as a supporter of the Project Trust and of GAP activity projects, which introduced hundreds of young people to the developing world. In multilateral aid we have a new weapon that we can use to our advantage and to that of others.
  I must say a few words on the importance of the southern flank of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and how that is relevant to overseas aid—[Interruption.] It will take only a couple of minutes. I am sorry if the

  873
  hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is angry with me, but there have been some lengthy speeches by Opposition Members.
  There is no doubt that poverty on the southern side of the Mediterranean is of direct significance to what is happening on the northern side. There is instability. We see the state military threat from north Africa as being small and the terrorist threat as being real, but we must concentrate on tackling instability in north African countries, using intelligence and technology. It is not simply a matter of addressing Islamic fundamentalism, which becomes a threat only if it harnesses and nourishes people's discontent.
  Poverty, and the contrast with what is happening on the other side of the Mediterranean, is becoming increasingly visible through tourism and television. The answer, as with so many other examples of the use of multilateral aid, is to reduce the motive for economic migration. That is where the European Union's aid budget can be of immense assistance and can benefit both them and us. It is a question of trade and investment. Why export jobs from this country and from Europe to the Pacific rim when we can help to create those jobs in countries so much closer to home? That is a good purpose for a multilateral aid budget and I support it. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to persuade the Treasury to continue to keep our aid budget at the highest level that we can afford and justify to our constituents.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Thanks to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), accompanied by my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) and by the hon. Members for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) and I were able to go to Nepal. May we have some formal statement on the future of the valuable agricultural research station at Lumle, about which the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing and I met Lady Chalker? Its value is that it does urgent practical research into local crops in one of the poorest countries in the world. The scientists who took us round said, movingly, that they were really helping their people.
  We have an obligation to a small group of people, the people of the Pitcairn islands, to establish whether it is true, as suggested in the serious Japanese press and confirmed this evening by some Japanese, led by the ambassador, who were in the House, that there has been serious leakage from Mururoa. We are obliged at least to establish whether the people on Pitcairn, who clearly cannot do anything for themselves, are in danger.
  9.37 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: I am not sure what debate the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) has been sitting through or, indeed, whether he has sat through the debate. Far from being esoteric, it has been valuable and lively. As the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) said, it was opened with great sincerity by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor). She was followed by the Minister, who spoke with some
  874
  urbanity, with his carefully crafted soundbite about "the substantial aid programme of which we can be proud". We have had that on a number of occasions and no doubt we shall hear it again. Although the journalists and spin doctors tell me that this is the age of the soundbite, I do not think that soundbites can hide the truth.
  The Minister attempted, with, as I said, some urbanity to justify something that I do not think that he really believes in. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) made it clear that some Conservative Members do not believe what was said by the Minister. Some of them must oppose, as we do, the hypocrisy peddled by a Government who are seeking to hold on to the trappings of power. They say one thing and they do another. They say that there is a substantial aid programme of which they can be proud, but they preside over cut after cut. The Deputy Prime Minister cannot take that—he cannot stand people picking up the sort of soundbites that he uses and throwing them back at him.
  Successive Governments' commitment to the developing world may not be seen by some as a crucial campaigning issue. Some people may think that the issue does not win elections, but that they are won on issues such as health, education and law and order. But are we politicians who care deeply about development as far removed from the public on this issue as some people would have us believe? My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles quoted a Harris poll in which 81 per cent. of those questioned agreed that it was important that the British Government—not just voluntary organisations or private sources—provide aid to the developing world, and 79 per cent. thought that Britain should increase the amount currently given. When will Ministers realise that the cuts that they regularly and meekly concede when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury calls them into his office are not supported by three quarters of the population?
  The pride that the Minister keeps mentioning is nothing but rhetoric. The Government constantly say one thing and do another. The most recent Budget was a prime example. The ODA issued a public statement. Press releases quoted earlier said that the aid programme was to be increased. That was not true. The independent House of Commons Library analysed the figures, which show that, in both cash and real terms, the aid budget will fall this year. The Government say one thing but do another time and again.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles said, even the Department's fundamental expenditure review estimates that Britain's aid as a percentage of gross national product will fall to 0.26 per cent. by 1997. When Labour left office in 1979, it was 0.52 per cent. and rising; now it is 0.3 per cent. and falling. Instead of vacillating and undermining multilateral assistance, Ministers would do better to spend their time opposing the cuts and the loss of British influence throughout the world caused by reductions in the World Service and in funding to the British Council. Above all, they should look at the fundamental expenditure review and oppose the cuts and the removal of British influence in the Caribbean, Latin America, south-east Asia and the Pacific. Guyana, Haiti and Vietnam have low per capita incomes and need assistance.
  We heard the Minister's weasel words about the Caribbean. I hope that he will say something more positive about the Caribbean when he replies to the

  875
  debate. He shrugged off the importance of the Commonwealth. I hope that, when he replies, he will answer the points made about it.
  The Minister should not kowtow to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I hope that he will give a pledge tonight that, because of what Opposition Members and some Conservative Members have said in the debate, he will press the Chief Secretary for a substantial and effective aid programme so that his deeds can match his words. It would be an easier task if the Minister were directly involved in the decision making instead of getting the crumbs handed down from the Cabinet table.
  When Labour takes power, the ODA will be transformed into a Department of international development, with its Secretary of State in the Cabinet, speaking up for the overseas aid budget. A Cabinet Committee will bring together Ministers from the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department for Education and Employment and other Departments, to utilise their expertise in the developing world. A Select Committee will monitor our work, and a new vision and fresh impetus will be given to the Cinderella Department that exists under the present Government.
  I do not deny that some aspects of the fundamental expenditure review, which will be debated in more detail once the House has received a report on it, are to be welcomed. Incidentally, some hon. Members may have seen tonight's programme on Carlton television about Humana. It was an excellent investigation into that organisation, but I hope that people will not judge the other excellent non-governmental organisations involved in overseas aid by one bad organisation. We want consultation with NGOs and an increased ODA role in multilateral institutions. There are things to be supported in the FER, but all of them are used as a smokescreen to camouflage the cuts that are the essential element of the document.
  The withdrawal of aid from some of the poorest countries in the Caribbean and Latin America and the abandonment of some Commonwealth partners and of the dependent territories—colonies that have no place to look to other than the United Kingdom, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said—are an appalling indictment of the Government.
  The budget has been decimated by the present Government. Before any Tory placemen rise to their feet proving Pavlov to be correct, let me reaffirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles said earlier. She said:
  "In their first year of office, a Labour Government will start to reverse"
  the decline in overseas aid expenditure. It does not come much clearer than that. Even the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), if he were listening, should be able to understand that.
  Justification for the Government's continuing reduction in the aid programme was given by the Minister on Monday and again today. We heard about reductions in other countries' expenditure—the United States and Italy are repeatedly mentioned—but countries such as Japan are substantially increasing their programme. Taiwan is becoming a major aid donor. Let us forget the irrelevant comparisons. We should be standing proud in relation to our role in the world.
  876
  The Minister's plea, in mitigation, that a tight spending round hurt everyone this year is pretty pathetic—he said that hard choices had to be made—considering the need in the third world. One person in four lives in absolute poverty; basic social services are denied to more than 1 billion people; 130 million primary school age children are not at school. Every day, 35,000 children die of preventable diseases—diseases that might be prevented with more help from countries such as Britain. The magnitude of the need is frightening, and is ignored by Conservative Ministers.
  The Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said, have even failed by their own standard, by their own claim, by their own natural instincts to look after themselves, to consider the political and commercial advantages to Britain in increasing the aid programme. The size and expertise of the aid programme have helped Britain to maintain an influence in the United Nations, in the G7 and in the World bank that is not justified simply by the size of our global responsibilities. We need to continue to have a global aid programme, to justify our participation in those institutions.
  Looking beyond the short-termism of the present Government, aid to the developing world can save the Chancellor money. A better environment is created for trade and investment by increasing prosperity and stability in the developing world. Aid generates income for many British organisations. Do not Ministers read the advice of their experts, as expressed in the FER?
  I want to give the Minister time to reply, so I shall leave out some of the things that I intended to say. No doubt I shall have opportunities to return to them. I shall say, finally, what we shall do after the next election.
  Labour will set out its agenda in full during the summer. We shall produce an agenda for the future—a set of policies that will revitalise an area regarding which we have in Britain the ability, the expertise and the resources to help the developing world. The agenda will be rooted in traditional Labour ideals—fairness, rights, responsibilities and the idea of society and community, which is as relevant abroad as it is in the United Kingdom.
  We recognise the enormity of that task. In the past 16 years, Conservative Governments have decimated our aid programme. Labour recognises the importance of our aid programme to the populations of the developing world, to us at home and to Britain on the world stage. Conservative Governments have failed in their moral duty to the developing world and in their obligations to Britain.
  The next Labour Government will bring with them the moral values and the political agenda to tackle poverty in the developing world and to place Britain, once again, at the heart of the international community.
  9.49 pm
  Mr. Hanley: With the leave of the House. I am grateful for the courtesy that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has shown in allowing me time to respond to some of the points that were raised during the debate.
  I believe that it has been a very good and useful debate, and I am pleased to see the high level of interest that hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown about the aid programme. The subject is certainly worthy of

  877
  debate and there is considerable public support for that programme. That is why the Government devote a high level of public spending to the official aid programme, which is several times greater than the total contribution of all the non-governmental organisations. Hon. Members' remarks during the debate confirmed their support and high regard for the official aid programme.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) said in his excellent contribution, the Opposition seem to have shed their original commitment to raise the aid programme budget to 0.7 per cent. of gross national product in the space of a Parliament—unless the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley will reaffirm that commitment now.
  Mr. Foulkes indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman says one thing and does another. Even after the debate, I am unclear as to the Opposition's position with regard to the size of the aid programme. The hon. Gentleman opposed almost every reduction in that programme, for whatever purpose, but he has offered no real commitments: we hear only high and pious words.
  I am pleased that the debate has provided an opportunity to explain the results of the Overseas Development Administration's fundamental expenditure review. It is exactly what we are trying to encourage and I am surprised that some Labour Members found it difficult to understand. I believe that there is support on both sides of the House for what the FER advocates. We all want a strong aid programme; we all want a programme that focuses on the poorest countries, which are not yet able to help themselves. We all want aid to go where it is most needed and where it can do the most good. Would the Opposition reduce our commitment to the poorest countries? Would they give aid to countries where it is not needed?
  In answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor): yes, we plan to maintain funding of the United Nations Development Programme and UNICEF in 1996 at broadly the same levels as in 1995. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to the Lumle research station in Nepal. Her Majesty's Government have supported that research station for nearly 30 years and we are now examining the best way of supporting research into hill agriculture in Nepal in order to maximise the value of the research carried out at Lumle and elsewhere in the hill areas of Nepal.
  The hon. Gentleman referred also to our responsibilities for Pitcairn island. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as the most easterly country for which I have some responsibility, I care about Pitcairn and its population of 53. After all, I had a majority of 74 in this place and it is fairly special when one's parliamentary majority is bigger than a country's population. I shall certainly look at the matter that he raised, although initial signs are that the people of Pitcairn are not in danger.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred to my comment about our national aid flows and our private sector flows. He said that I cited bogus figures. It is sad that the hon. Gentleman claims that our figures are bogus as soon as we achieve a United Nations target.
  878
  The UN definition is 1 per cent. and we have exceeded that in total national aid flows and private sector flows. I think that we should be proud of that achievement; it should not be rubbished.
  The hon. Gentleman referred also to the progress on the South Africa-European Union agreement and said that it had been slower than he had hoped. I agree—progress has been slower than everyone hoped. We have pressed EU member states about an early resolution of the matter, which was discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council only yesterday. We are hopeful that a timetable can be agreed, with a conclusion reached within the Italian presidency.
  The hon. Gentleman referred also to Angola. I can assure him that Britain is working closely with our partners, including the United States, to sustain the peace process in Angola. We provided almost £9 million in emergency aid to Angola last year and we have developed a strategy for supporting the transition to rehabilitation, reconstruction and development. I assure the House that we plan to continue our substantial support to Angola.
  The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) said that under the FER, the ODA seems to have dropped its commitment to women. I am happy to reassure the hon. Lady that the redefinition of the ODA's aims in no way reduces the priority that we attach to helping women.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) made his usual excellent speech. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that he is always worth listening to on this subject. I shall draw his speech to the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development on her return from Africa—a country that he knows very well.
  I am grateful, too, for the compliments about my right hon. and noble Friend. She does a superb job, and has held that office longer than almost anyone. Her knowledge and commitment are well known throughout the world. It is unfair of the Opposition to say that our commitment to the Commonwealth is somewhat half-hearted. My right hon. and noble Friend is a living example of that commitment.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) mentioned Indonesia. I do not say "as usual", because her beliefs are sincere. She knows that we shall look carefully at her accusations in the light of the National Audit Office report, which is due in the reasonably near future, perhaps in just a few weeks' time.
  The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said that Ministers decry and run down the Commonwealth. I can tell her in the politest terms that that is absolute rubbish. I attended the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting in Sri Lanka recently, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Anyone who attended that conference knows not only that the Commonwealth is healthy, but that British representatives there—including Ministers—feel that the Commonwealth is extremely important. We value it as a vital and unique worldwide family of nations.
  The hon. Lady also mentioned aid to the Caribbean. I understand her special pleading for the Caribbean as she made it absolutely clear. As I said in my opening speech, there are still major needs in the Caribbean and I can assure her that the Caribbean and the wider Commonwealth are close to the Government's heart. She

  879
  may rest assured that we shall not turn our back on it when we have assessed the amount of money that goes to that part of the world. The figures will be announced in the reasonably near future.
  At the start of the debate, I said that the United Kingdom will continue to maintain a substantial aid programme. It will amount to £2.15 billion next year, more than £2.2 billion in 1997–98 and nearly £2.3 billion in 1998–99. As I have said, the full details will be in the next departmental report.
  As I have also said before, bilateral aid next year will be roughly in line with our previously published plans. Africa is likely to receive more than we had previously planned, largely because of reductions in our expenditure forecasts regarding a number of international organisations. For example, the United Kingdom assessed contribution to the European development fund is likely to be £40 million less in 1996–97 than was forecast last year. That means, not that our commitment to those organisations has diminished, but that our contributions are determined by factors such as exchange rates and relative GNP. It also means that we can maintain a high level of bilateral spending, and it demonstrates the Government's determination to maintain a substantial and effective bilateral programme.
  As I explained, we get excellent value for money from the £2.2 billion that we spend on aid in one of the world's most effective official programmes. The programme commands widespread public support, yet the Opposition continue to criticise and belittle our achievements instead of taking pride in work that is well done. They tell us to spend more, as they do in every debate that touches on public spending, yet they have failed to make any commitment on spending. Nor have they said where any extra resources would come from. Until they reveal their policy on spending, how can we believe them?
  The skills built up in the official programme and by the NGOs are a British success story. Our commitment to a high-quality programme is beyond doubt. It is now stronger and more effective than ever before. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley said that he gave a commitment earlier. If he gave a commitment, he did not mention money. As so often, it was just wind. If the hon. Gentleman would like to fill in the blanks, we should be grateful. In the meantime, we will help the world, and I invite the House to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 310.

  Division No. 40]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott Ms Diane

  Bayley, Hugh

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Ainger, Nick

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Allen, Graham

  Bell, Stuart

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Benton, Joe

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashton, Joe

  Berry, Roger

  Austin-Walker, John

  Betts, Clive

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Blunkett, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Boateng, Paul

  Battle, John

  Bradley, Keith

  880

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grocott, Bruce

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gunnell, John

  Brown, N (N'ctle upon Tyne E)

  Hain, Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hall, Mike

  Burden, Richard

  Hanson, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Hardy, Peter

  Callaghan, Jim

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Heppell, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hodge, Margaret

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hoey, Kate

  Cann, Jamie

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Home Robertson, John

  Chidgey, David

  Hood, Jimmy

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Church, Judith

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

  Clapham, Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clelland, David

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hutton, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ingram, Adam

  Corston, Jean

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cox, Tom

  Jamieson, David

  Cummings, John

  Janner, Greville

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jowell, Tessa

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

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

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

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Khabra, Piara S

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

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Denham, John

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dewar, Donald

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dixon, Don

  Litherland, Robert

  Dobson, Frank

  Livingstone, Ken

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dowd, Jim

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Loyden, Eddie

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Eastham, Ken

  McAllion, John

  Etherington, Bill

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McCartney, Robert

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McFall, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McLeish, Henry

  Flynn, Paul

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  MacShane, Denis

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McWilliam, John

  Foulkes, George

  Madden, Max

  Fyfe, Maria

  Maddock, Diana

  Galbraith, Sam

  Mahon, Alice

  Galloway, George

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gapes, Mike

  Marek, Dr John

  Garrett, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  George, Bruce

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Martlew, Eric

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Maxton, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Meacher, Michael

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Meale, Alan

  Gordon, Mildred

  Michael, Alun

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Milburn, Alan

  881

  Miller, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Short, Clare

  Morley, Elliot

  Simpson, Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

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

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mudie, George

  Snape, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Spearing, Nigel

  Murphy, Paul

  Spellar, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stott, Roger

  Olner, Bill

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Straw, Jack

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Parry, Robert

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pendry, Tom

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Timms, Stephen

  Pike, Peter L

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pope, Greg

  Touhig, Don

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Turner, Dennis

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Tyler, Paul

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Vaz, Keith

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Walley, Joan

  Purchase, Ken

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wareing, Robert N

  Radice, Giles

  Welsh, Andrew

  Randall, Stuart

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Reid, Dr John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Rendel, David

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wilson, Brian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Winnick, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wise, Audrey

  Rogers, Allan

  Worthington, Tony

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wray, Jimmy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Ms Ann Coffey.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Booth, Hartley

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Boswell, Tim

  Alexander, Richard

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Amess, David

  Bowis, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Brazier, Julian

  Ashby, David

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Baldry, Tony

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Burns, Simon

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Burt, Alistair

  Bates, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butler, Peter

  Beggs, Roy

  Butterfill, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Carrington, Matthew

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cash, William

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  882

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Harris, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Clappison, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heald, Oliver

  Coe, Sebastian

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Congdon, David

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Hicks, Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Horam, John

  Couchman, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cran, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dicks, Terry

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dover, Den

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Duncan, Alan

  Jessel, Toby

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dykes, Hugh

  Key, Robert

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Elletson, Harold

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

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

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evennett, David

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Faber, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Legg, Barry

  Forman, Nigel

  Leigh, Edward

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Forth, Eric

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lidington, David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lord, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Luff, Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gallie, Phil

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Gardiner, Sir George

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  MacKay, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Gill, Christopher

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Madel, Sir David

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Malone, Gerald

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mans, Keith

  Gorst, Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Merchant, Piers

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mills, Iain

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  883

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Steen, Anthony

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Stephen, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stern, Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Streeter, Gary

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Norris, Steve

  Sykes, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Thomason, Roy

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Pawsey, James

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Pickles, Eric

  Thurnham, Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tredinnick, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Trotter, Neville

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Richards, Rod

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Riddick, Graham

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Robathan, Andrew

  Walden, George

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Waller, Gary

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Ward, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Watts, John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wells, Bowen

  Sackville, Tom

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Whitney, Ray

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Whittingdale, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wilkinson, John

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Willetts, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wilshire, David

  Sims, Roger

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wood, Timothy

  Soames, Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spring, Richard

  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin and

  Sproat, Iain

  Mr. Richard Ottaway.

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House acknowledges the United Kingdom's important role in helping reduce poverty and suffering in poorer countries and commends the Government for maintaining a substantial and effective aid programme which is the fifth largest in the world; applauds the Government's intention to maintain a bilateral aid programme next year which will be as large as that which had been previously planned; welcomes the central role the United Kingdom plays in seeking to make multilateral aid more effective; and commends the Government for the increasing poverty focus of the aid programme and for the leading role it has played in seeking a comprehensive solution to the debt burden of the poorest countries.

  Police Grant Report
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will note that the Order Paper says that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has not considered this report. May I inform the House that we considered it this afternoon, that we found nothing wrong with it and that we therefore have nothing to report?
  However, I make the point to business managers on both sides of the House, who expect the Select Committee to scrutinise statutory instruments such as this, that they should wait until we have scrutinised them before they arrange debates in the House, and that the time from 4.30 pm until now would be short if the House expected us to produce a report, and hon. Members to be able to read it. Although on this occasion we have nothing to report, I hope that the business managers will take it into account that that should not happen as a regular practice.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the information that he has imparted to hon. Members through the occupant of the Chair.
  10.15 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I beg to move,
  That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1996–97 (House of Commons Paper No. 162), which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
  It is a matter of great personal satisfaction to be opening this debate on police funding. Once again, I can come to the House and tangibly demonstrate the strength of the Government's commitment to the police service in England and Wales.
  Since 1978–79, police strength will have increased by more than 16,000. Civilian strength has increased by more than 17,000. Expenditure has increased from just over £1 billion to £6.8 billion—96 per cent in real terms. Since the last election alone, the number of constables in forces has increased by 1,313, boosting the number of bobbies on the beat.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: Not in Warwickshire, it has not. We have lost more than 60 officers from our old establishment rate during the current year, and we expect to lose up to 70 officers. Is that a record of which the Minister can be proud? Is he proud of underfunding Warwickshire constabulary by more than £6 million? What does he intend to do about that?
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman will naturally speak out for his constituency and county—that is his job—and he will try and make the best possible fist of it. He must bear in mind, however, that the funding for Warwickshire went up more than 5 per cent. last year, that Warwickshire has a 3.5 per cent. increase in central Government funding this year, and that Warwickshire police can spend up to 3.9 per cent. more this year if they set their budget at the maximum level. At a time when inflation is so low and when officers' pay, which is the biggest component of a police force's expenditure, has increased by only 3 per cent. —civilian pay has increased by even less—an

  885
  increase of almost 4 per cent. for the police in Warwickshire is generous, and it is in line with the national average increase.
  Mr. Barry Jones: Page 14 of the report refers to indicators such as long-term unemployment and young male unemployment. I associate those two paragraphs with a problem which exists throughout the land, in every village and town where there are unemployed young men who create a nuisance, harassing older citizens and people in small village shops. Does the report contain any hope for us in tackling that real problem?
  Mr. Maclean: If I have got the hon. Gentleman's county correct, he represents the North Wales police force area, which this year received a 5.1 per cent. increase, or certainly its budget can increase by 5.1 per cent. Not many other sectors of Government or local government can increase their expenditure by that amount this year. I must make the point again that police civilian pay is increasing by 2.5 per cent. and uniformed bobby pay by 3 per cent., and the average increase in police pay is about 2.8 per cent. For a police force that receives 5.1 per cent. more, that is a considerable advantage.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: Before my right hon. Friend gets away from the initial figures that he was giving, will he confirm that the considerable extra money for Norfolk—some £286,000—has made it possible for the Norfolk police authority considerably to increase the number of policemen? Will he also congratulate the chief constable of the Norfolk constabulary on the excellent work being done there and on the reputation that the constabulary is building up in the local area?
  Mr. Maclean: Of course I congratulate Norfolk. One has only to look at its latest crime figures to see the tremendous success that the chief constable and all his officers have achieved. Of course Norfolk will have an extra 6 per cent. this year to build on that considerable success.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Maclean: I would happily stay here all night to take interventions because it is good news from the Government's point of view. I would talk until 2 am if time allowed, but I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister referred to the extra money for the North Wales police. There was an extra £200,000 revenue, but is the Minister aware—he should be—that capital has been decreased from £1.596 million to £1.33 million for the coming year? That means, in effect, that there will be no extra policemen on the beat and that any extra expenditure on capital will have to come from revenue. In fairness to the Minister, he responded positively on the revenue side, but that has been negated on the capital side.
  Mr. Maclean: Not at all—I shall be coming to that point. I should make it clear, however, that there is no
  886
  linkage between revenue and capital. I should think that the hon. Gentleman's electors and constituents in the North Wales police area would be rather upset if they found that money was being switched from the funding of bobbies to capital expenditure, particularly since we have protected all major capital works and are encouraging the private finance initiative. I shall come to that in a couple of minutes, if I can make some progress.
  I was reminding the House that since the last general election the number of constables has increased by 1,313. They are bobbies on the beat, not bobbies behind desks. In relation to the settlement, a total of £6.8 billion will be available for policing next year, which includes £200 million for capital expenditure. That is an increase of £240 million, or nearly 4 per cent. That increase underlines our commitment to law and order and to tackling crime, and it ensures that the police service can sustain the momentum of its recent successes.
  As the Association of Chief Police Officers said in its press release welcoming the settlement last November,
  "a settlement that is above the rate of inflation shows that the Government recognises the special needs of the police service."
  There is an extra £100 million in the settlement for police pay, which is a 3 per cent. increase on the police pay bill of £3.4 billion. There is an extra £80 million for police pensions, and £60 million more for civilian pay and other price increases. As for capital, we shall be supporting total capital expenditure of £228 million in 1996–97. That will maintain all specific police building projects, just as ACPO wanted.
  Some have suggested that the funding that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced for 5,000 extra police officers during the next three years is at the expense of capital funding. There is no such linkage. There will be no enforced cuts in the programme for major building projects. There is no reason why the funding available for extra police officers should be used for capital spending. In fact, police authorities now have the opportunity to extend their capital programmes through the private finance initiative.
  The fundamental objective of the PFI is to secure the best possible use of capital resources at best value for the public sector—in this case, for the police service. The public sector does not have a monopoly of knowledge. In many situations, the private sector will have skills and expertise that can help to deliver better deals for the police. Capital resources for the police come in many forms: building, plant, vehicles, equipment and computer software, for example. We want the police to explore the new opportunity that the PFI can offer in making them more efficient and effective.
  The private finance initiative is not a substitute for conventional capital spending. It is an exciting new opportunity for the police to enhance, and indeed extend, their capital resources. For example, Derbyshire is inviting private sector proposals to build, design, finance and operate a replacement police station and I congratulate it on that initiative.
  Mr. Don Touhig: The Minister wrote to me in November advising me that an extra £2.5 million was to be made available to the Gwent police force this year. He has assured the House this evening that capital will not be put at risk as a result of that settlement. What extra provision is being made for the Gwent police force to take

  887
  over the buildings in the Rhymney valley—I understand that the Minister is aware that they are in a seriously deficient state—and bring them up to scratch?
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the £2.5 million in capital that we have been able to allocate. I had an excellent meeting with Gwent police authority recently and we discussed the matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I am very conscious of the state of the buildings that it has taken over from the South Wales police force. I was able to give the assurance that if—and it has to be if—we have surplus capital resources, I will consider the buildings in Gwent to be among our top priorities. I said that I would do my utmost to find extra capital for the force if it were at all possible.
  We also discussed the private finance initiative and looked at the possibilities for Gwent. One particular possibility is in Ystrad—
  Mr. Touhig: Ystrad Mynach.
  Mr. Maclean: Ystrad Mynach. Some Celts cannot pronounce other Celtic languages. We have offered Gwent police authority help and assistance. If we can help and advise it to put together a private finance initiative, we shall be delighted to do so.
  I know that other police authorities are considering a whole range of projects, from major headquarters, to operational buildings such as police stations, to specialist facilities such as firearms training. They will give the private sector the flexibility to design solutions in response to forces' own needs. That in turn will provide forces with increased scope for value for money.
  Mr. George Walden: My right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary have taken a close interest in the affairs of the Thames Valley force, and all its problems, including pensions. I am therefore extremely grateful—as I think are my colleagues in Buckinghamshire—for the resolution of those problems and for the overall 4.8 per cent increase. No one can complain about that. However, I am going to complain. Could my right hon. Friend possibly see his way to giving a further boost to secure accommodation for under-age criminals, who are causing—even in remote and idyllic parts of north Buckinghamshire—
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: It is not unique to that county.
  Mr. Walden: Precisely. Those under-age criminals are causing disproportionate damage. If, in a very humane and educational way, they could be shut away, crime would go down—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a disproportionately long intervention. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is winding up.
  Mr. Walden: If they were shut away, my right hon. Friend would be able to get away next time with less than a 4.8 per cent. increase.
  Mr. Maclean: I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We are pushing two strands of extra secure accommodation for young offenders—through the local authority route and through secure training centres.
  888
  I announced at the start of the debate that £6.8 billion would be available for policing in 1996–97. The distribution of funding between individual police authorities is naturally of great interest to the House and to the public, so I shall explain briefly how it is done.
  The bulk of the funding is allocated according to the new needs-based formula, which was introduced for the first time last year. The police service and the Audit Commission have long argued for an objective approach to funding. The formula is aimed at producing such an approach. We are committed to its development.
  The formula uses independent demographic statistics to predict each force's relative needs for resources. Hon. Members will be only too aware of the concerns which last year accompanied the introduction of the formula. As I promised then, we have worked hard to improve the formula. Independent consultants from Price Waterhouse audited the formula and concluded that it was technically sound, but that further work was needed on a number of aspects. That has been done by a Home Office-led group of police service and police authority representatives. Not all the work has been concluded, but we have still been able to make changes to the formula for 1996–97.
  The formula's establishment element has been reduced from 50 per cent. to 40 per cent. We always intended that establishments should be in the formula only on a transitional basis, and we shall continue to remove establishments from the formula at whatever rate proves to be compatible with the ability to keep stability in policing.
  We recognised last year's widespread concerns about provision for police pensions, so we did two things. First, we got police authority representatives to help us to estimate what pensions expenditure would be in 1996–97. The prediction was £800 million—£80 million more than authorities are spending this year—so we put an extra £80 million into the police settlement for pensions next year. Secondly, we changed the funding formula. Now the whole £800 million—about 12.3 per cent. of total police funding—is allocated according to forces' pension needs. Those needs are estimated by the Government Actuary's department, so while we were about it we got some police forces to provide new pensions data to help us to improve the Government Actuary's pensions model. Now we are asking all forces to help us, so that next year we can make the pensions model better still. That raft of improvements in the treatment of pensions expenditure has substantially enhanced the police funding formula's transparency and acceptability.
  We have also introduced a sparsity factor, according to which we shall allocate 0.5 per cent. of available funding. For next year it has been done on a judgmental basis similar to that which occurs with other funding formulae such as the education standard spending assessment. The results of research in that area are not conclusive.
  Mr. David Faber: My right hon. Friend mentioned the problems and the concerns that were expressed when the funding formula was introduced last year. I hope that he will accept the grateful thanks of my constituents in Wiltshire, because we have seen a generous rise in the police grant this year compared with

  889
  last year, but will he continue to pay careful attention to the factor for rural sparsity, which adversely affects counties such as mine?
  Mr. Maclean: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The argument of rural forces, that there are particular costs involved in policing their areas, is persuasive. Clearly there are much greater distances to travel, fuel consumption is greater, tyre costs are higher— [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but they show their ignorance of police operating practices if they scoff at such ideas, considering that— [Interruption.] I shall happily come back to the House on the point if my figures are incorrect, but I believe that police tyre costs in one year run to £20 million, a not insubstantial sum.
  The committee of local police authorities has already said that it welcomes and supports the decision on rural sparsity. Further development work will continue in 1996, and our working group of police service and police authority representatives has already met. I shall wait to hear its proposals, but I expect that we shall consider a programme including the examination of new data on police work and pensions, and will want to investigate further the costs of community relations, traffic policing and operating in rural and urban areas.
  Outside the formula, an additional rule ensures that all forces—except the Metropolitan police, for which other arrangements have been made—can receive at least 3 per cent. more funding next year than this year. That rule derives from our belief that it is important to maintain public confidence in policing. In particular, we consider it important for public confidence that police authorities should be seen as able to provide at least the same service in 1996–97 as they did last year. At a time when police authority pay bills are 3 per cent. —the percentage is lower for civilian staff—the 3 per cent. rule reassures the public that their policing service will be maintained.
  I have already reminded hon. Members of the commitment made by the Prime Minister to provide funding for 5,000 extra police officers over the next three years. To describe that, there are no words better than those of the chairman of the Police Federation, who said that it was
  "a tremendous boost to the service".
  In 1996–97 forces will receive the first block of that funding—£20 million. That will help them to meet their key objective of providing high visibility policing. How they do it will be for them to decide, but in whichever way it is done, police forces will be able to ensure that they are more visible to the public whom they serve. That public is therefore the basis for allocating the funding. The resident and daytime populations of each force area determine that force's share of the £20 million. This is the additional rule No. 2 set out in the police grant report.
  Dr. John Marek: To return to the North Wales force, is it true that the increase in the money available for extra policemen and women in the coming year will exactly match the decline in real terms in the police grant available for capital purposes? Is the Minister not robbing Peter to pay Paul? Does he agree that there is no point in having extra policemen if they are not given the funding to do the job properly?
  Mr. Maclean: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, who has shown uncustomary ignorance about what I said a moment ago about the private finance initiative. There is no need for the North Wales police force to reduce its capital expenditure in the future if it uses the PFI. Other police forces are exploring that option, which will allow forces to have more buildings and more money to spend on capital projects. We must break out—as other areas of Government are doing—from the notion that unless the Government provide every penny of capital, then no other source of capital expenditure is available.
  In revenue terms, the North Wales police force has received 5 per cent. this year—way above the national average for police funding. I suspect that that puts that force in the top quarter of all forces in terms of funding, and that is very generous. Hon Members from the North Wales police force area have no cause for complaint about the settlement in their area.
  Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
  Mr. Maclean: Nor have hon. Members from Derbyshire any cause for complaint, as the settlement for that area was more than 4 per cent.
  Mr. Barnes: Will the Minister give way on that point?
  Mr. Maclean: No. Hon Members will have a chance to make their own speeches, and I wish to conclude in a moment.
  The three elements that I have mentioned—the needs-based formula, the 3 per cent. rule and the extra officers rule—determine the allocations of police grant. The same needs-based formula determines the police standard spending assessment for each force. Police forces also receive a capital financing SSA and, where appropriate, an SSA reduction grant.
  I stress that these are methods for carving up the total available funding, and are not prescriptions for the way in which funding must be spent in each force. That is quite rightly to be decided locally, and the granting of that local discretion was one of the key reforms in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. We have no intention now of trying to intervene to change that.
  I have set out tonight an excellent settlement for the police service and a fair distribution of that settlement between the 43 police forces in England and Wales. Let me remind the House what we have done. We have allocated 4 per cent. more money, and forces will get at least 3 per cent. more—some will get much more than that. Forces will be able to recruit at least 1,000 more constables to add to the 900 constables that they have recruited this year. We have listened to criticisms of the funding formula and we have acted. There is more for pensions, rural sparsity has been taken into account and the out-dated establishment factor has been reduced.
  We have made progress since last year, and we will make more next year. But I believe that the report will give us in 1996–97 a police service that is both well and fairly funded. That should be a cause for satisfaction on both sides of the House, because it falls to the police service to make the bravest and most crucial contribution to the task of turning the tables on the criminal. I command—or rather, I commend the report to the House.
  10.38 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: I am sure that the Minister of State would like to command this House—he has a remarkable talent for making complacency sound dramatic. He said that the chairman of the Police Federation welcomed the promise of 5,000 extra policemen. Indeed he did, but that was before the Police Federation looked at the detail. I wonder whether the Minister will take so seriously the comments that the Police Federation has made since it looked in detail at the settlement. The federation is very doubtful about the reality of that promise and it is right to be suspicious , as the Government have reneged on their promise at the 1992 general election to increase the number of police officers by 1,000. Indeed, by September 1995, the number of police officers had gone down by 470 compared with the figure in March 1992.
  When the Government have failed signally to deliver the promise that they made at the last general election, is it any surprise that there is some suspicion when they say that they are going to deliver a promise of 5,000 additional police officers?
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the failure of the South Wales police authority, which is controlled by three local, Labour-controlled county councils, was the real reason for the failure to fund the police in his constituency and in mine? Since the Home Office has given money direct to the police, we have had proper funding—an increase of about 19 per cent. in the past two years.
  Mr. Michael: It is nice of the hon. Gentleman to wander in and make that convoluted and inaccurate contribution. The problem with the funding of the South Wales police, as he knows, was the failure of the Welsh Office to deliver its share of the money and, indeed, its determined hiding of the standard spending assessment for the police—a matter that he knows full well was raised in the House on numerous occasions. The hon. Gentleman represents the party that damaged the police in his constituency and in mine.
  I have some sympathy with the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which had to consider the document so quickly. As was pointed out—last year, as well as this year—the document was published yesterday, which is surely not an aid to considered debate in the House.
  I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) about the impact of social factors and unemployment on crime, and I shall return to that issue and its element within the formula.
  The formula is not as perfect as the Minister of State made out. I thought that I heard him say that he would make whatever changes were necessary to achieve or maintain stability. The difficulty is getting a fair formula that is also stable over time. He was right to highlight the importance of the pensions element in the formula. I hope that that was a sign that he will move in the way that police authorities have requested and make that element accurate and transparent. It is an enormous burden on police authorities and it distorts all the figures year after year.
  I also hope that there will be cross-party unity on police funding. The Minister has shown that he has the capacity to achieve that, for example, in relation to the Gwent and South Wales police and in the debates on the Offensive Weapons Bill and the Security Service Bill.
  892
  The fact that we have been given inaccurate information on the number of police is a great disappointment. The Minister was selective when he told us that there were 1,313 more constables, because the total number of police officers has decreased. The Government's claims about what they are doing in relation to the police contain two fraudulent elements: first, that they have increased the number of police officers; and, secondly, that they have given £20 million in new money to assist with the recruitment and employment of new officers.
  At the time of the Budget, the Home Secretary claimed that he had increased the revenue cash by £20 million, but he had cut by almost £24 million the capital cash projected within the Home Office's plans—a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Peter less. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but I disagree. It is not funny; it is serious. The taking of money from the capital funds of police authorities will cause problems now and in the future.
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: On that point, my hon. Friend is aware that a new police station was due to be built in Lewisham—amid some controversy, but nevertheless it was to be built in 1997. He may not be aware that the assistant commissioner, Ian Johnstone, has told us that there has been a reduction in the resources available for capital expenditure and that the police station will not be built before 1999 at the very earliest. Does that not confirm my hon. Friend's views on the changes between capital and revenue expenditure?
  Mr. Michael: Yes—that and the inability to undertake capital maintenance or introduce new technology, which, as we have pointed out a number of times, is essential in increasing the efficiency of the police service and the effectiveness with which officers are deployed on our streets. Although capital finances do not seem to be immediately important, they have an impact on the ability of the police to deliver a quality service to the public.
  The total number of police officers decreased—the situation is even worse if we consider the number available for ordinary duty—between 31 March 1992 and 30 September 1995 by 860 in England and Wales.
  Mr. Mackinlay: How many?
  Mr. Michael: I shall repeat the number for the benefit of my hon. Friend. The number has fallen by 860. When one considers that the Government promised an increase of 1,000, one realises what Conservative promises are worth.
  The Home Secretary boasted of handing over the cash and giving freedom to chief constables to choose how to spend it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Conservative Members say, "Hear, hear." The point was anticipated in last year's debate when the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) asked the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), to agree that
  "if there are fewer police officers on the street after April this year it will be because of the decisions of chief constables, not because of Government funding."
  Not surprisingly, the Minister responded:
  "My hon. Friend is absolutely correct".— [Official Report,31 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 956.]

  893
  The Prime Minister promised to increase the number of police officers by 5,000, apparently unaware that his Government have passed on the responsibility for deciding police numbers to chief constables and police authorities. He did not appear to know that his Government stopped controlling police numbers last year.
  There has been a cut in capital finances this year. To be precise, the cut is £24 million in the planning figure that was given in the Home Office report and £17 million in capital, comparing last year with the next financial year. Either way, there is a considerable cut in the amount of capital available to police authorities. The planning cut is more than the amount given for the theoretical purpose of providing additional police officers.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: May I offer my hon. Friend the words of my local newspaper about the Prime Minister's promise in respect of Warwickshire? The Prime Minister promised lots of extra police officers. Warwickshire has lost 60 officers so far and is likely to lose more than 70 this year. As a result of the extra £181,000 that we are getting this year, we will have an extra nine officers. The Bedworth Evening Telegraph described the Prime Minister's promise as "pathetic". I think that that is the best description.
  Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend puts it succinctly and well. That is what the overall figures mean when they are translated into the number of police available on the streets in police authorities.
  To fill the gap on capital funding, the Minister relies on the private finance initiative. The amount of capital that the Government are making available is not being cut because there is additional money available from the PFI. The Government are predicating a level of capital substitution in an unplanned way by cutting the money available for police authorities before any money has come from the PFI. It may well be that some good and appropriate schemes will arise next year, but that puts pressure on police authorities to go looking for additional capital. There is always a danger that that will distort police priorities and lead them into inappropriate ways of obtaining money.
  We are not against the principle of the PFI. Indeed, the deputy leader of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), was one of the first to give examples of how private money could be harnessed to the public good. However, that needs to be done in an appropriate way. There are concerns about the way in which pressure is being put on the police to find money from private sources.
  The Minister quoted one comment by a senior official of the Police Federation. The Police Federation has raised some serious issues in relation to the settlement and the promise of increased funding for police officers. It wants to know from what base the additional officers will be recruited; the total number of officers in service against which the increase is to be compared; to which three-year period the Prime Minister referred; how many additional officers the Government expect police forces to recruit in the 1996–97 financial year; and what the Government assume to be the cost over the next three financial years of recruiting 5,000 additional officers.
  894
  The figures that we have seen so far assume the employment of new recruits. As those recruits become experienced police officers, they will cost more each year. Will the Government provide the additional finance to retain those trained officers, so that there is stability in the police forces, or will they simply say that it is a matter for police constables to decide? Last year, the Minister gave police constables and local police authorities the freedom to juggle the figures that they must work with this year. That is causing a dilemma for them— [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the Minister if he wishes to clarify the issue for us.
  Mr. Maclean: I was just saying that that is one of the daftest questions that I have heard in my life. If we are providing finance for extra police officers, obviously we must keep it up. We cannot fund the recruitment of bobbies for just three years and not pay them afterwards. We recognise that, if we recruit extra police officers, they will remain in the service for 25 or 30 years.
  Mr. Michael: We shall hold the Minister to that statement when we debate the matter in the next financial year. We have no new money this year; money has been transferred from capital to revenue. The Minister has said only that the Government would find the finance to continue employment. The finance required to maintain the employment of those officers will increase year on year as their experience grows. Perhaps the Minister assumes that he will not be here to account for this matter next year.
  A number of my hon. Friends have succinctly raised the problems that exist within their individual police authorities. Particular problems arise in relation to policing in London. This debate takes place against a background of increased crime in the London area, a reduction in the number of police officers, and continuing problems of low clear-up rates in key areas. The use of firearms in London has increased and the Metropolitan police, local authorities and the public are worried about the increased rate of drug misuse and fraud. The Metropolitan police fraud squad conducted 323 inquiries in 1994–95 and reported that the value of letters of credit, bills of exchange and other banking instruments seized by the fraud squad amounted to more than £1,000 million. That is a large sum by any estimate.
  In terms of this settlement, the Metropolitan police are likely to use £30 million a year for the next few years. Until 1995–96, the funding of the Metropolitan police was not a problem because the Home Secretary set the Met's standard spending assessment at the same level as he set its budget. With the introduction of the new formula in 1995–96, the Metropolitan police lost about £115 million. It has received an SSA reduction—damping—grant of £85 million, which cushioned the loss in 1995–96 to 2 per cent. In the coming financial year 1996–97, however, the Met loses another £30 million from further changes to the funding formula, particularly the phasing of the "establishment indicator". Those serious losses to the Metropolitan police amount to some £60 million. The matter has caused great concern in our capital city.
  In the coming year, the importance of partnership will grow again. That was recognised by the way in which the Home Secretary assessed the key objectives for the coming year, especially No. 3:
  "To target and prevent crimes which are a particular local problem, including drug-related criminality, in partnership with the public and local agencies."

  895
  I note the phraseology. The Government do not appear to be able to use the phrase "local government", which is essential in that local partnership, but the general trend is welcome.
  The police must have the resources to be able to play a full part in those local partnerships to reduce and fight crime. We have mentioned the pressure on the police to raise funds in a variety of ways. It is very important that that does not become a distortion in the revenue element of police finances, as it is in capital funding.
  I am certain that chief constables and police authorities will seek to concentrate on their core activities and avoid distractions into commercial activity, but there must be a temptation, and removal of £24 million from capital is bound to increase the pressure on them.
  In some projects, private finance in partnership is appropriate. I read plans recently for training in arms techniques in synergy with a regional facility for the sport of shooting. Nevertheless, that aspect needs care, and it is important that the Home Office does not disclaim responsibility.
  Another important responsibility of the Home Office is that of getting the funding formula right for the long term. All the elements—sparsity of population in some parts of the country, levels of urban crime in others, the impact of pensions, accuracy in specifying the amount of crime that the police are trying to tackle—need to be more accurately reflected in the formula. That has been the subject of representations to the Minister by police authorities and by chief constables. I hope that the Minister only sought to appear over-enthusiastic in his comments tonight, and that he will not be complacent about the quality of the formula that we have achieved to date.
  The police need certainty in order to plan to give certainty to the public and in order to tackle crime and its prevention methodically in the long term. They also need to be able to assure police officers whom they recruit that they have a long-term, stable career as an essential part of a service to the public. I hope that the Minister will take that message from tonight's debate.
  10.56 pm
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I want to tell the House what can be achieved with tight resourcing.
  Last year, the chief constable of Staffordshire said:
  "the overall workload of the Force has continued to increase and there has been no increase in resources to meet it. Our funding for 1995/96, which was fixed by Central Government, gave no opportunity for expansion and barely amounted to a 'standstill' situation, even though the Police Authority allowed us to budget right up to the Home Office 'capping' limit."
  It is astonishing what Staffordshire police achieved notwithstanding that tight limit. It achieved an increase in civilian support staff, releasing 21 constables for operational duties; a trunked radio system far in advance of any police radio scheme in the United Kingdom; the provision of new handcuffs, long batons and stab-proof vests, making a valuable contribution to the safety of operational officers; and success in targeting drug dealers and suppliers.
  The Audit Commission indicators put Staffordshire above the national average, and surveys have shown a high level of public satisfaction with the service provided by Staffordshire police. That is a substantial record of achievement by a police force that, last year, said that it was strapped for cash.
  896
  In the report, Chief Constable Kelly went on to say, very gloomily:
  "the Home Office are now looking again at their complex funding formula and there is a possibility that, because the formula may in future reflect notional rather than actual workloads, Staffordshire may receive less funding in 1996–97."
  He was much too gloomy. The Government support grant for Staffordshire, applying this year's formula, amounts to an increase of no less than 7.5 per cent., from £101.2 million to £108.9 million. That is the largest increase in allocation of all the shire counties in Britain and, as the Burton Mail put it, a "massive rise in resources" that is likely to produce 100 more policemen over the next three years and boost the county's fight against drugs.
  I welcome that grant on behalf of my constituents and I know that Chief Constable Kelly and Superintendent Glyn Heyward, the Burton divisional commander, would also want to express their heartfelt thanks. I should like to think that this represents a reward for years of superb policing and it is a tribute to all of those who serve in the Staffordshire force and those who assist it in various ways.
  I shall tell the House what has happened to the law and order situation in Burton and Staffordshire as a result of those improvements in service. Crime in Staffordshire has decreased by 15 per cent. in the past two years, with a fall of 14.5 per cent. in Burton alone between January and June last year. There has been a sharp fall not only in the number of burglaries and car crimes but in theft, sex offences and serious violence.
  The reduction in crime has been achieved in Burton through 90 neighbourhood watch schemes, which cover 36,000 households, and through the installation of closed circuit television in Burton centre car parks, subsidised to a large extent by the Labour-controlled East Staffordshire borough council, with some—although not enough—contributions from traders and a great deal of encouragement from the Government. The number of car thefts or break-ins has been reduced from six per week in the six car parks to three in six weeks—a decrease of 92 per cent. The town's police commander described the effect of the cameras on crime in the town centre as being "beyond all expectations". He said:
  "It's like having 17 additional police officers spread around the town centre".
  He then added:
  "More people are coming into the town centre at night believing, correctly, that it is now a safer place to be".
  The cameras are also helping to bring offenders to justice, so we can expect the conviction rate to rise.
  Mr. Bill Olner: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the excellent scheme that the Labour-controlled council has introduced in his constituency. How much Government money was allocated to CCTV?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: To be fair, I said that East Staffordshire borough council was Labour controlled, but one does not want to go overboard praising that council. After all, it supports the Labour party, whose slogan, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" has been shown to be a hollow load of hypocritical twaddle. Labour may be tough on the victims, but it certainly is not tough on crime.

  897
  I asked the chief constable to tell me why he believes that he has achieved such a substantial fall in crime in Staffordshire.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: No, I must proceed—other hon. Members want to speak in this very short debate.
  The chief constable said that the law and order situation in Staffordshire had improved for three reasons. First, he referred to the impact of legislation. He said:
  "I particularly have in mind the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994".
  Mrs. Barbara Roche: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: No, I adopt a completely sexless approach to dealing with interventions.
  The chief constable continued:
  "The numerous changes in evidential and procedural matters either already have had, or will have, a significant impact on evidence gathering and the more effective prosecution of offenders. The alteration of the law relating to bail was particularly welcome as a means of preventing persistent offenders from continuing to commit crime whilst awaiting trial".
  The Labour party opposed many—although not all—of those measures. The Labour-controlled East Staffordshire borough council is undoubtedly a strong supporter of Opposition law and order policies, and it must have felt that the Government were being both ungenerous and unhelpful in stimulating the police to the kind of achievements that they have realised in Staffordshire.
  The chief constable's second point concerned
  "The impact of crime prevention measures"
  on the reduction of crime in Staffordshire. He wrote:
  "It seems clear that recent crime prevention measures, both at central and local level, have played a significant part in the reduction in levels of crime—particularly in the areas of house burglary and car crime."
  He also mentioned CCTV.
  Thirdly, the chief constable dealt with
  "The impact of improved tactics by the police".
  The Government have gone out of their way to encourage the police to look at the way in which they practise policing and to take best practice from those forces that have been most successful in activities such as targeting known offenders.
  The success in Staffordshire has been outstanding. The chief constable concluded:
  "Looking to the future, there is strong support for proposals, such as the imposition of limitations on disclosure to the defence, which it is understood are under consideration…In addition, there is strong support for proposals to improve the treatment of victims and witnesses within the criminal justice system…In the round, I think that many positive steps have been taken in recent times to tackle the problem of crime."
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said that it is a pity that we cannot all work together to reduce crime. Here is his invitation.
  Mr. Michael: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: No.
  898
  Let us see whether the new, tough measures that the Government are about to introduce to deal with the most serious criminals have the support of the Labour party and its spokesman.
  11.6 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The police grant settlement is certainly not as difficult to live with as the local government settlement that we shall debate—and no doubt vote on—tomorrow, but it raises several issues that should rouse the Government from the dangers of complacency.
  The principal complaint is that, although the settlement looks good in the context of this year's public sector settlements, it does not look so good when it is compared with the needs in the police service. The increase amounts to £235 million in police total standard spending. The estimated increase in pension costs this year is £74 million and estimated pay and prices increases amount to £179 million. The shortfall is even larger when the £20 million that is intended to pay for extra officers is taken out of the calculation and one looks simply at what police authorities have to continue and develop their work.
  The settlement cannot make up for the cuts in last year's budget. It does not replace the officers that were lost last year, such as the 34 officers in Dorset, or the "million miles" of police patrols that the authority calculated had been lost as a result of cuts.
  The Prime Minister promised 5,000 extra police officers at the last Conservative party conference, but questions remain unanswered and there is unease within the police service. It reminds me of the Conservative 1992 manifesto pledge that stated:
  "We are continuing to increase Police numbers. There will be 1,000 extra officers this year."
  There were not. Although the number initially increased by 771, there have since been cuts of more than 1,300. The Prime Minister's latest promise must be called into question by the fact that a previous commitment was so clearly broken.
  Some areas have been hit harder than others. Merseyside lost 151 officers, the Metropolitan police lost 409 officers and Avon and Somerset lost 82 officers. Those figures demonstrate that there is not much reality behind the Government's tough talk about law and order.
  This year's pre-election settlement allows for 1,000 additional officers rather than the 3,000 that chief constables have been seeking for several years. That is what is on the table. The rest are phantom policemen for whom no resources are guaranteed.
  The Association of Chief Police Officers questioned the Government's estimated cost of additional officers. It took the view that the figures failed to take into account the full costs involved, particularly the additional infrastructure and pension costs. The Committee of Local Police Authorities pointed out that the average annual cost of a police officer is more than double the £20,000 that is implicit in the Government's figures, and applies to all ranks of police officer. North Yorkshire has been allocated £276,000, which will not even pay for 24 constables at probationer rates when all the on-costs have been taken into account.
  There are further concerns about the on-going funding of extra officers. Costs will rise as officers progress through their training and career, and there is concern that

  899
  the necessary money will not be available for that additional need. There is real uncertainty about what will happen after the three-year package—if it runs for three years—comes to an end. What will the funding be? Note will have been taken of the Minister's strenuous response to the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). We shall seek to hold him to his commitment for as long as he is the Minister who can be held to it.
  There have been considerable cuts this year in capital allocations. The Committee of Local Police Authorities makes the interesting comment that it has noticed an almost exact match between reductions in capital funding and the supposedly additional £20 million for extra police officers.
  The impact of the reductions on authorities will be notable. In various areas, capital programmes that are of some importance will be delayed. In Hampshire, there has been a cut of £1 million in the capital budget. It is expecting, in three years' time, a £2 million funding gap in its capital programme, including expenditure on buildings, computers and equipment. There are serious implications. In a number of police authorities, the move to install encrypted radios has had to be slowed down because the money is not available. That is extremely important now that the means of breaking into police communications systems are so readily and cheaply available to criminals. It gives criminals an advantage and reduces police effectiveness.
  Capital allocation cuts were described by the Association of Chief Police Officers as robbing Peter to pay Paul. One chairman of a police authority commented after the Government had cut its capital allocation and increased its revenue budget:
  "We could have done that for ourselves."
  There is some confusion about the private finance initiative. The Home Office says that PFI can be used to replace existing capital items, but the Department of the Environment says that it cannot. Clarification would be welcome. How are the police expected to plan their capital programmes when the Government move the goalposts so often?
  The problem of pensions is yet to be resolved. There has been some provision within the funding mechanism, which the Minister described, but the real problem remains. It is more to do with the total funding that is provided for pensions. Cutting the cake differently is of only limited value. There needs to be a long-term solution to the problem, and the consultation process that is now taking place must lead to a solution, and to action on it.
  The Government's plan for the future involves massive spending on a hugely increased prison population. Our vision is of preventing the crimes that would have put and kept offenders in prison by having enough police officers in the community who are properly equipped, and by tackling the root causes of crime.
  11.11 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: I am rather flattered that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) should remember so vividly the discussion that took place during last year's debate on these issues. I had not expected that. However, I shall draw the attention of the House to the accuracy of what I said on that occasion. In effect, my comment was a two-edged sword.
  900
  Without question, the provisions of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 give chief constables far greater discretion about how to use their resources. Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), I have discussed with David Burke, the chief constable of the force in the area that I represent—North Yorkshire—how the force is managing to exist under the new policy, which we were told when considering the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill in Committee would be an unmitigated disaster for the police, resulting in huge cuts in police numbers and the police budget. That has not happened.
  Having spoken to the chief constable, I find—I shall not suggest that all is rosy, because it is not—that now there is greater discretion when it comes to spending money, and more cash has been found as a result of efficiency. That means that the force will be able to employ more civilians and put more officers back on the beat.
  It will also be possible to recruit more officers. I am reasonably optimistic—I wish that I was as informed about the exact figures as I was when I was the vice-chairman of the police authority—that we shall have about 40 extra officers in North Yorkshire in the year ahead as a result of the grant settlement that we are discussing and the greater flexibility that will be given to police authorities and chief constables as a result of the 1994 Act and the changes in the structure of police funding overall.
  It is worth remembering not that North Yorkshire county council has had severe problems balancing its budget—I am on record as having said that—but that, in the final year in which it was responsible for setting the police budget, the budget that it set was £2 million less than the standard spending assessment recommended by the Home Office. That has been put right as a consequence of the new legislation.
  I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) —we desire a long-term solution to the funding of police pensions. Even so, the change in the formula for police pensions in the year ahead is very welcome. North Yorkshire suffered under the cosh of huge police pension costs that were totally disproportionate to what was in the previous formula. I am told that, now the formula has changed, it is neutral.
  Oddly enough, if we had left the formula alone, we would have received the same amount of money, but that is life and I am sure that some police force somewhere is benefiting. It is important that what a police force has to pay in police pensions—lump sums for retiring officers, especially those of senior rank, which can be tidy sums—is more reasonably reflected in the formula.
  We still need a much longer-term solution to the problem. It cannot be right that some 12 per cent. of police revenue budgets is spent not on officers who are actively in service but on officers who have hung up their truncheons, whistles and radios and gone to a pasture which, perhaps, is more profitable. It was a long time ago that I did that. As the House knows, my eldest son who, I hope, will be married later this year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] —is keeping up the tradition of the Greenway involvement in the police service, and he enjoys his career very much.
  I wish to make two important points. First, the Government rightly claim some of the credit for the fact that, throughout the country, crime is falling, but as my

  901
  hon. Friend the Minister knows—I have said this before in the House—the situation in rural areas is less attractive, not least because rural crime is growing. More rural properties are being targeted by criminals from the major cities. It is clear that local police resources are not adequate to deal with the problem.
  Secondly, there is a growth in what I call crimes of rural terrorism, such as lampers—people who come on to property in four-wheel drive vehicles, causing mayhem, shooting and killing wildlife with total abandon and disregard for morality. Police resources are not adequate to deal with that problem.
  Although I welcome the change in the formula, which has given greater weight to the needs of rural areas, it is not enough. We need to go further. I hope that my hon. Friend will take this on board. He represents a constituency that is much like mine. He knows of the problems that I have mentioned and which are a great worry to rural communities that do not have regular patrols of officers such as we see in urban areas.
  I hope that, when we discuss the police grant settlement in a year's time in this Parliament, as this is not the pre-election police grant settlement that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed suggested—there will be another one; I am convinced of that—perhaps it will be even better and will bring in the second stage of the extra 5,000 officers.
  I want to return to something that I suggested on Second Reading of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. The new structure created a mechanism whereby the public could pay more for their police if they wanted to. We should compare what people are spending on insurance premiums, burglar alarms and other security arrangements with what an extra £10 or £20 per annum on the police precept per house would provide by way of additional officers. I rather think that the latter might prove more attractive and sensible.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned North Yorkshire, which has a population of 726,000 and, I suspect, some 400,000 council tax paying households. The sum of £10 per property would produce £4 million more for the police. Let us split the difference between the figures suggested by the right hon. Gentleman: let us say not £20,000 or £40,000, but £30,000. We are talking about well in excess of 100 more officers in North Yorkshire for an extra £10 per dwelling on the police precept. I believe that, if that stark choice were put to the voters as clearly as I have put it here, they would opt to pay the £10 and have more police officers.
  It may well be possible to deal with the matter through a parish or town council precept, but I must make one crucial point. There is no doubt that, in rural areas, supporters of the party that my hon. Friend the Minister and I represent—although they see that we are doing considerably more to increase police manpower and deal with the tide of crime—would like us to go further. Rural communities in particular want more police officers, and we must find further mechanisms to deliver them. I do not believe that, without them, we shall return to the crime levels that once existed in our idyllic countryside.
  11.21 pm
  Mr. Bill Olner: Before I comment on the figures, let me pay tribute to the chief constable, all his police officers and the police committee in Warwickshire. I refer not only to the implications of the grant for the coming year, but to the preceding 12 months. The police authority and its officers have put up with a budget £6 million lower than it should have been because of the new formula.
  I welcome the fact that the chief constable and the police committee have more freedom to examine their budgets and decide where they want their money to be spent, but the Minister will doubtless recall visits by the police committee and the chief constable—not this year, but last year—when the £6 million shortfall was discussed. I suspect that the Treasury and the Home Office had made their calculations, and Warwickshire police force did not expect the Minister to make too many changes last year to the figures that he had already announced; what they did expect was that the Minister would give serious consideration to the logical representations made to him by the police authority and its chief constable, and would remedy a number of the difficulties in this year's grant.
  We had a very good meeting with the Minister some months ago. He said, "We are looking after you very well in Warwickshire." I did not accept that, but the Minister made a cogent argument and said that the Government were looking after Warwickshire well. In response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), he said that Warwickshire's grant had been increased by 3.5 per cent. and that, with wage levels forming the majority of the constabulary's costs, Warwickshire should be able to look favourably towards expanding its services.
  It was only during this debate that I learnt that colleagues were complaining that North Wales had had only a 5.1 per cent. increase, that Buckinghamshire had had only a 4.9 per cent. increase, that Derbyshire had had only a 4 per cent. increase and that Staffordshire had had only a 7.5 per cent. increase. In this year's grant settlement, Warwickshire has had an increase only of 3.5 per cent, but even a 7 per cent. increase would not have matched the £6 million shortfall that Warwickshire constabulary faces in 1995–96.
  Warwickshire constabulary is losing 61 personnel. That does not square with the Prime Minister's much-vaunted announcement of 5,000 additional police officers. There may be extra officers in some police authorities that have had these marvellous increases, but not in Warwickshire. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire said, the public, the media, the chief constable, the police authority and, more important, police officers know that they have had a raw deal from this Government, not only on last year's settlement but on this year's too.
  I remind the Minister that, in our discussions, he said that, when setting its budget, the police authority had to consider not only the money that it receives from the Home Office in the form of grant, but its income generation. I agreed with him—we must consider income generation. I do not know whether we will push every council tax payer into paying additional money to assist the police authority, but I know that Warwickshire police authority considered offering businesses a key holder scheme.

  903
  At the meeting a few weeks ago, the Minister said that Warwickshire was £500,000 down on its estimated income. It is that much down because businesses, especially those in my constituency of Nuneaton, will not accept a two-tier policing system. Business rate payers and council tax payers pay their taxes. They expect police authorities to be adequately funded by the Government and by other means. That £500,000 shortfall in revenue is due to businesses' massive objections to paying into the two-tier system that the Government are proposing or forcing the constabulary to introduce in Warwickshire.
  I earnestly ask the Minister to reconsider closely his settlement figures for Warwickshire. Last year represented a bad deal, but this year represents only less of a bad deal than that one.
  11.28 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I shall be brief, but I shall take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), on behalf of my constituents and of those who live in the area served by the Northumbria police force on what he has done for policing in north-east England. The change from the historic method of funding police forces to the needs-based formula resulted in an increase of £15 million in the police budget last year and a further budget increase of £10 million this year. That is a substantial sum for the Northumbria police force and will translate into at least 35 extra officers this year. I hope that John Stevens, the chief constable, understands what my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said about the need to put some of the extra resources into rural areas.
  Mr. Beith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the chief constable has done precisely that and released officers for rural areas after a long period when there were far too few.
  Mr. Atkinson: I agree that our present chief constable has shown a strong commitment to rural areas.
  I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale some good news about crime in rural areas. In the Hexham division, the number of burglaries and car crimes has fallen and thefts from agricultural buildings and factories are down by nearly a third. That is very good news for the people of rural Northumberland, and I hope that the trend continues.
  I fear that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) did not understand the point of the new arrangements for policing. We have given chief constables power to organise their own establishments. In Northumberland, that has resulted in a number of senior officers and part of the hierarchical chain of command being removed from the service. As a consequence, some officers have retired early, so numbers have fallen. At the same time, however, the chief constable is recruiting new officers, so there are bound to be fluctuations in the number of officers in the force at any one time.
  In Northumbria, there is a steady upward swing in numbers, which will mean an extra 140 officers in the next three years.
  Mr. Michael: The Northumbria force has grown in number but the overall picture has been one of decreases
  904
  between 1992 and September 1995. I understand the point, but the trouble is that in many areas there has been a drop; perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the overall picture.
  Mr. Atkinson: I make no pretence of doing so, but I was trying to explain the method whereby police numbers will sometimes go down but then go up, depending on the way in which a chief constable decides to organise his force structure.
  The deal for the people in the Northumbria police area has meant an 18 per cent. drop in crime since its peak in 1991 and a further 5 per cent. drop this year. We are getting a very good deal from our police force and we are also encouraged because arrests and the detection rate are up substantially.
  The overall detection rate in Northumbria is the highest of any force in England and Wales. John Stevens, the chief constable, and the men and women of the Northumbria force deserve to be congratulated. I think that their final plea would be that a few more of the people whom they arrest and charge be convicted by the courts.
  11.32 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The House will know that for the past two years I have had the honour to be Labour's parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. I shall hold that post for only another two days, at which time I shall hand over the position to my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). I am sure that he will be successful and even more popular than I have been.
  In Warwickshire, crime in general has trebled since 1979 and the number of burglaries and car crimes has quadrupled. However, in the past couple of years crime has started to decrease as a result of police work and, particularly, the introduction of the new community beat officer scheme, Operation Claw, which targeted burglars. It has also decreased as a result of the massive public support that was so apparent in the recent report by HM inspectorate of constabulary on Warwickshire police force.
  I am angry that our force, which has been so successful in fighting crime, should be penalised by the Home Office's failure to fund it properly. The chief constable and the police authority have said that the force has been underfunded to the tune of £6 million. According to the chief constable, in this financial year 61 posts have been lost from the previous establishment figure. The previous establishment was 1,045 but by November it had fallen to 984. The chief constable anticipates that it will have fallen to 945 by April 1997—a loss of 97 officers. That is not all due to Operation Sapphire—the Minister will know what I mean by that—which involved only 22 officers. Our constabulary has experienced a significant reduction in the number of officers. The Home Office is undermining the fight against crime in our county.
  There have also been increased costs to my constituents. Many of them are very angry at the constabulary's new key holder policy, whereby people have to pay £50 plus VAT for something that previously was free of charge. They understand that the constabulary is under great pressure to introduce such policies, but they are angry that it is being forced to do so by the Home Office.

  905
  Warwickshire has been hit twice—first, by the Government's overall settlement for police, which is very tight, and, secondly, by the formula. The force says in its report to the Home Office that it hopes to stabilise the reduction in service in the medium term, but that a further decline in uniformed officers in 1996–97 is inevitable unless there is a significant shift in the spending power available to the force.
  Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary said in his report on Warwickshire in 1995:
  "The freeze on recruitment, elimination of overtime, depletion of staffing levels most acutely seen on public holidays, postponing IT developments, abandoning of much of the training programme and over-reliance on the Special Constabulary will have an effect, in the longer term, on core policing in Warwickshire, and thus, on the service to the public".
  The Minister should be thoroughly ashamed of such a report, yet he obviously does not seem to appreciate its importance. He says that the Prime Minister's promise of thousands of extra police officers will be fulfilled. It is clearly not being fulfilled in Warwickshire. Force morale, as the police authority so graphically said, is in real danger.
  I ask the Minister to consider whether it is necessary to review the funding formula. I think that it should be reviewed to take into account adjacent metropolitan populations. Warwickshire has the west midlands, Leicester and a number of large metropolitan authorities nearby. We have crime problems from those authorities, but they are not reflected in the funding formula. Warwickshire also has miles of motorway—it is probably the county with the most miles of motorway. They need patrolling, and that factor should be properly recognised in the funding formula.
  The funding formula should also reflect previous years' major operations that had an overall long-term effect on the budget—the Coventry airport animal rights demonstrations, which were enormously expensive, the Wardell murder inquiry and the tragic Naomi Smith killing in my constituency. They have all been an enormous drain on the constabulary's reserves and that must be recognised when the funding formula is reviewed.
  I also condemn the way in which the Home Office has failed properly to fund closed circuit television in our area. The Home Office said that it was making funds available. Nuneaton and Bedworth and North Warwickshire applied for that funding and were refused. From Home Office replies, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) has been able to show that of the funding available for CCTV more than 70 per cent. went to the very few Conservative authorities in the country. That is discrimination against Labour authorities such as Nuneaton and Bedworth and North Warwickshire. Thankfully, the council can claim that, as a Labour authority, it has properly and fully funded the introduction of CCTV despite the handicap of the Government.
  The results of the severe damage to funding in Warwickshire are clearly set out by Superintendent Gordon Wilson, who is in charge of Nuneaton police—the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner). I am sure that Mr. Wilson spoke for all the officers in Warwickshire when he was quoted in the
  906
  Bedworth Telegraph on 8 December. I have already drawn the House's attention to the article, which suggested that the promise of 5,000 officers has resulted in the loss of 60 so far this year and the introduction of only nine. The Prime Minister's promise was pathetic.
  Superintendent Wilson said:
  "The simple fact is that if you don't pay, you don't get the service. If the proper funding isn't forthcoming from the government, there is going to be a reduction in the quality of service to the public.
  Our officers have responded admirably this year to a lack of funds, which has meant some working unpaid overtime to make sure the job gets done.
  But they can't keep doing that. Something's got to give‖
  It's a vicious circle: The more the officers are stretched at work, the more likely they are to get sick and need time off, leaving fewer officers even more stretched and even more stressed".
  That is a senior police officer talking about the failure of the Government—a failure of which the Minister should be thoroughly ashamed.
  Cuts in the police in Warwickshire, and the failure to back Nuneaton and Bedworth council's proposal to introduce closed circuit television in the town centre, mean that the Home Secretary is performing the job of the criminal; he is undermining the police. We have lost 60 officers in the county. The Home Secretary has ignored pleas to resource Warwickshire constabulary properly, and that is not all. When the Home Office announced that the funds were available for CCTV, our local councils did not obtain any, although Conservative councils did.
  I am appalled at how badly the Home Secretary has failed people in Warwickshire. He has handicapped the police and the fight against crime. In Warwickshire, we know who the criminals' mate is—it is the Home Secretary, who is not funding the police in our county properly. When the general election comes, we shall remember the way in which the Minister of State and the Home Secretary undermined the fight against crime in Warwickshire.
  11.40 pm
  Mr. Maclean: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. Seldom has the House been treated to such a ridiculous little speech as that made by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). I shall treat his remarks about closed circuit television with the contempt that they deserve. Warwickshire did benefit from two Home Office funded CCTV schemes in the most recent round, and if it submits any good schemes in the next round those will be considered equally and fairly.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien rose—
  Mr. Maclean: No, the hon. Gentleman talked and bored the House for long enough. With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall try to reply to the interesting points that were made in the debate.
  Last year Warwickshire had a 5.3 per cent. increase in its funding. Note the weasel words of Opposition Members. They do not talk about the Government's "cutting" Warwickshire's funding, but you can bet your bottom dollar, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if the Government had cut the funding that word would have been used ad nauseam. Instead, Opposition Members talk about a "funding shortfall".

  907
  What does that mean? It means simply that, despite the fact that the Government are giving Warwickshire 5.3 per cent. more, it had a wish list costing even more than that, and it could not get all the funding that it wanted. I do not know of any police authority in the country that has ever received all the money that it would ideally like to have. I suggest that, with a 5.3 per cent. increase, and with police pay rising by only 3 per cent. last year, Warwickshire should have lived within its means. This year it will receive a 3.4 per cent. increase in funding.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked a good question about the funding of an officer. We have agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers that the additional funding of £20 million next year will be sufficient to recruit 1,000 more constables.
  ACPO agrees that the marginal cost of taking on a new officer is £19,738. I have already set out that figure in a detailed parliamentary answer, and it comprises salary of £16,117, national insurance contributions of £1,251, training costs of about £2,000 and uniform costs of £370. Those are the figures for a whole year, but 1,000 officers will not all be recruited on 1 April. They will be recruited throughout the year, so all the costs will not be incurred by the police force on day one. The provision that we are allocating is more generous than the figure of £19,738 would suggest.
  We know that in the second year an officer's salary will be a bit higher, in the third year it will be even more and in the fourth year it will rise again. By the time he has done 25 years' service an officer is an expensive but a very worthwhile commodity. There are also the pension commitments. Of course we know that we must also consider the additional costs in future years.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) made an important point when he talked about the doom and gloom that came out of Staffordshire last year. But that was not true of Staffordshire alone. Let
  908
  us remember all the doom and gloom that we heard about this time last year. There was an ACPO forecast that 900 jobs would be lost in the forthcoming year.
  The Independent was not to be outdone. If it can peddle a bigger lie, of course it will do so. It said that not 900 but 1,500 jobs would be lost. Then, Police Review—I give the magazine credit for caring about the facts, as The Independent did not seem to do—did a survey that concluded that there was likely be an increase of about 400 officers in the coming year with the money that the Government provided last year. But Police Review was too dashed conservative—we are heading for an increase of 900 constables in this financial year.
  Mr. Olner: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Maclean: No, I have only one minute left. It is not just a matter of those 900 extra constables, because there are extra civilians too. Opposition Members quibble about whether the Government will meet our target of getting 900 extra officers. When Labour left office, the police force was 8,500 bobbies under strength. With the Labour party, it is not a case of do as I do, but do as I say. I can tell the Opposition—
  Mr. Michael: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Maclean: No. Since we came to power, an additional 33,000 people have joined the police force—16,000 uniformed officers and 17,000 civilians. We are providing the manpower. We have done it before and we will do it again. We will honour our commitments.
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents).
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1996–97 (House of Commons Paper No. 162), which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.

  Film Industry (Scotland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
  11.45 pm
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the matter of the Scottish film industry in the House. It would seem that this is the first occasion in a very long time on which the industry has been debated here in a Scottish context. That is surprising given the high profile accorded to the industry in the past year, even by the Secretary of State. I regret the absence of Scottish Labour Members, with the honourable exception of the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I understand, however, that the Labour party's indifference to the industry as a whole extends even to its Front Benchers, and that is very unfortunate indeed.
  In the past few years, there has been an enormous growth in interest in the film industry, not least because of the sudden upsurge in the number of Hollywood feature films to which we have been host. Naturally, we are pleased that we have apparently become flavour of the year, but there is concern that, when all the razzmatazz has died down and the Hollywood caravan has moved on, the indigenous industry will be no further forward.
  Last year, the Secretary of State made much of his commitment to the industry; indeed, he even wore a kilt to the "Braveheart" premiere—something he might have regarded as a sacrifice. But so far, all we seem to have had is words. Even the long-awaited report from the Scottish Office has yet to materialise. Indeed, all that has happened in the meantime is that two more reports have been commissioned. I hope that tonight we will be given the date for the appearance of the Scottish Office report at least.
  I hope that the opportunity will be taken tonight to make a concrete commitment to the industry. That is vital if we are to build a sustainable film industry in Scotland and move away from the boom and bust scenario that seems to be our lot at present. Future success can be ours in Scotland only if we can ensure a minimum sustainable level of production at all times.
  It is fortunate that we have an existing infrastructure on which to base expansion, an advantage that the Irish did not have before they set their minds to building up their own film industry. They are, however, now rapidly developing one. Indeed in Scotland, Ireland is viewed with a certain rueful admiration. Ireland's achievements have been considerable, and have been brought about by a combination of Government intervention in the form of tax breaks, meaningful grants to the industry and the creation of a film-friendly atmosphere. Taken together, these have resulted in an irresistible pull on overseas productions. That has sometimes resulted in a relocation from Scotland to Ireland, a fact that did not escape the public's attention, particularly in relation to "Braveheart".
  The Minister may not be aware of some of the invidious comparisons that can be made between Scotland and Ireland. For example, the Scottish Film Production Fund receives a Scottish Office grant of £190,000, which, in effect, has been frozen for three years, whereas its Irish equivalent receives 3 million Irish punts. That is the difference between 0.038p per head of population in
  910
  Scotland and £1 per head in Ireland and it does not reflect well on Scottish Office commitment. Will the Minister at least commit more funds to the SFPF?
  Lottery money has certainly been made available, but it should not be seen as, and was never meant to be, a substitute for public funding. Sustainability will be dependent on a growth in both indigenous production and development over a long period. It should not be dependent on the vagaries of lottery grants.
  We all need to remember that film is an industry like any other, with an enormous potential. It is easy to forget that, at a most basic level, it is about jobs, not just for the actors, directors and producers but for the carpenters and painters who build the sets, the folk who hire out the vehicles, the caterers who provide food, the dressmakers and make-up artists and the whole panoply of trades that are required in the making of any film, which is a very labour-intensive venture.
  The industry is not just about jobs. Film is just one of the ways in which any society and culture find its own expression. That involves not just making films that are based on one's history or are about present-day experiences in a country, or features that are self-referential; it can also extend to the viewpoints through which other issues are seen and through which we view the rest of the world. It is important that we get the opportunity to do that as well.
  Thus, it is important to get it right. Scotland needs a film policy implemented by Government and agreed by the principal bodies and players, which will do a number of things. The most important are: to prioritise commercial and employment issues, which does not appear to be being done; to attract investment, both internally and externally; to develop the skills base of the Scottish industry; to assist the commercial and non-commercial development of missing parts of the infrastructure; and to create a national organisation that can carry forward policy and strategy with the agreement and co-operation of the industry as a whole.
  If I were to pick out the two first steps that are vital if the industry is to develop fully in Scotland and to fulfil the potential that is shown, the first would have to be the introduction of tax breaks for film production, modelled on the Irish section 35 scheme, which is highly admired and has become very successful in attracting the film industry to Ireland. It requires no new money from Government sources and I should have thought that that would be very attractive to the Government. Unfortunately, thus far, they do not seem to have been able to bring themselves to copy the Irish example—perhaps it is difficult to admit that a small and independent nation in Europe may have something to teach such a country as the United Kingdom.
  Implementing those tax breaks would require no new money, merely a willingness to forgo income, which in any case might not otherwise come if the tax breaks were not there in the first place. Although tax breaks of themselves will not do the trick—in some cases, when films have moved to Ireland, they have merely made the film break even—they are nevertheless an important part of attracting external interest in a country.
  Equally important, Scotland needs the development of a powerful new body to oversee public film policy and strategy. It will need to be properly set up and properly funded if it is to be successful. It is no use introducing

  911
  any such new body if it is not going to be resourced. I understand that the possibility of such an organisation is being canvassed under the working title of Scottish Screen. I expect to hear that the resourcing of any such new organisation would be sufficient to make it work in the long term. Any such organisation should be federal in structure, bringing together existing bodies such as the Scottish Film Council, which does good work, the Scottish Film Production Fund, Scottish Screen Locations and the Scottish Broadcasting and Film Training Trust.
  In that structure, new bodies should be established, including one responsible for marketing and distribution. One big advantage of that would be the provision of a one-stop shop for those from furth of Scotland, who would find Scotland an even more attractive prospect than it is at present. It is in creating that attractive prospect that Ireland has been so successful. We would like Scotland to be able to follow that example.
  One of the difficulties for interested parties from furth of Scotland is that they have to deal with a myriad of organisations. In some cases, they find it almost impossible to get help, especially as so few local authorities have dedicated film officers, or people in their economic development sections committed to attracting this important industry, which has enormous potential. That would allow the easy introduction to Scotland of a one-stop shop and make things much simpler.
  We also need a properly functioning large sound stage on which big feature films could be made. Until we get one, we will have difficulty in dealing with bigger films. That means that they will end up going to places such as Shepperton or Pinewood, which would be a great loss to Scotland.
  Unfortunately, successive UK Governments have regarded film as more a matter of infrastructure than of investment, and have oriented their support to a London-based industry that makes use of studio facilities. That has left Scotland exposed and without practical support. That is not good enough for such an important developing industry.
  An independent Scottish Government would be certain to give the industry the priority it deserves and avoid the sort of nonsense that we currently face on the international front, where our industry may not be represented at all. For example, on the EU's Media 2 programme, UK representation comprises two people from the Department of National Heritage in London. There is no representation from the Scottish Office. I understand that, until recently, the Department of National Heritage somehow forgot to advise about the availability of a place for a representative from the industry in Scotland. Direct Scottish representation is essential for all such international bodies and is increasingly demanded by professionals, who recognise the need to insist on and maintain the distinctiveness of what is happening in Scotland.
  It is the combination of practical measures and real encouragement that is vital in Scotland but currently absent. Sexy soundbites there have been in abundance, principally those uttered by the Secretary of State for Scotland, but the Minister will have to do much more than utter platitudes tonight if he expects people in the industry to have any confidence in Scottish Office commitment. He could make a start by answering some of the direct questions put to him and make some firm commitment
  912
  here and now that could be reported to the industry in Scotland as evidence of a real commitment rather than simply a commitment to tomorrow's headlines.
  11.58 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on securing this debate on an important and fascinating subject. She has addressed it in her customary forthright manner.
  We provide substantial funds to the film industry. The Scottish Office allocated £1.5 million to the support of film in 1995–96. The bulk of funding goes to the Scottish Film Council, which is currently concentrating on Scotland's response to the EC's Media 2 programme and on encouraging each unitary authority and local enterprise company to adopt a development strategy for its moving image industry. We provide £190,000 a year to the Scottish Film Production Fund, and the Scottish Office funding is a catalyst for more funding to a total of almost £750,000.
  With regard to a Scottish Studio sound stage, Hydra Associates will consider the case for a new studio, but it is widely acknowledged that a studio suitable for major Hollywood films would probably be unused for most of the year. To justify such an investment, it would be sensible to secure shared usage with television companies or build the studio as part of a larger entertainment complex. We are currently looking at the pros and cons of that.
  The hon. Lady mentioned the Irish film industry, which has enjoyed a resurgence in recent years, partly as a result of tax incentives which are especially useful in attracting overseas productions to be filmed in Ireland. But the tax regime is rarely the principal consideration in deciding where to shoot a film. The suitability of the production facilities and the director's personal preference are also influential. The Government will certainly consider any lessons to be drawn from the Irish experience which can be applied to Scotland in the light of the consultants' report.
  Before responding in detail to some of the other points that the hon. Lady has raised, I should like to put the Scottish position in the United Kingdom context. The number of films produced in the UK has risen from just 30 in 1989 to 81 last year, the highest figure for 20 years. Between 1990 and 1994, the UK was one of only four countries among the top 20 film-making nations to show an increase in the number of films produced. The number of films produced in the United States fell by 12 per cent. over that period.
  Total investment in film production in the UK had increased from £253 million in 1990 to £421 million in 1995. As a result, the UK's share of total European investment in films rose from 18.4 per cent. in 1990 to 28.1 per cent. in 1994. In 1994, UK cinema admissions rose by some 120 million for the first time since 1978, eclipsing even 1993, which had the benefit of "Jurassic Park", the biggest grossing film in cinema history. The latest estimate for 1995 is a healthy 113.5 million.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I should like to develop my reply to the hon. Lady.

  913
  The Scottish film industry has shared in those boom years. Having made only five or six films in the early 1990s, the number of Scottish productions soared to 12 in 1994 and reached an impressive nine last year. Films are financed in a variety of ways, but it is interesting to note that "Chasing the Deer", which starred Brian Blessed, was the first Scottish production to raise the bulk of its budget through public subscription. The film has recently gone into profit and investors should now see a return on their investment. "The Bruce", which will be released in March, has been financed in a similar way. The national lottery provides yet another new source of funding to build on the successes of recent years.
  It is, therefore, fair to say that the film industry in Britain is in a buoyant state. With the dollar exchange rate in our favour, the UK's film studios are full. The recent purchase of Shepperton and Leavesden studios further demonstrates the confidence that exists in the industry.
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Is the Minister seriously suggesting, with his examples of "Chasing the Deer" and "The Bruce", that we can build a sustainable film industry in Scotland on the same do-it-yourself basis with which we might build a garden shed?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. A variety of measures are necessary. If the hon. Lady will await my remarks, I shall develop the theme across a range of subjects.
  As the hon. Lady said, the main activity continues to be in and around London, where the major television companies and film studios are located. The challenge facing the film industry in Scotland is to produce quality films with a distinctive Scottish feel, which are commercially successful, such as "Local Hero". The responsibility for achieving that rests ultimately with the writers, producers, directors and other skilled staff working in the industry in Scotland.
  However, public funding supports some of the infrastructure for the industry. As I said in answer to a question about film production in Scotland from my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), we are looking at a number of ways to strengthen those arrangements and the current film initiative announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last September is important so that we can ensure that the industry in Scotland breaks through to a new, more dynamic era.
  The film initiative is intended to maintain the momentum of the current success story. After the release last year of "Braveheart" and "Rob Roy", the 1995 Scottish theme at the cinema will be reflected in a gentler and more contemporary vein in 1996 by "Loch Ness", which is to be released next week following its premiere at Inverness this Saturday.
  Such films can give a significant impetus to marketing Scotland as a tourist location, and I am very pleased indeed that the Scottish tourist board has been very active building on the high film profile that Scotland now has. The impact is already apparent in tourism receipts.
  For example, in 1995 twice as many people visited the Rob Roy and Trossachs visitor centre in Callender as in 1994. That, in turn, prompted several agencies to come
  914
  together to fund a £400,000 improvement programme at the centre to double the size of the facility. Admissions to the National Wallace monument at Stirling increased almost threefold in the four months after the release of "Braveheart". Passenger numbers on the SS Walter Scott on Loch Katrine are up 25 per cent. on last year—that had been Rob Roy country. We wish to build on those encouraging benefits to tourism.
  To ensure that film-makers continue to come to Scotland, it is vital that all potential locations are marketed as effectively as possible. Accordingly, as a first priority for the film initiative, the Government have commissioned a CD-ROM, which will contain information about all Scotland's main screen locations. That will enable film producers throughout the world to have immediate access to visual and factual data about all the locations at the touch of a keyboard.
  Mr. Alex Salmondrose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to develop my arguments further.
  In support of that marketing initiative, we want to remove any unnecessary impediments to overseas films coming to Scotland. That means, if I may paraphrase the usual jargon, securing a one-stop shoot, which the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross mentioned. In practice, that entails applying the "customer first" approach on behalf of the many organisations and agencies with which film makers must co-operate in their production work. Time is of the essence when shooting on location, and effective co-ordination with local authorities and others is essential if that time is to be fully used.
  Different considerations apply to Scottish-made films. There also, the picture is a great deal more promising than it has been for many years. "Shallow Grave" was a box office hit on both sides of the Atlantic. "Small Faces", shown to wide acclaim at last year's Edinburgh international film festival, will be released later this year in the United States and Europe. "Trainspotting", which will have its world premiere in Glasgow next month before going on general release, promises to be a third success for Scotland. All three films have relied, at least in part, on public sector support through the Scottish film production fund and the Glasgow film fund. All three are testimony to the fact that the present arrangements can help to bring about Scottish film productions that are both cultural and commercial successes.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Welsh rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to develop a few more points before I give way.
  As more national lottery funds become available—to be dispersed by the Scottish Arts Council—the impact of public sector support for production is likely to be even more influential.
  Those recent successes owe much to the judgment and determination of the board and staff of the Scottish film production fund.
  The role that broadcasters can play in developing the film industry in Scotland must not be overlooked. BBC Scotland, through its "Tartan Shorts" scheme, in

  915
  conjunction with the Scottish film production fund, is helping to nurture talent. Indeed, the success of the Scots actor Peter Capaldi in winning an Oscar last year for his "Tartan Shorts" film, "Franz Kafka's It's a Wonderful Life" shows the high quality of that initiative.
  Recent Scottish Film Council initiatives, including its First Reels and Movie Makers projects, coupled with training initiatives spearheaded by Scottish Broadcast and Film Training Ltd, are working towards the creation of a new generation—indeed, a renaissance—of talented Scottish directors, producers, technicians and writers. That is extremely welcome.
  Mr. Salmond: I thank the Minister for giving way and I apologise for knocking him off his stride. At the beginning of his remarks, when he compared the Scottish situation with that of Ireland, he said that tax was not crucial to film location. However, the Government argue that tax is crucial in every other area of Government policy on inward investment for every other industry. Why does the Minister argue that the taxation position of this industry does not matter and is not crucial?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There are a variety of reasons why that is so. In the case of one film—part of which was filmed in Ireland—I understand that the cost of transporting the crew wiped out much of the tax difference. I said very clearly to the hon. Lady earlier in the debate that we shall consider any lessons to be learnt from the Irish experience which can be applied to the Scottish situation in the light of the consultant's report. We shall fulfil that commitment, and I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's remarks and his strength of feeling on that point.
  Despite the relatively rosy picture overall, there is always scope for improvement. In order to examine ways in which the present infrastructure might be improved further, two studies have been commissioned from Hydra Associates as an important element of the fact-finding phase of the film initiative. The first wider study is examining the overall organisation of the film and television industry in Scotland and the opportunities which exist to develop and improve it. The second study focuses more specifically on the mechanisms for funding film productions and, in particular, how to secure more private sector investment. Both studies are now well under way and they should be completed next month.
  It is obviously too early to know what will emerge from the studies by way of final recommendations. However, Hydra Associates has held two brainstorming sessions with representatives from the industry, drawn from both the UK and beyond. They have identified six key themes requiring further analysis and consideration: the need to develop and provide training; strengthening the institutional arrangements within Scotland; the importance of attracting new sources of finance; the dominance of London in the United Kingdom film and television industry; improving the marketing effort; and the availability of adequate production and post-production facilities in Scotland.
  The final component of the film initiative, which addresses one of the themes identified by Hydra, is the policy and financial management review of the Scottish Film Council which was carried out by Scottish Office officials last year. The review considered how to obtain
  916
  maximum value for money from the central Government resources available for film in Scotland. The review will be published shortly and I will make certain that copies are made available in the Library.
  Inevitably, there has been much speculation about the content and conclusions of the policy review. While I do not want to pre-empt its publication or Ministers' consideration of the review, I can say that it highlights the many developments which have taken place since the Scottish Film Council was established as an non-departmental public body in April 1990. It also draws attention to the contributions made by Scottish Screen Locations, Scottish Broadcast and Film Training Ltd. and by the Scottish Film Production Fund. Despite the progress made over the past five years, the review concludes that, in order to overcome a significant overlap in functions between the Film Council and the other three agencies, there might be merit in merging the bodies into a single new agency.
  We will consider that and other recommendations contained in the review, alongside the two studies currently being undertaken by Hydra Associates. That will provide an opportunity to consider the future direction for the next five years in a strategic and a holistic way. We obviously need to be clear about our overall objectives so that they are reflected properly in any new structure to be created. We expect to be in a position to announce our conclusions later in the spring.
  The hon. Lady seems to believe that the industry's salvation lies in yet more public funding. I do not think that that is necessarily the case. We must remember that, even beyond the increasing resources that will flow from the national lottery, film is an industry. Its practitioners in Scotland must be flexible, versatile and imaginative, and those qualities will flourish when opportunity knocks.
  The Government carefully considered last year's Select Committee report on the film industry, which called for tax concessions. We were not persuaded that that should be a priority in last November's Budget. The tax rules for writing off film production expenses are already more generous than for industry as a whole.
  Furthermore, in order to examine the availability of finance for film production in its widest sense, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage has established a high-level advisory committee under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Middleton to look at obstacles to the industry's growth. We are hopeful that Sir Peter and his colleagues will produce practical and effective recommendations.
  I should say how welcome it is to see the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) in his place as he is a trustee of the Sean Connery trust. Many young people have benefited from the substantial contribution that a distinguished Scot has made to the film industry.
  We want to give whatever support we can to the Scottish film industry. We want many more successes, many more tourists coming to Scotland and many more films being made in Scotland. We shall work flat out to that purpose and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for having raised the subject today.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Twelve midnight.

DEFENCE

  Trident
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the cost of distributing to each hon. Member a copy of the 1996 edition of his Department's annual progress report on the Trident programme. [11722]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The annual report on the progress of the Trident programme will be published shortly and, as usual, copies will be placed in the Library of the House. The precise cost of distributing the report to all hon. Members is not known, but Would not exceed £1,000. However, it would not be a sensible use of resources to send individual copies to all right hon. and hon. Members as not all may wish to receive one.

  Defence Industry
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the competitiveness of the United Kingdom defence industry. [12102]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Due in part to my Department's procurement policies in recent years, the United Kingdom's defence industry is highly competitive both at home and abroad. Including the UK share of collaborative work, more than 90 per cent. by value of our equipment contracts are placed with UK firms. Our provisional estimate is that UK companies won defence export orders of £5 million in 1995. This represents around 19 per cent. of the world market. Only the USA has a large market share.

  Johore Bahru Jungle Warfare School
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those countries whose military forces have received training at the Johore Bahru jungle warfare school during the last three years. [12469]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Malaysian Government.

  Thailand
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the British armed forces have served in Thailand during the last three years. [12468]

  Mr. Soames
  Other than a colonel attached to the British embassy in Bangkok as defence attaché and a colour sergeant to support him, no military personnel have served in Thailand during the last three years.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will(a) list the countries he visited during his overseas tour in early January giving, in each case, the dates he was in the country and who he met and (b) list those accompanying him on this tour. [12241]

  Mr. Portillo
  Between 30 December 1995 and 10 January 1996, I visited the United Arab Emirates, the Republic of the Philippines, the Republic of Korea and Japan. On 13 January, I visited Kuwait. The aim of the visits was to promote our bilateral relationships with international partners. I met a number of people in each of the countries visited including the respective Ministers of Defence, some of their ministerial colleagues and senior military and civilian officials. In the Philippines I called on the President and in the Republic of Korea I called on the Prime Minister. I was accompanied throughout by officials from my private office and the Ministry of Defence. My wife accompanied me from 30 December to 10 January at the invitation of the Governments of the Philippines, the Republic of Korea and Japan.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department, his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11421]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not held in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  For some details of overseas travel costs for Defence agencies, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on 29 November 1995, Official Report, columns 758–67.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (v) 1996–97. [11418]

  Mr. Soames
  Records of expenditure on hospitality in my Department before 1992–93 can be collated only at disproportionate cost, and estimates for the financial year 1996–97 have yet to be finalised. Total expenditure for the years 1992–93 to 1995–96 is given in the list:

  (i) 1992–93: £4.952 million

  (ii) 1993–94: £4.577 million

  (iii) 1994–95: £4.867 million

  (iv) 1995–96: £4.843 million (estimated final spend)

  The figures include expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence itself, by formations and establishments of the armed forces at home and abroad, and by individual officers occupying command and

  605
  international appointments for which entertainment allowances are payable. Figures for agencies and non-departmental public bodies are not held separately.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of departmental expenditure on administration for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11419]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of defence operating costs for the years 1989–90 to 1997–98 are contained in table 4 of my Department's most recent departmental report, Cm 2801, of March 1995, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Figures for 1979–80 are not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of his Department's expenditure on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96, to date; and if he will list the publications purchased for the latest year for which information is available. [11422]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Until April 1995, all books, journals, newspapers and other commercial publications required for the official duties of the Department and the services were purchased by more than 150 purchasing authorities worldwide.

  The total expenditure on commercial publications in 1993–94 was £6.134 million, of which it is estimated that £3.373 million was spent on scientific and technical journals, and £306,000 was spend on newspapers and weekly publications.

  In 1994–95, the total spend was £6.626 million, with estimated spends of £3.644 million on scientific and technical journals, and £331,000 on newspapers and weekly publications. In 1995–96, £6.191 million was allocated for the purchase of commercial publications. This sum was disaggregated to the budgets of individual units in April 1995, and the spend to date is £2.257 million.

  There are no central records of which material was purchased from 1993 to date, and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [11331]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: Individual budget holders in my Department have delegated powers to employ external consultants as they think fit within the limit of their resources and consistent with all requirements for propriety and value for money. The information required is currently not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  606
  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [11332]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: This information is not held centrally in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Details of recent central MOD expenditure on publicity is contained in the MOD departmental report, Cm 2801, and the MOD performance report, Cm 3055, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the annual telephone costs to(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) his Department's non-departmental public bodies staff for each of the years (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97; and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas of (a) to (c). [11334]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: Some information about my Department's telephone costs for the period 1993–94, is contained in the 14th report of the Committee of Public Accounts, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Details for other years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Pay Services Directorate
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about defence agency status for the Pay Services Directorate. [12906]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Pay Services Directorate will become a defence agency of the Ministry of Defence on 1 February 1996 following the restructuring of the Defence Accounts Agency, DAA. The agency, to be known as the Pay and Personnel Agency, PPA, is located in Bath; Cheadle Hulme, Cheshire, and Worcester, with a small satellite office in Malta and will have a staff of some 960 MOD civil servants. The agency is responsible for providing pay services and personnel information support services in respect of civilian staff of the MOD and for other public sector customers. Pay services encompass payroll, all aspects of principal civil service pension scheme administration and expenses management. In addition, the agency will provide financial management information to budget holders and other customers.

  A chief executive has been selected by open competition. He will be required to develop the current organisation's professional expertise and improve the high performance standards to fulfil the agency's aim of providing its customers with an efficient service which offers the best value for money. The chief executive will be set the following key targets: to deliver the range of agency services to the required time scales and to the set standards of accuracy, as published in the pay services

  607
  customer charter; to achieve annual efficiency savings year on year of 3.5 per cent. of cash allocation through a reduction in operating costs; to obtain quality registration to BS EN ISO 9001 standard in one further sector of the agency by 31 March 1996; to meet the Treasury accounts direction and to install a computerised, full-cost, accruals accounting system by 31 March 1996; to have new business systems hardware—known as POPSI—delivered and installed and the personnel system completed to the specification required to achieve savings, by 31 December 1996; to complete an investigation into the best commercial practices for measuring customer satisfaction with agency services by 31 December 1996; to introduce the new principal civil service pension scheme administration system—known as QUASAR—to the required specification, by 31 March 1997; to obtain quality registration to BS EN ISO 9001 standard in two further sectors of the agency by 31 March 1997; and to set an accruals baseline to permit the use of accruals—based performance targets for the agency accounts, by 31 March 1997.

  I am arranging for copies of the agency's framework document to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the annual cost to his Department and his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies of their empty and under-utilised properties for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11420]

  Mr. Soames
  No estimate is made of the cost of empty and under-utilised property and the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the mobile phones which have been supplied to his Department in each of the last four years have been cloned; and on what dates. [11007]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]: During 1995, 24 mobile telephones supplied to the MOD were cloned as follows:

  Number

  January

  8

  February

  2

  March

  11

  May

  2

  June

  1

  Figures before 1995 are not available.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will instigate an epidemiological study into alleged Gulf war syndrome. [12122]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 29 January 1996]: My Department has been conducting a continuing and detailed investigation into the health aspects of service in the Gulf.
  608
  The medical assessment programme, under which more than 350 individual veterans have been examined, was endorsed by the Royal College of Physicians in a clinical audit last July.

  The royal college recommended that we contact leading civilian specialists in specific areas of medicine relevant to conditions alleged to have been caused by Gulf service. Separate discussions have since been held with eminent specialists in toxicology, immunology, tropical diseases, epidemiology and birth defects, and a comprehensive medical statistical database has been prepared which will provide the basis for epidemiological studies.

  As part of this continuing work, the Surgeon General convened a meeting last Thursday with the following leading medical and scientific experts: Professor A. Kay, Imperial college of science, technology and medicine (immunology); Professor L. Borysiewicz, university of Wales (immunology); Professor D. Warrell, John Radcliffe medical school, Oxford (tropical diseases); Professor A. McMichael, London school of hygiene and tropical medicine (epidemiology); Dr. A. Proudfoot, director, Scottish poisons information bureau (toxicology); Professor Sir C. Berry, Royal London hospital (birth defects); and Professor P. Blain, Newcastle upon Tyne medical school (environmental and occupational medicine).

  Having reviewed the work undertaken to date, the experts fully approved the basis of our approach. They also agreed that there is no evidence at present to indicate the existence of a unique and previously unknown condition or illness associated with service in the Gulf, and noted that this echoed the US experience of its much larger assessment programme of 17,000 veterans.

  We accept that a number of Gulf veterans are ill, and that there is public concern about the possible effects of Gulf service on the children of veterans who have been born with birth defects. As the next stage of its work, my Department will commission a series of epidemiological studies comparing the health of Gulf veterans with similarly matched control groups of service personnel who did not go to the Gulf. The aim of these studies, some of which will be conducted in-house and some by commissioning external research, will be to establish whether there is any increased prevalence of illness among Gulf veterans or of birth defects among their children.

  We will also commission research into the alleged causes of Gulf-related illness, including the possibility of interaction between the vaccinations received by service personnel and the nerve agent pretirement sets—NAPS—taken for protection against the very real threat of chemical attack. We shall of course work very closely with the US, but will not duplicate its efforts.

  The cost of the research will be met by my Department. The Medical Research Council has been invited to oversee and review the conduct of the programme, and the results will be published.

  We will continue to offer assessment and counselling services under the medical assessment programme, and wish to encourage any serving or ex-service personnel who may be concerned about their health as a result of Gulf service to come forward to the solicitors acting for those who are ill asking them to urge their clients to participate in the programme.

TREASURY

  Tax (Self-assessment)
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how long, on average, Inland Revenue staff have spent training to deal with self-assessment. [8314]

  Mr. Jack
  The Inland Revenue has in place a four-year training programme for staff dealing with self-assessment. The programme started in April 1994 and runs through to October 1998. So far staff have spent, on average, three and a half days in training covering the basic elements of self-assessment.

  From April this year, the training programme will address the specific needs of different staff groups to equip them with the knowledge and skills required to do their jobs when this is first needed.

  On average, staff will receive seven days' training during 1996–97, four days in 1997–98 and three days from April to October 1998. The training programme is designed as a staged incremental progress to ensure that staff are able to handle the work as it first arises.

  On-the-job support, guidance and information to consolidate this learning will be provided by the training organisation and line managers.

  Employment Statistics (London)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what proportion of(a) manual part-time workers and (b) non-manual part-time workers, broken down into men and women, work less than (i) eight hours a week and (ii) 16 hours a week in each London borough. [11861]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Estimates available from the labour force survey relating to Greater London as a whole are shown in the table. Equivalent estimates for individual London boroughs are not available.

  Part-time manual and non-manual workers by the total number of hours they usually work

  Greater London summer 1995, not seasonally adjusted

  Working less than eight hours a week

  Working less than 16 hours a week

  Thousands

  Per cent.

  Thousands

  Per cent.

  Men

  Manual part-time

  n/a

  n/a

  27

  41

  Non-manual part-time

  13

  16

  34

  40

  Women

  Manual part-time

  15

  11

  57

  42

  Non-manual part-time

  33

  11

  102

  33

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

  Lost Work Days
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the number of work days lost, in each of the work categories used by his Department, since May 1979, as a result of(a) the closure or restructuring of firms, (b) the withdrawal of local authority services, (c) the reduction in the size of Government Departments and the armed services and (d) changes in the scope of charitable employment. [11725]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information is not available in the form requested. The available information closest to that requested is for the net change in jobs for the whole economy in the United Kingdom. There was a net increase of 141,000 jobs between September 1979 and September 1995.

  Information providing estimates of employment in the public sector for 1979 to 1994 is published in the January 1995 edition of Economic Trends. A copy of the publication is available in the Library.

  VAT (Higher Education)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much value added tax was paid by further education colleges and sixth form colleges in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95; and how much he estimates will be paid by these colleges in 1995–96. [11630]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are no figures available on the amount of VAT paid by colleges.

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost of mortgage interest tax relief in Scotland in each year since 1993–94; what it is estimated to be for 1996–97; and what the costs would have been in each of these years if relief had been available at 25 per cent. [11930]

  Mr. Jack
  The cost of mortgage interest tax relief in Scotland was estimated to be £300 million in 1993–94 and £240 million in 1994–95. In 1994–95 the rate of relief was 20 per cent. If relief had been available at 25 per cent., the cost would have been about £300 million. The estimated cost of the relief for 1993–94 is based on the regional distribution of the cost of mortgage interest relief from analyses of family expenditure surveys up to 1993. The estimate for 1994–95 is a projection based on applying the same regional distribution as in 1993–94 to the total figure for 1994–95. It is not possible to provide reliable estimates for regions for 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for Wales of 19 January 1996,Official Report, column 838, what are the reasons for the unavailability of the gross domestic product figures for the years after 1991.[11963]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Gross domestic product figures by county for 1993 would normally have been published in December 1995 in Economic Trends. However, extensive revisions to the figures for earlier years are necessary due to source data on the new standard

  611
  industrial classification, SIC(92), becoming available. Since these data became available very late, it was not possible to produce county estimates at that time. The county figures will now be published by the end of March 1996.

  VAT (Computerised Access Equipment)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement regarding reinterpretation of the VAT legislation in relation to VAT exemption on computerised access equipment for blind and partially sighted computer users. [12397]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs and Excise has not made any reinterpretation of VAT law. Specialised adaptations specifically for disabled people are relieved from VAT when supplied to a disabled person. General purpose computer equipment is, and always has been, liable to VAT.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of departmental expenditure on administration for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11449]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Departmental expenditure on administration is included in the running costs published in the departmental report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's departments.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of his Department's expenditure on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96, to date; and if he will list the publications purchased for the latest year for which information is available. [11452]

  Mrs. Knight
  Departmental expenditure on newspapers and magazines is included in the running costs published in the departmental report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's departments.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual telephone costs to(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) his Department's non-departmental public bodies staff for each of the years (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97; and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas of (a) to (c). [11370]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: Expenditure on telephone costs by Her Majesty's Treasury, and agencies and non-departmental public bodies associated with HM Treasury, are included in the running costs published for the Department and each agency.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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
  612
  indicate expenditure on (1) advertising and (2) press and public relations. [11368]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: Expenditure on publicity for HM Treasury, and the agencies responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is included in the running costs published for the Department and each agency.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent Council meeting of the Economic and Finance Ministers of the European Union. [12926]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I represented the UK at the Economic and Finance Council of the European Union in Brussels on 22 January.

  There was a public debate on the incoming Italian presidency's work programme. The Italian programme concentrates on continuing work towards economic and monetary union and fighting unemployment. I agreed with both these priorities and in particular stressed the importance of member states creating the right conditions to stimulate employment. I also encouraged the Council to respect EC budgetary restraints and to make rapid progress in the campaign against fraud and waste within the Community.

  The Commission presented a proposal for extending the mandate for the European investment bank to lend to Asia and Latin America, which expired at the end of 1995, for one year. There was no discussion and the Council will return to this at a later date.

  Earnings (London)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the average(a) weekly earnings, (b) total hours, (c) average hourly earnings and
  (d) median hourly earnings, including and excluding overtime, for (i) all part-time females and (ii) all part-time males on adult rates in each London borough, broken down to show (A) manual and (B) non-manual workers; [11860]

  (2) what proportion of employees on adult rates earn less than (a) £3.20, (b) £3.50, (c) £4, (d) £4.60 and (e) £6 per hour in each London borough, including and excluding overtime for (i) all full-time males, (ii) all part-time males, (iii) all full-time females and (iv) all part-time females on adult rates, broken down to show manual and non-manual workers; [11858]

  (3) if he will list the proportion of full-time employees on adult rates with weekly earnings of less than (a) £150, (b) £200 and (c) £250 per week, including and excluding overtime, in each London borough for all full-time (i) females and (ii) males on adult rates broken down to show manual and non-manual workers. [11859]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  As the information is contained in a number of tables, I will place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what agreements his Department and its executive agencies have with companies for the provision of mobile
  613
  and car phones; and if he will list the companies having these contracts, the duration of the contracts, the number of phones covered by each agreement and the cost to public funds of each agreement. [9740]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: Due to the very low demand for mobile and car phones within HM Treasury, the office of the Paymaster General and the Royal Mint, they have been purchased as required.

  The Central Statistical Office employs an enabling agreement with BT which is renewable annually. This does not involve a commitment to purchase an agreed total. Two car phones have been purchased in the current financial year at a cost of £400 per instrument.

  The Valuation Office uses Inland Revenue procedures to obtain mobile and car phones. Current agreements are with DVH, FGE, BT and Vodafone. These agreements are short term and are based on best value for money, without a commitment to purchase any specific number of instruments.

  Information concerning the cost to public funds of these agreements is currently unavailable.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what costs his Department and executive agencies have incurred as a result of withdrawing from contracts under which mobile phones are provided; and if he will list the companies concerned. [9742]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: HM Treasury, the office of HM Paymaster General, the Central Statistical Office, the Royal Mint and the Valuation Office have not withdrawn from any such contracts.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what procedures were used by his Department in awarding contracts for the supply of mobile and car phones to his Department and its executive agencies; and which companies were involved in tendering for these contracts. [9741]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: Due to the very low demand for mobile and car phones within HM Treasury, the office of the Paymaster General and the Royal Mint there has been no need to initiate a formal tender.

  The Central Statistical Office employs an enabling agreement which was concluded after an informal evaluation of the market based on functionality, service and price.

  The Valuation Office uses Inland Revenue procedures.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [11369]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: Information relating to the years 1979–80, 1989–90 and 1991–92 is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information relating to the other years requested is as follows:
  614

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–961

  Absences (average days per member of staff)

  5.8

  8.5

  7.3

  1To date.

  Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 610, how many staff are currently employed in maintaining the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood; and how many insignia are accounted for in the 1994–95 costs of £204,000. [11566]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 29 January 1996]: The Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood employs 11 staff. In 1994–95, 3,877 insignia were accounted for.

  Finance Bills (Drafting)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pages of the Finance Bill were drafted otherwise than by parliamentary counsel; which were the outside agencies employed to draft sections of the Bill; how many pages were drafted by each agency; and how much was paid to each such agency for the pages drafted by it. [11946]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 29 January 1996]: The following sections of the Finance Bill were drafted by the private sector:

  Pages

  Clauses 6 and 11, legislating two Customs and Excise extra-statutory concessions

  1

  Mrs. Margaret Leates, a draftsman in private practice

  Clauses 21 to 25 and Schedule 2, putting into UK law the second VAT directive

  11½

  Nabarro Nathanson

  Clause 146 and schedule 27, introducing new arrangements for the deduction of tax on foreign dividends by paying and collecting agents

  14

  Freshfields

  Clause 186 and schedule 35, legislating 11 Inland Revenue extra-statutory concessions

  6

  Members of Pump Court Tax Chambers

  Total

  132½

  1Thirty-one of these pages are in schedules which are set in the Finance Bill with a smaller typeface than the clauses.

  The total payment to these draftsmen for work done up to the publication of the Bill is expected to be £130,000. This includes the cost of one page of legislation which Ministers decided, for policy reasons, not to include in this year's Bill.

  The amount paid to each agency is a matter of commercial confidence.

  VAT (Disabled People)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the levying
  615
  of VAT on computer and computer-related equipment purchased by disabled people and charities helping disabled people; if he will place a copy of the directive used by Customs and Excise head office to local offices regarding such imposition; and if he will make a statement. [12412]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 29 January 1996]: I have received a number of representations. Customs and Excise has not issued any general directive on the liability of computers supplied to disabled people. General purpose computer equipment is not, and never has been, relieved from VAT when supplied to disabled people. Relief is, however, available for adaptations designed to make it easier for disabled people to use the equipment. I have placed in the Library a copy of the Customs notice "VAT reliefs for people with disabilities", which is freely available in local VAT offices.

TRANSPORT

  Air Traffic Control (Heathrow Airport)
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the recent changes in air traffic control procedures at Heathrow airport. [10671]

  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for the provision of air traffic control at Heathrow airport. My noble Friend the Minister of Aviation and Shipping has asked the chairman of the CAA to write to the hon. Member.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provisions exist in respect of local authority-owned regional airports from borrowing money for airport development. [11305]

  Mr. Norris
  Capital finance for local authority-owned airports in England and Wales is governed by part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. This applies directly in the case of the smaller airports. In the case of the larger airports, which are structured as public airport companies, part IV has been applied by the Public Airport Companies (Capital Finance) Order 1990, as amended. It is open to local authorities to make use of their basic credit approvals or of any other forms of credit cover available to them under the 1989 Act. For public airport companies, this includes in particular their undistributed profits. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport may issue supplementary credit approvals—SCAs—for specified projects. For Scotland, borrowing consents under section 94 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 may be considered.

  Lorry Ban, London
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to replace the London lorry ban permit scheme. [11224]
  616
  Mr. Norris
  I will discuss the next steps with the local authorities and other interested parties once I have received and considered the interim report form the consultants studying the options for improving the enforcement of the ban.

  Positive about Disabled People Symbol
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [11913]

  Mr. Norris
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Transport Research Laboratory have been symbol users for some time. The Department is encouraging its other agencies to follow suit while actively working with the Employment Service towards adopting the symbol centrally as a demonstration of on-going commitment towards achieving equality of opportunity for disabled people.

  Flight Permits
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department has taken against Air Ops in respect of its operating passenger-carrying flights from the United Kingdom in 1993 without permits. [12176]

  Mr. Norris
  Permits for these flights in the summer of 1993 were issued to Sultan Air on the understanding that Air Operations of Europe—Air Ops—was operating under a wet lease agreement with that airline. It was not until October 1994 that it emerged that the lease agreement might have been terminated before the flights took place. As announced on 10 January, the Department has now reviewed its permit procedures to clarify permit and safety responsibilities as regards applications involving the use of wet-leased aircraft.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances airports can be(a) empowered and (b) required to impound aircraft arriving without permits. [12175]

  Mr. Norris
  There are powers under article 107 of the Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995 enabling the detention of aircraft which are likely to be flown in breach of article 102 of the order. Powers also exist under section 48 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 that enable the detention of aircraft which arrive in the UK when they are prohibited from doing so in the circumstances described in the above section of the Act.

  Coastguard Service
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to replace auxiliary coastguards with watch assistants; [12193]

  (2) what changes have taken place in the level of coastguard station officers over the last year; and if he will make a statement. [12192]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard agency to write to the hon. Member.
  617
  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 30 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about Coastguard Station Officers and Auxiliaries.
  The Coastguard Agency intends to introduce a new permanent grade of Coastguard Watch Assistant. This new grade will replace the part time voluntary service currently provided in operations rooms by Auxiliary Coastguards and will enhance the reliability, training and expertise at this level. It is hoped that many of the present Auxiliaries will apply for the new post.
  There have been no changes to the number of Coastguard Station Officer posts over the last year.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional development is projected as a result of the Newbury bypass. [12095]

  Mr. Watts
  This is a matter for the local planning authorities.

  Track Access Charges
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out all the powers of the rail regulator to compel a change in Railtrack's track access charges before the quinquennial review and to publish the documents in which they are contained. [12014]

  Mr. Watts
  The terms on which the regulator can make changes to the charges made to passenger train operating companies are set out in schedule 7 to the track access agreements. These agreements are on the public register of agreements held by the regulator.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contingency plans he has for the modernisation of the west coast main line if the proposed development of a transmission-based signalling system proves not to be viable. [12287]

  Mr. Watts
  A major priority of the modernisation of the west coast main line for Railtrack is to maintain and renew the network by using modern technology. During initial studies on the modernisation of the line, more conventional signalling systems were considered alongside the proposed transmission-based signalling system which Railtrack has chosen.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is his estimate of the cost of resignalling the west coast main line using the proposed transmission-based signalling system; and what are the financial savings anticipated from its introduction; [12286]

  (2) how many companies are included on the shortlist for the development of the transmission-based signalling system proposed for the west coast main line; and if he will list them; [12284]

  (3) by what dates he will require signalling manufacturers, awarded contracts, to develop the transmission-based signalling system proposed for the west coast main line to complete or demonstrate (a) system design, (b) proof of performance, (c) safety validated working system and (d) manufacture of production equipment. [12283]
  618
  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack is currently considering bids for the contract to develop the proposed transmission-based signalling system for the west coast main line. The system is expected to reduce maintenance and operating costs and provide improved reliability on the line. The other information requested is commercially confidential to Railtrack.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has for a transmission-based signalling system to be installed at major rail junctions on the west coast main line; [12280]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the performance record of the transmission-based signalling technology proposed for the west coast main line; where it is in use elsewhere; how many miles of track it controls; and if it is in use at any rail junctions with traffic densities similar to those on the west coast main line. [12285]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack intends to introduce a transmission-based signalling system to the west coast main line as part of the core modernisation programme for the line. Railtrack informs me that the transmission-based signalling technology is currently employed in differing forms in various parts of the world, but it is not identical to the system planned for the west coast main line. For this reason, Railtrack intends to let development contracts for the signalling system during the first quarter of this year.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to authorise expenditure on signalling technology for the modernisation of the west coast main line prior to its capability being proven. [12278]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack will fund the core modernisation programme of the west coast main line, which includes the proposed new signalling system for the line, from the track access charges which it receives from passenger train operators. The level of these charges over the six years from 1995 has been agreed by the regulator.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many signalling manufacturers have expressed reservations to him about the viability of the proposed introduction of a transmission-based signalling system on the west coast main line. [12279]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to expand aerial surveillance of the extended sea limits in respect of pollution control; and if he will make a statement. [12463]

  Mr. Norris
  The use of aerial surveillance will continue to be reviewed to ensure that it remains a cost-effective method of enforcing marine pollution regulations within the waters under UK jurisdiction, including any future extension to this jurisdiction.

  Trains (Telephones)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if all trains are equipped with two-way telephones. [12384]
  619
  Mr. Watts
  No. Installation of the line-side transmitter equipment for the national radio network is virtually complete. The planned engineering target is 98 per cent. of the network excluding tunnels and cuttings. Most modern train cabs have also been fitted with the necessary equipment.

  In the former Network SouthEast area, British Rail has decided to fit the cab secure radio system, so that further modifications will not be necessary when driver-only operation is extended. About 65 per cent. of passenger train miles in the Network SouthEast area already have cab secure radio.

  Expenditure (Representations)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received following the announcement on 19 December 1995 of transport supplementary costs and credit approvals for transport expenditure by local authorities from(a) hon. Members, (b) local authorities and (c) other organisations and individuals. [12387]

  Mr. Norris
  I have received 49 representations, including 30 parliamentary questions, from hon. Members following the announcement on 19 December. My officials are in regular correspondence with local authorities and others about transport policies and programme—TPP—submissions and about particular schemes. We have had 22 representations from local authorities and 12 from organisations and individuals, often about specific schemes.

  Bus Deregulation (Manchester)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the effects of bus deregulation in the Greater Manchester area over the last five years. [12301]

  Mr. Norris
  Deregulation has brought great benefits to bus travellers in Greater Manchester as it has elsewhere in the country. There are now more operators running more bus miles at lower cost, with new buses on many routes, and significantly less public subsidy than previously.

  London Transport Staff
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 615, what were the occupations of the staff who have left London Transport's employment since 12 November 1994; and if he will list them by category. [12759]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for London Transport.

  Car Mileages
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the average annual and daily mileage travelled by(a) a car commuter and (b) a car shopper. [12699]

  Mr. Norris
  The average annual car commuting mileage of a person who normally travels to work in a car was 3,040 miles in 1992–94, consisting of an average of 620
  348 single-way journeys of 8.7 miles mean length. The average annual car shopping mileage of a driver in a car-owning household was 970 miles in 1992–94, consisting of an average of 186 single-way journeys of 5.2 miles mean length.

  Indian Sub-continent (Travellers)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, columns 270–71, what is his assessment as to the reasons for the increase in arrivals and departures to the Indian sub-continent in the last two years. [12524]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport does not make assessments of the sort requested.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of his Department's expenditure on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96, to date; and if he will list the publications purchased for the latest year for which information is available. [11462]

  Mr. Norris

  (a) 1993–94: £375,000

  (b) 1994–95: £140,000

  (c) 1995–96: £125,000

  Newspapers and magazines bought in 1995–96 include:

  Daily Telegraph

  Financial Times

  Guardian

  Independent

  Times

  Accountancy

  Aircargo News International

  Auto Express

  Automotive International

  Automotive News

  Aviation News/Air Pictorial

  Aviation Week

  Bookseller

  Buses

  Business Traveller

  Business and Commercial Aviation

  Car Mechanics

  Coach and Bus Week

  Coaching Journal and Bus Review

  Commercial Motor

  Containerisation International

  Diesal Car

  Economist

  Executive Travel

  Fairplay International Shipping Weekly

  Flight International

  Government Computing

  Headlight

  International Freighting Weekly

  International Railway Journal

  Light Railway and Modern Tramway

  Modern Railways

  Motor Transport

  New Civil Engineer

  New Scientist

  Port of London Magazine

  621

  Rail

  Rail News

  Railway

  Railway Age

  Railway Gazette International

  Roadway

  Scientific American

  Ships Monthly

  Spectator

  Surveyor

  Traffic Engineering and Control

  Travel Trade Gazette

  Travel Weekly

  Urban Transport International

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of departmental expenditure on administration for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11459]

  Mr. Norris
  Figures of my Department's expenditure on administration for(b) to (g) can be found in the transport report 1995, Cm 2806, which is available in the House of Commons Library. My final outturn figures for (e) and projected outturn figures for (f) will be presented in the transport report 1996, which is due to be published in the latter part of March. My Department's latest budget figure for (g) is £373 million.

  Running costs figures for Departments were not calculated on the same basis prior to 1989–90, so comparable figures for (a) are not readily available.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97. [11458]

  Mr. Norris
  The table represents an estimate of expenditure on hospitality and entertainment by the Department of Transport (central transport group), its agencies, and non-departmental public bodies for the years specified. Figures for 1979–80 and forecasts for 1996–97 are not available. Figures for 1995–96 are forecast outturns based on current expenditure and may include some non-entertainment costs which cannot readily be desegregated.

  1989–90

  1991–92

  1993–94

  Central Transport Group

  114,016

  170,015

  234,986

  Agencies

  4,586

  28,143

  40,718

  Non-departmental public bodies

  5,375

  33,542

  37,144

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Central Transport Group

  127,248

  202,524

  Agencies

  91,828

  97,370

  Non Departmental public bodies

  25,903

  34,768

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department, his Department's agencies and non-departmental public 622
  bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11461]

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

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the annual cost to his Department, his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies of their empty and under-utilised properties for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e)1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11460]

  Mr. Norris
  Prior to 1990, the civil estate was managed by the Property Service Agency. Its archived records can be accessed only at disproportionate cost.

  The estimated annual cost of the vacant and under-utilised space on the Department of Transport's civil estate, excluding that for which the Department of the Environment's property holdings division is responsible, is:

  Year

  Vacant space £

  Under-utilised space £

  1991–92

  1,200

  15,000

  1993–94

  1,289,000

  45,000

  1994–95

  2,037,900

  45,000

  1995–96

  2,657,600

  40,000

  1996–97

  3,674,300

  1,185,200

  Rail Stations (Assaults)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was(a) the total number of assaults and (b) the number of assaults on women at rail stations in each year since 1990 by local authority area. [10522]

  Mr. Watts
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. However, the table details the number of notifiable assaults and assaults by gender at rail stations for 1994 and 1995, broken down by British Transport police areas. Similar information for previous years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Recorded assaults 1994 and 1995

  BTP area

  1994

  1995

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  London north

  192

  36

  228

  165

  25

  190

  North-east

  54

  16

  70

  28

  12

  40

  Scotland

  184

  41

  225

  185

  49

  234

  North-west

  120

  28

  148

  85

  21

  106

  Midlands

  43

  12

  55

  35

  2

  37

  South-west

  44

  10

  54

  29

  14

  43

  London south

  233

  57

  290

  230

  40

  270

  London Underground

  394

  119

  513

  261

  65

  326

  Force total

  1,264

  319

  1,583

  1,018

  228

  1,246

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 9 January,Official

  623
  Report, column 32, about British Rail businesses which have been sold, whether he will give in respect of each business (a) the number of people employed by the business at the time of its sale, (b) the number of employees of the business made redundant by british Rail between 1 January 1993 and the date of its sale, (c) the cost to British Rail of these redundancy payments, (d) the name and address of the businesses' new owner and (e) the sum of money paid by the new owner to acquire the business; and what has been the total sum received to date from the sale of British Rail assets and rail franchises since the Railways Act 1993 received Royal Assent, listing all assets and franchises sold which did not appear in the answer. [11736]

  Mr. Watts
  In relation to the three franchises which have been awarded, the details requested in parts(a) to (c) of the question are matters for the British Railways Board. The details requested in part (d) are: the Great Western Trains franchise was awarded to Great Western Holdings Ltd., Milford house, Milford street, Swindon, SN1 1DW; the LTS Rail franchise was awarded to Enterprise Rail of Central house, Clifftown road, Southend-on-Sea, SS1 1AB; and the South West Trains franchise was awarded to Stagecoach Holdings plc of Charlotte house, 20 Charlotte street, Perth, PH1 5LL.

  In relation to the sales of BR businesses, the details requested in parts (a) to (d) are matters for the British Railways Board.

  In relation to the sales of the three rolling stock leasing companies, the details requested in parts (b) and (c) are for the British Railways Board. The details requested in parts (a) and (d) are:
  Angel Train Leasing Ltd. Fifty-five staff were employed at the time of sale. The address of the registered office is Mitre house, 160 Aldersgate street, London, EC1A 4DD;
  Eversholt Leasing Ltd. Sale due to be completed shortly: Fifty-eight staff currently employed. The address is 9th floor, 1 Eversholt street, London NW1 1DN;
  Porterbrook Leasing Ltd. Forty-seven staff were employed at the time of sale. The address is Burdett house, Beckett street, Derby, DE1 1JP.

  In relation to the figures requested in part (e) and the final part of the question: the first three franchises were awarded as contracts to run services in return for the payment of grant and will not generate receipts for the Government; gross proceeds from the sales to date of other BR businesses amount to some £266 million. There have been no further sales of such businesses since 9 January. As explained in the Government's response of 14 December 1995 to the Transport Committee's fourth report, on railway finances, it would be contrary to the commercial interests of British Rail and the Government to publish details of individual sales at this stage, as that may prejudice similar sales still in progress. Details of individual sales completed by BR will be made public in due course.

  The sale of the three rolling stock leasing companies have generated, or will generate on completion, receipts as follows: Angel Train Leasing Ltd., sale completed 17 January 1996—£696 million; Eversholt Leasing Ltd., sale due to be completed shortly—£580 million, including £80 million deferred and contingent; and Porterbrook Leasing Ltd., sale completed 8 January 1996—£572 million.
  624
  The proceeds of the sales to date amount to some £2,114 million.

  Transport and the Environment
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish his response to "Transport and the Environment", the 18th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution; and if he will make a statement. [12401]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 7 November,Official Report, column 755.

  Electrification Scheme (West Yorkshire)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take action to ensure leasing arrangements are put into place to enable new rolling stock to be acquired and operated under the west Yorkshire electrification scheme; and if he will make a statement. [12258]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 29 January]: The acquisition of new rolling stock is a matter for the train operator, in conjunction with the West Yorkshire passenger train executives, to discuss with rolling stock leasing companies.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has called for reports into recent incidents concerning the failure of rolling stock being operated under the west Yorkshire electrification scheme; what subsequent action he has taken; and if he will make a statement. [12257]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 29 January]: An incident on 17 November, when there was an electrical explosion on a class 308 electric multiple unit, has been reported to the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate, and an investigation by railway research staff is being monitored by HSE inspectors. All the trains in service have been examined and the inspectorate is satisfied that the necessary measures are in place to allow them to be used safely.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Pakistan
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Pakistan concerning child labour. [12299]

  Mr. Hanley
  We regularly express our concerns to the Government of Pakistan about child labour. We welcome recent steps that they have taken to improve the situation on bonded and child labour, such as widening access to schooling and the setting up of vigilance committees. However, we recognise that much remains to be done to resolve the problem.

  Endangered Species (Hong Kong)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he made to the Chinese authorities on his recent visit
  625
  regarding the future protection of endangered species in Hong Kong. [12335]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Chinese agreed in December 1991 that the United Nations convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora—CITES—would continue to apply to Hong Kong after the transfer of sovereignty on 1 July 1997. Hong Kong's strict customs controls and legislation on endangered species will also continue to apply. Therefore, no such representations were made, since these would not have added to the strong safeguards that already exist.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of his Department's expenditure on newspaper and magazines in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96, to date; and if he will list the publications purchased for the latest year for which information is available. [11442]

  Mr. Hanley
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic wing expenditure in the UK on newspapers and magazines was as follows:

  1993–94: £95,631

  1994–95: £101,909

  1995–96: £77,395 (to the end December)

  Additionally, posts overseas spent the following on books, periodicals and newspapers. Figures for 1995–96 will be available only at the end of the financial year.

  1993–94: £1,072,972

  1994–95: £1,104,409

  Figures for newspapers and magazines alone, purchased overseas, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Overseas Development Administration does not maintain separate records of expenditure on newspapers and magazines alone. Expenditure on all publications, including books, newspapers and journals, by the ODA including the Natural Resources Institute, was as follows:

  1993–94: £244,857

  1994–95: £264,821

  1995–96: £196,776 (to date)

  The FCO buys a very wide selection of publications in the UK and from around the world. A list could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of his Department's expenditure on administration for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11439]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to appendix A of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office departmental report for 1995—Cm 2802—and previous years, copies of which can be found in the Library of the House. Our 1996 departmental report will be published in March. Information on expenditure in 1979–80 can be obtained from the FCO diplomatic and aid wings appropriation accounts 1979–80, which is also available in the Library of the House. When comparing expenditure over different periods, it should be noted that there have been a number 626
  of structural changes in the FCO since 1979–80 which are explained in the departmental reports and appropriation accounts.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the annual cost to his Department, his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies of their empty and under-utilised properties for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11440]

  Mr. Hanley
  Since 1989–90 the only cost to the FCO diplomatic wing for empty or under-utilised properties in the UK was incurred in 1995–96. Both freehold properties concerned are being sold. Rents—payable to property holdings—amounted to £98,173 with a further £114,444 contribution in lieu of rates. There were offsetting savings of £34,000 from lettings on both sites. Information in respect of 1979–80 is not available.

  In respect of the overseas estate, the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. It is departmental policy to dispose of vacant or under-utilised elements of the overseas estate as quickly and as cost-effectively as possible.

  The ODA does not have any empty or under-utilised property.

  Of the FCO's agencies and non-departmental public bodies, only the Natural Resources Institute has empty or under-utilised property and it will write to the hon. Member with full details. The information requested in respect of the British Council could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Anthony Beattie to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 29 January 1996:
  I have been asked by Mr. Hanky to reply for the Natural Resources Institute to your question to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about the cost of empty and under-utilised accommodation.
  The Institute, which was formed by the amalgamation of a number of scientific units of the Overseas Development Administration, became a Next Steps agency on 1 April 1990.
  When the Institute moved to Chatham in the period 1988–1990, a site at Culham in Oxfordshire became surplus to requirements. Disposal of the site, which was originally acquired by the Crown for wartime use as an airfield, has been complicated by both legal and planning issues. These have been resolved and the site is now in the process of sale.
  Pending disposal, the Institute pays rent at an assessed rate to Property Holdings (Department of the Environment). The cost to the Institute, (but not to the Exchequer) has been some £366,000 per annum, this figure being reduced in 1995–96 to £277,000 following a reassessment. The running costs of the site (primarily maintenance and security) come to some £35,000 a year. We expect to dispose of the property by the end of this financial year, although planning restrictions will limit the realisable value.
  As regards the Chatham site itself, a view has been taken of future accommodation requirements in the light of the first triennial review of NRI as an agency (completed 1993) and a subsequent review of business prospects up to the end of the century. These studies have also formed the basis of the current offer of the Institute for sale.
  The Institute's declining requirement for accommodation has enabled us to let accommodation to the University of Greenwich. thus securing an income of some £900,000 in 1994–95 and an estimated £1.3 million in 1995–96.

  627
  Our objective in the context of restructuring and sale of the Institute is further to reduce our accommodation to some 6,400 square metres (compared with a total site area in excess of 17,000 square metres), thereby releasing space for letting to other users.
  I trust the above provides the information you require.

  Official Trade Missions
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he makes of political circumstances, and what weight he attaches to human rights abuses, when deciding whether official trade missions should take place. [12289]

  Mr. Hanley
  Decisions to send official trade missions are taken in the light of a number of factors, including the political and economic situation of the country concerned, the commercial opportunities for British companies and their interest in the market. Trade missions are briefed by British diplomatic posts on all relevant aspects of the country's political situation including its human rights record.

  Diplomatic Service (Science-related Posts)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) costs and (b) the number of science-related posts in the diplomatic service for each year since 1979. [12325]

  Mr. Hanley
  The costs, including salaries, allowances, travel costs and accommodation, and numbers for science-related posts in the diplomatic service are as follows:

  Numbers

  £ cost

  1993–94

  24.4

  2,240,586

  1994–95

  24.4

  2,313,237

  Table 1: Staff numbers in EU institutions as amended by successive budgets

  1994

  1995

  1995

  1995

  1996

  Total staff

  Budget increase

  Supplementary budget increase

  Total staff

  Budget increase

  Court of Justice

  837

  0

  113

  950

  0

  Court of Auditors

  427

  31

  45

  503

  0

  Economic and Social Committee and Committee of the Regions

  599

  62

  55

  716

  0

  Council

  2,304

  75

  86

  2,465

  42

  Commission

  14,918

  650

  268

  15,836

  193

  1. Only a part of the 1995 budget increase in staff numbers were in response to enlargement.

  2. The 1995 supplementary budget staff increases were almost all due to enlargement.

  3. The increase in Commission staff for 1996 is divided mainly between enlargement (95 staff) and fraud prevention. The Council increase is mostly for enlargement.

  Source:

  Report of the Budget Committee to COREPER, on the 1996 budgetary procedure, 7 July 1995. Ref 8770/95.

  With the latest enlargement, the European Parliament grew by 59 new MEPs. From 1995 to 1997, it will be taking on 335 extra staff, 157 for translation and interpreting.

  Following enlargement only, the European Parliament has a redundancy programme. The programme was agreed by the Budget Council on 17 November 1995 and runs for five years. It is therefore too early to say what the average length of service is for those staff being made
  628
  Details for previous years are not readily available and could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the planned(a) expenditure on and (b) cost of science-related posts in the diplomatic service over the next three years. [12326]

  Mr. Hanley
  The forecast total cost and expenditure for science-related posts in the diplomatic service over the next three financial years are as follows:

  1995–96: £2,174,000

  1996–97: £2,139,906

  1997–98: £2,193,404

  European Union Staff
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes will take place in European Union staff numbers as a result of enlargement; what changes were originally forecast; what is the average length of service of those receiving redundancy; how the cost of redundancy is related to length of service; and what is the average length of service of those receiving redundancy per head in respect of(a) permanent staff, (b) temporary staff, (c) professional staff and (d) clerical and other staff. [10347]

  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: On 1 January 1995, the EU enlarged to 15 member states with the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden. Many of the new posts created as a result have not yet been filled. The final changes as a result of enlargement are therefore not yet known.

  The forecast staff numbers are agreed by the Council in the budget. The table lists the successive budgets which have increased staff numbers, at least in part as a result of enlargement.

  redundant. However, the programme is open only to "fonctionnaires"—permanent staff —with more than 10 years' service, and "agents temporaire"—on fixed-term contracts—with more than 15 years' service. The minimum age for fonctionnaires to be eligible for the scheme is 55. For agents temporaire, it is 50.

  The cost of redundancy is not related to the length of service. Redundant staff receive 70 per cent. of their basic

  629
  pay until the age of 65, or until they are entitled to receive a full pension, whichever is earlier.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Access to Work
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 14 December,Official Report, column 738, what guidelines her Department has issued to placing, assessment and counselling team managers and regional PACT managers on the funding of access to work. [12216]

  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. Gordon McMaster, dated 30 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about guidelines to Placing, Assessment and Counselling Team (PACT) and regional PACT managers on the funding of Access to Work.
  Funding for Access to Work is devolved to regions. PACT managers and regional PACT managers have general guidance on the management of budgets and, from the outset of Access to Work, they have had specific guidance on the management of Access to Work resources.
  Since the Secretary of State's announcement on 14 December 1995 we have issued further guidance to ensure that resources are being targeted in line with the announcement.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the funds allocated to(a) access to work schemes and (b) the supported employment schemes are cash limited in (i) the present financial year and (ii) 1996—97 financial year. [11975]

  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. Dafydd Wigley, dated 30 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question about whether the funds allocated to the Access to Work and Supported Employment programmes are cash limited.
  I can confirm funds allocated to Access to Work and to Supported Employment programmes are part of a cash limited Vote in both the present and the 1996–97 financial years.
  However, as a Next Steps Agency the Employment Service has specific financial flexibilities, which enable me to switch provision in-year between programmes, within the overall Vote. Exercising these flexibilities are subject to HM Treasury confirmation.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Park School, Barnstaple
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects to reply to the letters from the hon. Member for North Devon of 630
  5 October and 9 November 1995 and 3 January 1996 concerning Park school, Barnstaple. [12514]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 25 January 1996. We have not received the letter of 3 January 1996.

  Head Teachers
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of secondary school head teachers were women in(a) 1975, (b) 1980, (c) 1985, (d) 1990 and (e) 1995 (i) by local education authority and (ii) nationally. [10518]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Percentage of secondary school headteachers who were women in each local education authority area in England 1975–19951 2

  Position in January each year

  1975

  1980

  1985

  1990

  1995

  Corporation of London

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Camden

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  73

  55

  Greenwich

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  53

  47

  Hackney

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  40

  70

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  30

  67

  Islington

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  50

  67

  Kensington and Chelsea

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  60

  75

  Lambeth

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  40

  55

  Lewisham

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  29

  54

  Southwark

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  44

  62

  Tower Hamlets

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  57

  40

  Wandsworth

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  45

  33

  Westminster

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  63

  38

  ILEA

  41

  39

  45

  n/a

  n/a

  Barking and Dagenham

  18

  18

  9

  0

  13

  Barnet

  25

  28

  26

  33

  33

  Bexley

  26

  25

  42

  41

  19

  Brent

  17

  28

  17

  27

  31

  Bromley

  42

  41

  35

  32

  41

  Croydon

  29

  28

  17

  19

  20

  Ealing

  24

  19

  20

  23

  42

  Enfield

  19

  18

  25

  24

  13

  Haringey

  38

  36

  20

  44

  33

  Harrow

  27

  27

  45

  30

  20

  Havering

  14

  14

  24

  21

  28

  Hillingdon

  14

  20

  5

  17

  20

  Hounslow

  20

  29

  36

  29

  36

  Kingston upon Thames

  42

  42

  45

  50

  40

  Merton

  26

  32

  42

  50

  36

  Newham

  25

  19

  31

  40

  71

  Redbridge

  30

  29

  25

  7

  20

  Richmond upon Thames

  17

  33

  25

  50

  38

  Sutton

  35

  33

  38

  36

  43

  Waltham Forest

  26

  25

  22

  31

  38

  Birmingham

  26

  23

  20

  25

  33

  Coventry

  23

  23

  19

  11

  21

  Dudley

  15

  13

  12

  16

  18

  Sandwell

  20

  12

  8

  9

  5

  Solihull

  12

  11

  11

  21

  15

  Walsall

  4

  8

  8

  9

  25

  Wolverhampton

  17

  14

  14

  20

  15

  Knowsley

  13

  10

  6

  0

  9

  Liverpool

  35

  34

  33

  28

  31

  631

  Percentage of secondary school headteachers who were women in each local education authority area in England 1975–19951 2

  Position in January each year

  1975

  1980

  1985

  1990

  1995

  St. Helens

  12

  11

  12

  8

  0

  Sefton

  26

  19

  17

  14

  23

  Wirral

  32

  34

  31

  36

  33

  Bolton

  10

  20

  11

  6

  19

  Bury

  11

  6

  13

  0

  14

  Manchester

  25

  29

  22

  18

  21

  Oldham

  5

  0

  6

  20

  27

  Rochdale

  0

  7

  11

  17

  21

  Salford

  4

  8

  4

  6

  11

  Stockport

  19

  18

  16

  13

  27

  Tameside

  28

  29

  11

  11

  22

  Trafford

  35

  35

  29

  24

  25

  Wigan

  10

  7

  10

  12

  14

  Barnsley

  13

  4

  5

  11

  14

  Doncaster

  13

  10

  3

  9

  15

  Rotherham

  5

  0

  0

  0

  12

  Sheffield

  14

  18

  13

  9

  32

  Bradford

  11

  8

  13

  20

  26

  Calderdale

  8

  13

  26

  24

  13

  Kirklees

  13

  8

  8

  16

  13

  Leeds

  27

  24

  24

  20

  13

  Wakefield

  7

  7

  4

  5

  14

  Gateshead

  10

  11

  6

  0

  23

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  19

  14

  22

  26

  38

  North Tyneside

  11

  15

  25

  15

  22

  South Tyneside

  15

  6

  7

  8

  18

  Sunderland

  6

  8

  8

  6

  12

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  21

  17

  17

  18

  17

  Bedfordshire

  8

  9

  7

  8

  19

  Berkshire

  24

  22

  22

  31

  32

  Buckinghamshire

  18

  17

  20

  22

  25

  Cambridge

  6

  6

  9

  20

  18

  Cheshire

  24

  21

  18

  15

  18

  Cleveland

  7

  9

  10

  11

  14

  Cornwall

  13

  6

  6

  10

  13

  Cumbria

  13

  15

  12

  14

  10

  Derbyshire

  9

  7

  10

  14

  15

  Devon

  12

  10

  15

  12

  17

  Dorset

  20

  18

  18

  24

  16

  Durham

  5

  0

  2

  7

  9

  East Susex

  19

  11

  9

  9

  26

  Essex

  17

  22

  17

  14

  15

  Gloucestershire

  13

  11

  14

  16

  14

  Hampshire

  20

  16

  13

  20

  24

  Hereford and Worcester

  10

  13

  11

  8

  12

  Hertfordshire

  17

  13

  19

  22

  22

  Humberside

  16

  14

  18

  20

  20

  Isle of Wight

  6

  0

  10

  14

  19

  Kent

  29

  27

  25

  28

  30

  Lancashire

  10

  10

  7

  8

  16

  Leicestershire

  17

  17

  20

  23

  28

  Lincolnshire

  15

  14

  14

  16

  17

  Norfolk

  14

  13

  13

  9

  12

  North Yorkshire

  12

  10

  24

  10

  14

  Northamptonshire

  18

  15

  10

  20

  21

  Northumberland

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  Nottinghamshire

  15

  10

  10

  11

  20

  Oxfordshire

  7

  4

  15

  19

  20

  Shropshire

  18

  12

  15

  14

  23

  Somerset

  3

  0

  5

  10

  10

  Staffordshire

  12

  6

  8

  8

  15

  Suffolk

  11

  9

  11

  15

  18

  Surrey

  18

  9

  10

  10

  12

  632

  Percentage of secondary school headteachers who were women in each local education authority area in England 1975–19951 2

  Position in January each year

  1975

  1980

  1985

  1990

  1995

  Warwickshire

  22

  17

  12

  16

  32

  West Sussex

  19

  21

  15

  12

  27

  Wiltshire

  9

  10

  14

  9

  16

  England

  18

  16

  16

  18

  21

  n/a not applicable.

  1Excludes sixth form colleges.

  2Excludes headteachers employed by local education authroities who were not attached to a particular school.

  Equal Pay Act 1970 (Claims)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many new claims were initiated under the 1983 equal value amendment to the Equal Pay Act 1970 in each year since 1983; how many were successful; and what was the average length of each case; [10520]

  (2) how many new claims have been initiated under Equal Pay Act 1970 in each year since 1970; how many were successful; and what was the average length of each case. [10521]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The precise information requested is not available.

  The Equal Pay Act 1970 came into effect on 29 December 1975. Statistics showing the number of equal pay cases disposed of in each year since 1976, and the number of successful cases in each of those years, are shown in the following table.

  Year

  Equal pay cases disposed of1

  Number successful2

  1976

  1,742

  213

  1977

  751

  91

  1978

  343

  24

  1979

  263

  13

  1980

  91

  4

  1981

  54

  6

  1982

  39

  2

  1983

  35

  9

  1984

  70

  11

  1985

  302

  37

  1986

  517

  44

  1987

  1,043

  7

  1988

  813

  14

  1989

  397

  33

  1990

  508

  10

  1991

  227

  5

  1992

  240

  21

  1993

  780

  19

  Total

  8,215

  563

  1Many equal pay cases typically consist of a single complaint to which is linked a number of identical claims made by colleagues of the complainant who are employed by the same employer. When a tribunal disposes of a complainant's case, all other cases linked to it are disposed of in the same way and are recorded as such in tribunal statistics.

  2This column records the actual number of successful complaints decided by tribunals. The figures do not include linked complaints which were not actually heard by tribunals.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her estimate of her Department's expenditure on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96 to date; and if she will list the publications purchased for the latest year for which information is available. [11535]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Detailed financial information is not held in the form requested. However, the following annexe lists newspaper and magazine publications currently purchased by the Department's library.

  Annexe: Comprehensive list of newspaper/magazine (mainly weekly) titles obtained by the library

  ABC Guide to International Travel

  ABC Railway Guide

  ABC World Airways Guide

  Accountancy

  Accountant

  Architectural Review

  Asian Times

  Bookseller

  British Journal of Photography

  Building

  Campaign

  Caterer and Hotelkeeper

  Catholic Herald

  Child Education

  Church Times

  Construction News

  Contract Journal

  Cooks European Timetable

  Daily Express

  Daily Mirror

  Daily Star

  Daily Telegraph

  Der Spiegel

  Design

  Economist

  Education

  Engineer

  Engineering

  European

  Evening Standard

  Financial Times

  Gramophone

  Guardian

  Health Service Journal

  History Today

  Independent

  Independent on Sunday

  International Herald Tribune

  Junior Education

  L'Express

  Lloyds List

  Local Government Chronicle

  Mail on Sunday

  Management Today

  Manchester Evening News

  Marketing

  Marketing Week

  Media Week

  Morning Advertiser

  634

  Morning Star

  Municipal Journal

  Nature

  New Law Journal

  New Scientist

  New Statesman

  News of the World

  Newsweek

  Northern Echo

  Nursing Times and Nursing Mirror

  Observer

  Le Point

  Post Magazine and Insurance Monitor

  PR Week

  Printing World

  Private Eye

  Radio Times

  Scientific American

  Sheffield Star

  Sheffield Telegraph

  Spectator

  Stage and Television Today

  Sun

  Sunday Express

  Sunday Mirror

  Sunday People

  Sunday Telegraph

  Sunday Times

  Tablet

  Time International

  Time Magazine

  Time Out

  Times

  Times Education Supplement

  Times Higher Educational Supplement

  Times Literary Supplement

  Today

  Tribune

  TV Times

  The Voice

  UK Press Gazette

  Universe

  Die Zeit

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by(a) her Department, (b) her Department's agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97. [11531]

  Mr. Squire
  The first year for which figures are readily available for the new Department and its agencies is 1993–94. Figures for earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The available outturn figures (rounded to the nearest £'000) are:

  £ 000

  1993–94

  1994–95

  DFEE

  121

  88

  Agencies (Teachers' Pensions Agency and Employment Service)

  36

  11

  635
  Latest estimated outturn figures for 1995–96 are:

  £'000

  DFEE

  85

  Agencies (Teachers' Pensions Agency and Employment Service)

  8

  While overall administration budgets for 1996–97 have been settled, detailed budgets for individual activities, such as hospitality and entertainment, have not yet been finalised.

  Information on expenditure on hospitality and entertainment by the Department's sponsored non-departmental public bodies is not available centrally.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her estimate of the annual cost to her Department and her Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies of their empty and under-utilised properties for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90,(c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11533]

  Mr. Squire
  Information is not held in the form that has been requested.

  However, the Department for Education and Employment currently has 14 empty properties costing around £2.1 million per annum. Only marginal changes are expected in 1996–97. Figures for earlier years could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  For the Department's agencies, the Employment Service currently has 143 empty properties currently costing around £7 million per annum. Most of these have arisen from integrating benefit offices and jobcentres. Figures for earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In the five years to March 1995, 840 properties were disposed of.

  Information on the Department's non-departmental public bodies could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  For properties occupied by the Department but which currently form part of the common user estate, reference should be made to the answer provided by the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her estimate of departmental expenditure on administration for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11532]

  Mr. Squire
  Details of the Department's expenditure on administration for the years 1989–90, 1991–92 and 1993–94 are contained in the annual reports of the former Employment Department and Department for Education, Cm 2805 for Employment and Cm 2810 for Education. The annual reports also show expenditure planned at the time of publication for 1995–96 and 1996–97. Expenditure for 1994–95 is included in the Department's published appropriation accounts. Expenditure for 636
  1979–80 is contained in the Government's expenditure plans, Cm 9428-II. Copies of these documents are available in the Library.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her estimate of the expenditure of her Department, her Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11534]

  Mr. Squire
  The information is as follows:

  OVERSEAS TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATION AND OTHER ASSOCIATED EXPENSES.

  Expenditure by the Department

  (a) 1979–80: Figures are not available

  (b) 1989–90: Figures are not available

  (c) 1991–92: £792,290

  (d) 1993–94: £892,933

  (e) 1994–95: £842,917

  (f) 1995–96: £810,000 (estimate)

  (g) 1996–97: £810,000 (estimate)

  For 1995–96 and earlier, the figures amalgamate the relevant expenditure of the former Department for Education and the former Department of Employment.

  Expenditure by the Department's Agencies

  Details of overseas travel by staff of the Employment Service are not separately recorded and could not be provided without disproportionate cost. Nil expenditure has been incurred, or is forecast to be incurred, by staff of the Teachers' Pensions Agency.

  Expenditure by Non Departmental Public Bodies (NDPB) sponsored by the Department

  Information about overseas travel costs for the Department's NDPBs is not available centrally.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his estimate of his Department's expenditure on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96 to date; and if he will list the publications purchased for the latest year for which information is available. [11504]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The estimated expenditure on newspapers and magazines by the Lord Chancellor's Department, including the Court Service, is as follows:

  1993–94: £53,500

  1994–95: £54,700

  1995–96: £57,500

  The publications that incurred the above expenditure were:

  Newspapers:

  Daily Express, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Daily Star, Daily Telegraph, European, Evening Standard, Financial Times, Independent, Independent on Sunday, Le Monde, News of the World, Observer, People, Sun, Sunday Telegraph, Sunday Times, The Times, Die Zeit.

  Magazines

  Accountancy, Architects Journal, Banking World, Bookseller, Building, Chartered Surveyor, Computing, Construction News, Design Week, Economist, Estate Times, Estates

  637
  Gazette, Justice of the Peace, Law Society's Gazette, The Lawyer, Legal Business, Litigation, Litigation Letter, Magistrate, Management Accounting, Management Matters, Management Services, Management Today, New Law Journal, New Scientist, New Statesman and Society, Online and CD ROM Review, PC Magazine, PC Plus, PC Week, Police Review, Practical Computing, Private Eye, Radio Times, Social Work Today, Socio-Legal Newsletter, Solicitors' Journal, Spectator, Which?, Which Computer?

  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 19 January 1996, regarding the estimated cost of expenditure on newspapers and magazines in 1993–94, 1995–96 to date; and a list of the publications purchased for the latest year for which the information is available.
  The figures provided below indicate the monies spent from the Books and Newspapers budget and will, therefore, include the cost of purchasing books as well as newspapers and magazines. The figures for the cost of newspapers and magazines alone could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  1993–94: £26,208

  1994–95: £26,518

  1995–96: £19,658 (to date)

  The list of publications purchased in 1995–96 are as follows:

  The Times

  The Financial Times

  The Independent

  The Times (Saturday)

  The Independent (Saturday)

  Post Magazine

  Solicitor's Journal

  Taxation

  Estates Gazette

  Country Life

  Money Management

  ABC Railway Guide

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97. [11501]

  Mr. Evans
  Expenditure on entertainment including all forms of hospitality are given in the table.

  Entertainment

  Financial year

  LCD1

  Legal Aid Board

  1979–80

  Not available

  Not available

  1989–90

  18,886

  Not exceeding £500

  1991–92

  20,895

  Not exceeding £500

  1993–94

  20,477

  Not exceeding £500

  1994–95

  226,159

  Not exceeding £500

  1995–96*

  327,694

  Not exceeding £500

  1996–97*

  428,456

  Not exceeding £500

  1Includes all non-departmental public bodies except the Legal Aid Board.

  2Includes the Public Trust Office which became an agency on 1 July 1994.

  3Forecast based on expenditure to December 1995. The Court Service became an agency on 3 April 1995.

  4Forecast based on 1995–96 figure.

  638
  The first column of figures is for the whole of my Department apart from those years marked with an asterix which exclude the Court Service and Public Trust Office agencies. I have asked the chief executives of the agencies to reply direct for the years 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply in respect of the Court Service to your question about annual hospitality and entertainment expenditure.
  The estimated annual figures for hospitality and entertainment expenditure from 3 April 1995, the date on which the Court Service was established, are:

  1995–96: £8,800

  1996–97: £8,800

  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 19 January 1996, regarding the estimate for expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment for the years 1979–80, 1989–90, 1991–92, 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97.
  The Public Trust Office became an Agency on 1 July 1994 and the figures prior to that date will be included in our departmental Headquarters response. The estimated expenditure from 1 July 1994 are as follows:

  1 July 1994–95: £530

  1995–96: £685

  1996–97: £705

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  Parliamentary question—expenditure on hospitality and entertainment in HM Land Registry.
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question on expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment, I can provide the following information for the years quoted:

  (a) 1979–80: £747

  (b) 1989–90: £6,299

  (c) 1991–92: £13,993

  (d) 1993–94: 7,083

  (e) 1994–95: £12,888

  (f) 1995–96: £8,622 (at 31 December 1995)

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

  Letter from Dr. Elizabeth Hallam Smith to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive, who is away from the Office on official business, I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question about expenditure on hospitality and entertainment in the agencies for which he is responsible.

  Expenditure since 1993–94 has been:

  1993–94: £8,298

  1994–95: £6,752

  1995–96: £7,120

  1996–97: £8,220 (budget)

  Figures for earlier years could only be supplied at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his estimate of the annual cost to his Department and his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies of their empty and under-utilised properties for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97.[11499]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Lord Chancellor's Department does not keep comprehensive financial records for empty or under-used properties on the departmental estate and the information required could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, or is not available. The chief executives for each of the Department's agencies will be responding separately.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to the above Question about the cost to the Court Service of empty or under used property.
  The Court Service does not keep comprehensive financial records for empty or under used properties on the Departmental Estate and the information required could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 19 January 1996, regarding the estimated cost of empty and under utilised buildings for the years 1979–80, 1989–90, 1991–92, 1993–94, 1995–96 and 1996–97.
  The Public Trust Office does not have any empty or under-utilised buildings.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question on estimates of the costs of empty and under-utilised properties.
  I understand that the Property Holding Division of the Department of the Environment will provide central figures for Common User Estate vacant space from 1990/91 to date. Figures prior to then are held by the Property Services Agency who, I am informed, could only access this information at disproportionate cost.
  As to Land Registry accommodation that is not Common User Estate, I can provide the following estimates of costs of empty property for the years quoted:

  (a) 1979–80: Nil

  (b) 1989–90: Nil

  (c) 1991–92: £15,200

  (d) 1993–94: £244,360

  (e) 1994–95: £240,099

  (f) 1995–96: £379,728

  (g) 1996–97: £397,931

  The 1996–97 estimate represents the maximum potential costs over the full twelve month period. The properties are being actively marketed and the actual annual costs are likely to be lower.
  Surplus accommodation has arisen in the Land Registry following reductions in its staff of some 3400 from the 1989–90 peak.
  The Land Registry does not maintain any central records of the costs of under-utilised properties and this information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  640
  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question about the cost of empty and under-utilised properties in the agencies for which he is responsible.
  The properties of the Public Record Office form part of the Common User Estate. Since 1979, none has been empty or under-utilised.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his estimate of departmental expenditure on administration for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11502]

  Mr. Evans
  Details of my Department's running costs and administrative spending for the year 1979–80 are contained in table 3.9 of the "Government's Expenditure Plans 1985–86 to 1987–88", volume II (Cm 9428-II); figures for the years 1989–90 to 1997–98 are contained in table 4 of my Department's annual report published in March 1995 (Cm 2809). Copies of these documents are available in the Members' Library.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply in respect of the Court Service to your Question about estimated annual expenditure on administration.
  The estimated annual figures for expenditure on administration for the Court Service from 3 April 1995, the date on which the Court Service was established, are:

  1995–1996: £32,307,000

  1996–1997: £31,600,000

  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 19 January 1996, regarding the estimated expenditure on administration for the years 1979–80, 1989–90, 1991–92, 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97.
  The Public Trust Office became and Agency on 1 July 1994 and the administration costs prior to that date can be found in the Lord Chancellor's Department's Departmental Report. The Annual Report for 1994–95 provides details of expenditure for that year, a copy of which can be found in the House of Commons Library, however the figure for that year and the estimate for 1995–96 and 1996–97 are given below.

  1994–95: £18.5 million

  1995–96: £19.76 million (estimate)

  1996–97: £19.48 million (estimate)

  It is worth noting that the Public Trust Office is required to cover its cost by fee income.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department and his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11503]

  Mr. Evans
  Except for the Legal Aid Board—established on 1 April 1989—which incurred £4,215 of such expenditure in 1994–95, expenditure on overseas
  641
  travel and accommodation is not monitored separately in my Department and non-departmental public bodies and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. We estimate that the maximum spent in any one year is no more than £35,000. Since this is an operational matter, I have asked the chief executives of the Court Service and Public Trust Office to reply direct for the years since they became agencies.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply in respect of the Court Service to your Question about estimated annual overseas travel and accommodation expenditure.
  The Court Service does not have a budget for overseas travel, accommodation and expenses. Consequently, the estimated expenditure for the financial year 1995–96 is nil and no allocation has been provided for the financial year 1996–97.

  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 19 January 1996, regarding the estimated expenditure for overseas travel for the years 1979–80, 1989–90, 1991–92, 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97.
  The Public Trust Office became an Agency on 1 July 1994, prior to which no separate figures are available for the cost of overseas travel, however, the estimated costs for 1994 onwards are as follows:

  1994–95: No overseas travel

  1995–96: £4,900

  1996–97: £8,850

  Letter from Dr. Elizabeth Hallam Smith to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive, who is away from the Office on official business, I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question about expenditure on overseas travel, overseas accommodation and associated expenses in the executive agencies for which he is responsible.
  The Public Record Office does not keep separate figures for overseas travel, accommodation and associated expenses. It has found from its experience in calculating 1994–95 expenditure (which was £7,708) in response to an earlier Parliamentary Question (12 July 1995, Official Report, Column 600), that such figures could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question on expenditure on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses. I can provide the following information for the years quoted:

  (a) 1979–80: Figures are not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost:

  (b) 1989–90: Figures are not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost:

  (c) 1991–92: Figures are not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost:

  (d) 1993–94: £3780

  (e) 1994–95: £8084

  (f) 1995–96: £2550 (at 31.12.95)

  642

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

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consideration the Lord Chancellor has given to removing responsibility for the grant of criminal legal aid from the magistrates courts. [13087]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  This question highlights a difficult problem to which the Lord Chancellor has accorded high priority for a considerable time.

  The Legal Aid Act 1988 vests in the magistrates courts the function of deciding on the grant or refusal of legal aid in criminal cases. In the performance of their functions the courts act independently of any Government Department.

  In December 1993 my predecessor explained to the House that the Comptroller and Auditor General had repeatedly qualified his opinion on the Department's appropriation account because of material uncertainty as to whether the regulations governing the grant of criminal legal aid were being applied with sufficient rigour. He affirmed to the House that in no circumstances could any irregularity in dispensing public money be acceptable, and he recounted the measures that had been taken to rectify matters.

  Among them was an examination of the feasibility of transferring the function to the Legal Aid Board. My predecessor explained to the House his reasons for declining to take that step at that time, and he undertook to give further consideration to that and alternative measures if other continuing action failed to achieve an acceptable result.

  The Comptroller and Auditor General has again qualified his opinion of the 1994–95 appropriation account. During the last two years a number of statutory and administrative changes have been made, with the help and co-operation of the Legal Aid Board and the Justices' Clerks Society. The results have been closely audited both by my Department and by the National Audit Office. I am pleased to report that significant improvements in the levels of compliance with the regulations have recently become apparent. The improvement is marked enough to give reason to think that satisfactorily high levels of compliance could be achieved under the present arrangements, although further marked improvements are needed to achieve that result.

  The Lord Chancellor has now proposed more fundamental reforms of the legal aid scheme as a whole, as described last year in the Green Paper "Legal Aid—Targeting Need". In these circumstances I do not propose any earlier change in the arrangements for the grant of criminal legal aid in the magistrates courts, so long as the improvement in compliance with the regulations is maintained. I will announce our intentions regarding the wider reforms when our consideration of the public responses to the Green Paper has been completed.

ENVIRONMENT

  Internal Combustion Engines (Emissions)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the level of the noxious emissions from internal combustion engines in 1995 in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [10383]

  Mr. Clappison
  Actual emissions for 1995 are not yet available but a forecast for 1995 based on national road traffic forecasts and the emissions performance of both old and new vehicles has been made. On this basis, we predict that total emissions from road vehicles will fall this year and again next year.

  Village Shops
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to preserve village shops in rural areas. [10384]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government's plans for preserving village shops and post offices in rural England are set out in the recently published White Paper "Rural England—A Nation Committed to a Living Countryside".

  Housing Management (Compulsory Competitive Tendering)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about his plans to extend compulsory competitive tendering to housing management. [10385]

  Mr. Curry
  The implementation timetable for housing management CCT provides the work to be phased in. The timetable provides for contracts to be awarded between 1 April 1995 and 1 April 1998, depending upon the size of the authority and its state of preparedness for CCT. Authorities reorganised as a result of the review of local government are allowed an additional 18 months.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households have been assisted through the Government's home energy efficiency scheme during the last year; and what estimates he has been given by neighbourhood energy action for 1996–97 following the budget cut of £31 million. [10387]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The estimated number of grants for 1995–96 is 600,000. NEA, formerly known as Neighbourhood Energy Action, has suggested that 400,000 grants will be paid next year, but it has not stated its assumptions. We have announced changes in the grant level which will reduce the average grant per installation, while fully protecting low-income households. The provision for next year therefore provides scope for considerably more than 400,000 grants.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households have benefited from home energy efficiency scheme payments over the past two financial years; and what payment he estimates will be made in the current financial year. [10390]
  644
  Mr. Jones
  A total of 270,148 grants were paid under the home energy efficiency scheme in 1993–94, and 449,902 in 1994–95. In the present financial year, I estimate that £98 million will be paid out in grants to around 600,000 households.

  District Auditor Service
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from local authorities regarding the role of the district auditor service. [10388]

  Mr. Curry
  I have had no such representations, although local authorities do raise audit matters with the Government from time to time.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will increase the number of council tax bands. [10389]

  Mr. Curry
  I have no plans to do so.

  City of Birmingham Housing Department
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date he approved the award of housing management contracts to the city of Birmingham housing department. [10391]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Secretary of State gave his consent to the city of Birmingham carrying out eight housing maintenance contracts on—18 October 1994 four contracts and on 20 November 1995 four contracts—as provided in a direction given to the council under section 19B of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

  Regeneration Policies
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on current regeneration policies. [10394]

  Mr. Curry
  Our regeneration policies will focus on the single regeneration budget and this will continue to be distributed on a competitive basis.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what savings have been delivered by compulsory competitive tendering in the year 1994–95. [10395]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not available on a yearly basis. On the basis of research by Birmingham university, it is estimated that average annual savings of 6.5 per cent. have been achieved on services so far subject to CCT.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for a public consultation on the findings of the review into the area cost adjustment. [10396]
  645
  Mr. Curry
  We have asked the review team to produce a report by June this year with recommendations for determining the area cost adjustment of the standard spending assessment in a way which is conceptually sound, commands the widest possible acceptance among local authorities in all parts of the country and is practical to apply.

  The report, which we are proposing should be available publicly, will be produced only after the review team has considered the representations and comments made to it by local government and other interested bodies and taking account of the results of the research that the review team require.

  We shall consult, in the normal way, on any changes proposed to SSAs for future years which we consider should be made in the light of the review's report.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning his proposals to alter the housing priority for homeless families. [10397]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on 20 November 1995,Official Report, column 40.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he will publish his Department's evaluation of the homelessness code of guidance commissioned from Birmingham university in 1993; [12144]

  (2) what evaluation he has made of the homelessness code of practice commissioned from Birmingham university; and what account he took of the condition of the report in drawing up his proposed homelessness legislation. [12145]

  Mr. Clappison
  The research, "Evaluation of the 1991 Homelessness Code of Guidance to Local Authorities", will he published shortly. Much of the research relates to matters which will not be affected by the reform of the homelessness legislation, but full account will be taken of the research in preparing a revised code of guidance.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of the provisions of the Housing Bill upon the numbers of homeless families accepted for temporary housing by local authorities. [12140]

  Mr. Clappison
  We expect to see a decline in the number of households accepted as statutorily homeless, both because the legislation will not provide a fast track into a permanent social tenancy and as a result of some applicants finding suitable alternative accommodation.

  New Housing (Insulation Standards)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will commission further research into 646
  insulation standards in newly built housing in the United Kingdom. [10393]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government already commission a programme of research into insulation standards in newly built housing, and will continue to do so.

  Road Vehicles (Pollution)
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to deal with the long-term effect of pollution caused by road vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [10392]

  Mr. Clappison
  On 1 February, section 80 of the Environment Act will be commenced, requiring us to prepare and publish a national air quality strategy containing policies with respect to the assessment or management of the quality of the air. The strategy will include a chapter concerning transport policies.

  Water Metering
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that there will be no compulsory provision of metering as a basis for domestic water charges. [10382]

  Mr. Clappison
  It is for water companies to decide the most appropriate basis for charging in their areas. We wish to encourage companies and customers to consider switching to meters; we are not forcing them to do so.

  Water Pipes (Repairs)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review his policy of making householders liable for the repair of water pipes outwith their property. [10379]

  Mr. Gummer
  The liability of householders for water pipes remain exactly as it was when the industry was nationalised.

  Environment Centres
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many towns and cities in the United Kingdom(a) have established and (b) are in the process of establishing environment centres open to the public in line with agenda 21 as agreed at the Rio summit. [11236]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department does not hold this information centrally.

  Former Mineworkings, County Durham
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive and publish the results of the Coal Authority three-month trial to establish water flow patterns in former mineworkings in County Durham; and if he will make a statement. [11605]

  Mr. Clappison
  The results of the amended pumping regime are being monitored and assessed by the Coal Authority and the National Rivers Authority. If there are
  647
  further changes in the pumping regime, I would expect that the Coal Authority will wish to make this known.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 83, on bids under the objective 1 process, if he will list the values of the bids approved for (a) the Wirral and (b) the Liverpool side of the river. [11893]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Projects approved which are based in or being delivered directly in Wirral total £27,868,638, projects operating across more than one borough, including Wirral, or across Merseyside as a whole total £24,599,120, and projects in the rest of Merseyside total £85,518,781.

  Renewal Areas (Research)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of research undertaken in his Department in the renewal areas; what changes have occurred in respect of work priorities in these areas as a consequence of the research; and when he expects to publish the research report. [12077]

  Mr. Clappison
  The research has now been completed and we are expecting the contractor to deliver a final version of the report at the end of this month. A decision will then be taken about its publication and the form of any further guidance that the Department might produce.

  The 10 local authorities selected as case studies have been informed of the contractor's findings. It is up to each individual authority to decide whether its work priorities towards its renewal areas should change as a consequence of the research.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new initiatives he plans to stimulate the planting of hedgerows. [12181]

  Mr. Clappison
  Grants for planting new hedgerows are already available as part of both the environmentally sensitive areas scheme and countryside stewardship, which generally operates outside the ESAs. In the light of stewardship's successful pilot phase, and in advance of its transfer to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 1 April 1996, my right hon. Friend the Minister announced in November that an extra £5 million will be available for new management agreements under countryside stewardship for each of the years 1996–97 and 1997–98. This is in addition to the existing £11.625 million already available under the scheme.

  Domestic Gas Appliances
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward measures to assist low-income households to service and repair gas appliances which are at risk of carbon monoxide discharges. [12441]
  648
  Sir Paul Beresford
  No resources are available to assist householders to service and repair gas appliances. For those in rented accommodation, responsibility for the maintenance of gas appliances lies with landlords. Hence low-income households in this sector will not be liable for the maintenance of gas appliances in their homes.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the number of households with incomes of under £150 per week which have faulty gas appliances. [12440]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No assessment has been made of the number of low-income households with faulty gas appliances. However, the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994 impose a responsibility on landlords to ensure that gas appliances in rented accommodations are maintained in good order and serviced annually. These regulations were introduced in order to achieve a reduction in the number of carbon monoxide poisonings in rented properties, where many of these incidents have occurred in the past.

  Regional Government, East Anglia
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about regional government in East Anglia. [10516]

  Mr. Curry
  None.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the annual cost to his Department and his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies of their empty and under-utilised properties for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11430]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Prior to 1990 the civil estate was managed by the Property Services Agency. Its archived records could be accessed only at disproportionate cost.

  On 1 April 1990 Property Holdings assumed responsibility for the whole of the Government common user (office) estate in which Government Departments and their agencies are housed. Separate identification of the costs of unoccupied property has been made since 1 April 1993. A considerable amount of surplus space has been disposed of since then. The costs of holding CUE space vacant, together with the costs of disposing of vacant space, have been or are expected to be:

  1993–94: £86.5 million (actual)

  1994–95: £90.9 million (actual)

  1995–96: £161.6 million (estimated)

  From 1 April 1996 individual Departments will be accountable for all the offices in which they have occupations, including any vacant space therein. All wholly vacant buildings on the common user estate will be transferred to a new body, Property Advisers to the

  649
  Civil Estate, for ultimate disposal. The continuing costs of vacant space to be transferred to PACE, together with costs associated with disposal of vacant space, are estimated to be £133 million for 1996–97.

  Since 1990 the marked decline in civil service staff numbers, combined with rationalisation, relocation out of London and the more effective use of office space, has enabled Departments to declare an ever increasing volume of space surplus to requirements. Sluggish market conditions have not enabled disposals to keep pace with these surrenders. In the longer term, reduction in the size of the Government's office estate will provide the taxpayer with even greater value for money.

  So far as the Department of the Environment itself is concerned, estimates of the cost of vacant space are:

  1993–94: £0.6 million (estimated)

  1994–95: £0.9 million (estimated)

  1995–96: £0.5 million (estimated)

  1996–97: £1.4 million (estimated)

  These figures cover the Department and its agencies, including the residual Property Services Agency, as well as the Department's share of costs of unified Government

  Expenditure on hospitality

  £ thousands

  1989–90

  1991–92

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96 (forecast)

  DOE (Central)

  51

  56

  68

  76

  71

  Property Holdings

  n/a

  8

  7

  8

  10

  Total Department

  51

  64

  75

  84

  81

  Planning Inspectorate

  0

  0

  1

  2

  2

  Building Research Establishment

  4

  17

  12

  10

  10

  The Buying Agency

  n/a

  2

  3

  4

  4

  Security Facilities Executive

  n/a

  n/a

  2

  6

  5

  QEII Conference Centre

  n/a

  10

  14

  15

  12

  PSA Services

  0

  98

  50

  2

  0

  The figures for the planning inspectorate for 1989–90 is included within the departmental total.

  The Buying Agency figure for 1991–92 is for the period 1 April to 31 December. The figure for 1993–94 is for the period 1 January to 31 December 1993.

  Expenditure on overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses

  £ thousands

  1989–90

  1991–92

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96 (forecast)

  DOE (Central)

  331

  393

  454

  519

  550

  PSA Services

  3,912

  1,213

  120

  0

  0

  These figures exclude Property Holdings.

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

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of his Department's expenditure on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96, to date; and if he will list the publications purchased for the latest year for which information is available. [11432]
  650
  offices. Information on costs within the 35 non-Crown NDPBs sponsored by DOE could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97; [11428]

  (2) what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department, his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11431]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The tables set out the available information in respect of expenditure on hospitality and entertainment, and on overseas travel, accommodation and related expenses.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department's expenditure on newspapers, magazines and other periodicals since 1994 is as follows:

  1994–95: £276,700

  1995–96: £250,700 (to date)

  The figure for 1993–94 was £385,700 which includes expenditure on behalf of the DOE and DOT under joint supply arrangements.
  651
  Titles include daily and regional newspapers, weekly magazines and trade and technical journals. To list each would involve disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of departmental expenditure on administration for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11429]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Figures for departmental administration for year(a) are found in sections 3.7 and 3.8 of the "Government's Expenditure Plans 1985–86 to 1987–88", Cm 9428-II, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House. No separate figures for departmental running costs are available.

  The figures for departmental running costs for years (b) to (f) are set out in my department's 1995 annual report, Cm 2807, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House. Revised figures for 1996–97 taking account of the transfer of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to the Environment Agency will be published in the 1996 departmental report to be published in March.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many hectares within sites of special scientific interest have been(a) seriously damaged and (b) destroyed in respect of their conservation value during the last 10 years. [11486]

  Mr. Clappison
  Statistical information on damage to SSSIs in Great Britain is set out in the annual reports of the former Nature Conservancy Council. Since 1 April 1991 similar details for England, Scotland and Wales have been contained in the annual reports of the country agencies and, for Great Britain, in that of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Copies of these reports are in the Library.

  Nature Conservation
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what percentage the funding of nature conservation is planned to change between 1995–96 and 1996–97. [11702]

  Mr. Clappison
  English Nature's grant in aid settlement for 1995–96 was £40.419 million. In 1996–97 it will be £39.166 million, representing a reduction of 3.1 per cent.

  Biodiversity Action Plan
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional measures will be provided to achieve the awaited biodiversity action plan. [11703]

  Mr. Clappison
  The United Kingdom was one of the first countries to produce a national biodiversity plan when "Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan" was published in January 1994.

  A biodiversity steering group, chaired by my Department, with members drawn from all sectors, was set up to advise the Government on individual costed action plans for selected species and habitats, a forward programme for improving biological recording and
  652
  monitoring in the UK, and a programme for improving public awareness and involvement in conserving biodiversity.

  The group published its findings on 13 December 1995. "Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report" contains a number of proposals including costed action plans for 116 species and 14 key habitats. It also recommends that costed action plans for a further 286 species and 24 key habitats be produced within three years.

  The Government expect to publish their response to the report in the spring of 1996.

  Water Quality Improvement
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on plans for water quality improvement within the framework 4 and framework 5 plans of the EC. [11737]

  Mr. Clappison
  Research on water quality issues is included in the fourth European Community framework programme of research, technological development and demonstration, 1994 to 1998. Proposals for the fifth framework programme, beginning in 1998–99, are expected to be submitted to the Council and the European Parliament, by the Commission, next year. My Department's view on plans for "Framework Five" will be strongly influenced by how successful the current programme is at meeting its objectives.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was total Government spending in(a) Pendle, (b) Bath and (c) Bournemouth. [12618]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Central Government support comprises support for capital spending as well as revenue spending. The latest available figures for 1995–96 are as follows. Differences between districts' overall level of revenue support depend on a large number of factors including the size of the tax base from which council tax can be raised, as well as the Government's assessment of relative expenditure needs.

  £ thousand

  Pendle

  Bath

  Bournemouth

  Revenue support grant

  3,462

  3,687

  8,562

  Redistributed non-domestic rates

  2,872

  2,780

  5,347

  Specific and special grants inside AEF, excluding SSA reduction grant

  181

  253

  683

  SSA reduction grant

  540

  0

  646

  Specific and special grants outside AEF

  10,242

  10,939

  34,113

  Total revenue support

  17,297

  17,659

  49,351

  Credit approvals

  1,183

  484

  1,956

  Capital grants

  1,277

  1,517

  480

  Total central Government support

  19,757

  19,660

  51,787

  Source:

  Revenue support items: Budget Estimates from RA96 return.

  Credit approvals and capital grants: most recent capital payments return. The figures for credit approvals relate to basic and supplementary credit approvals issued less receipts of specified capital grant.
  653
  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each local authority in(a) Lancashire and (b) the rest of England the capital receipts held by them resulting from the sale of land, property and other assets. [12617]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A list of the amounts of accumulated usable receipts from all assets at 31 March 1995 for each English local authority was placed in the Library of the House in response to the question of 22 January 1996 from the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith),Official Report, column 85. The figures for authorities in Lancashire are:

  Amounts held at 31 March 1995 (£ million)

  Usable receipts

  Lancashire county council

  0.751

  Blackburn

  0

  Blackpool

  7.480

  Burnley

  2.066

  Chorley

  1.047

  Fylde

  0.451

  Hyndburn

  0.315

  Lancaster

  0

  Pendle

  1.385

  Preston

  1.839

  Ribble Valley

  0.796

  Rossendale

  0.056

  South Ribble

  5.738

  West Lancashire

  1.131

  Wyre

  0.159

  Local authorities are required to set aside 75 per cent. of their capital receipts from the sale of council housing and 50 per cent. of most other receipts, to repay debt. These amounts form part of the provision for credit liabilities, which also includes amounts set aside from revenue. Separate figures for set-aside capital receipts are not available.

  Challenge Funding
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to publish further details of the Government's proposals for the extension of challenge funding to local authority capital spending. [12981]

  Mr. Gummer
  The challenge funding concept has proved itself as one of the best approaches for funding elements of local authority spending. This is a chance to see how it might work when applied to the major areas of councils' capital expenditure.

  Following my announcement on 30 November 1995, Official Report, column 1338, that the Government wish to build on the success of the challenge concept, I am today issuing to local authorities and other interested parties a consultation paper seeking views on one option for applying this approach to the funding of mainstream local authority capital expenditure.

  Our proposals would give the more enthusiastic local authorities the opportunity to bid for a share of a capital challenge fund of up to £250 million and to supplement this with private sector cash. Local authorities will be able to decide their own priorities, so, for example, those who want to improve run down inner-city areas or enhance the rural environment will get more cash if they put their
  654
  backs into developing imaginative projects and partnerships. All have the chance to do this. The best projects will be targeted with the most resources, bringing with it all the benefits of value for money, and the chance to get local people and businesses involved in projects that ultimately use their money.

  Our consultation paper sets out ideas for a challenge fund to support capital spending across all services. In particular, it invites comment on the option of proceeding with a pilot scheme to test a mechanism for distribution a proportion of total credit approvals for capital expenditure in the 1997–98 financial year. This pilot would build on the competitive approach already taken to funding elements of local authority capital expenditure, and would offer local authorities greater freedom to decide on their own spending priorities across the board.

  We will consider carefully all comments made in response to the consultation paper before deciding how best to proceed. A pilot scheme, if undertaken, would inform decisions on how to build on the competitive element which is already part of the capital financial system to enhance local accountability and value for money.

  Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Drought Orders
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions of European law provide that an application for a drought order, where withdrawal of water from areas of sites of special scientific interest is being considered, is accompanied by an environmental impact assessment [10853]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]: Environmental impact assessment is required in accordance with directive 85/337/EEC for projects involving drilling for water supplies where groundwater abstraction is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. No drought orders made during the past 12 months have involved the construction of new boreholes. Environmental impact assessment is not required under the directive for surface water abstraction.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to prevent the incineration of toxic waste at sea; and if he will make a statement. [12383]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The incineration of toxic waste at sea has been prohibited since the start of 1991.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Military Equipment Embargoes
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his reply to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), of 27 November 1995, on military equipment embargoes,
  655
  Official Report, columns 426–27, if he will set out which parts and groups of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 apply in each case where an embargo has been imposed. [11051]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The UK interprets the embargoes on Argentina, Burma, Iraq, Liberia, Libya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, UNITA (Angola), former Yugoslavia and Zaire as including all goods in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994.

  In the case of Iran, the embargo also takes in goods or technology on the nuclear materials list in category 0 in annexe I to Council decision 94/942/CFSP on the control of exports of dual-use goods, the export of which is controlled by Council regulation (EC) 3381/94. There are two exceptions: the ban does not include equipment considered essential for the safety of civil aircraft and air traffic control systems, or radioactive material for medical equipment use, but the exceptions do not apply where there is knowledge or reason to suspect that the goods would go to a military end-user or be used for military purposes.

  In the case of China, the scope of the EU ban has been left for national interpretation. We consider the following to be caught by the embargo: weapons and their specially designed components/ammunition, weapons platforms and any equipment which is likely to be used for internal repression. These categories fall under group 1 of part III of schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994.

  The voluntary embargoes on Armenia and Azerbaijan are in respect of arms and we interpret them as covering headings ML1, PL5002, PL5018, PL5021, ML2, ML3, ML4, PL5030, PL5006, ML5, ML6(a) and (b), ML7, ML8, ML9, ML10(a)–(f), ML16 (in respect of goods covered by headings ML1, ML2, ML3, ML4 and ML6(a) and (b), ML9, ML10(a)–(f), ML23 and ML26), PL520, ML23, ML24(a) and (b)2, and ML26 of group 1 of part III of schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994. However, any applications for other military equipment for these countries would receive close scrutiny.

  Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cases remain pending within his Department under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986; and if he will make a statement. [12207]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  As at 31 December 1995, there were 1,610 cases before the courts under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 which had been commenced by the Department but which had not been concluded.

  Burnley and Pendle Transport
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Office of Fair Trading has solicited the views of members of the travelling public in Burnley and Pendle concerning the proposed purchase by Stagecoach of Pendle council's 50 per cent. stake in Burnley and Pendle Transport. [12209]
  656
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No. In the event that such a merger were announced, the Director General of Fair Trading would take account of all relevant factors, including the views of third parties.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Director General of Fair Trading consulted him before providing confidential guidance to the parties involved in the proposed sale of Pendle borough council's stake in Burnley and Pendle Transport. [12210]

  Mr. Taylor
  It is not the practice of the Government or the Director General of Fair Trading to disclose whether confidential guidance has been sought or given in specific cases. In general, before giving confidential guidance, the director general will consult my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Privatised Utilities
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people served on the boards of(a) British Gas, (b) British Telecom, (c) the Central Electricity Generating Board, (d) East Midlands electricity board, (e) Eastern electricity board, (f) London electricity board, (g) Manweb, (h) Midlands electricity board, (i) Northern electricity board, (j) Norweb, (k) South Wales electricity board, (l) South Western electricity board, (m) Southern electricity board and (n) Yorkshire electricity board in the final year before each was privatised. [12215]

  Mr. Page
  The information requested, in relation to the organisations for which my Department has sponsorship responsibility, is as follows:

  Organisation

  Number of people employed

  Number of people on board

  Total remuneration paid to those on board £ million

  Year ended

  British Gas

  89,747

  12

  0.5

  31 March 1986

  British Telecom

  244,592

  13

  0.5

  31 March 1984

  Central Electricity

  47,631

  10

  0.4

  31 March 1989

  Generating Board

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  East Midlands Electricity

  7,478

  11

  0.2

  31 March 1990

  Eastern Electricity

  9,970

  12

  0.2

  31 March 1990

  London Electricity

  6,920

  10

  0.2

  31 March 1990

  MANWEB

  5,551

  12

  0.2

  31 March 1990

  Midlands Electricity

  7,738

  11

  0.2

  31 March 1990

  Northern Electricity

  5,439

  8

  0.2

  31 March 1990

  NORWEB

  8,249

  10

  0.3

  31 March 1990

  SEEBOARD

  6,345

  12

  0.2

  31 March 1990

  Southern Electricity Board

  8,233

  11

  0.2

  31 March 1990

  South Wales Electricity Board

  3,770

  12

  0.2

  31 March 1990

  657

  Organisation

  Number of people employed

  Number of people on board

  Total remuneration paid to those on board £ million

  Year ended

  South western Electricity Board

  5,641

  12

  0.2

  31 March 1990

  Yorkshire Electricity

  7,153

  10

  0.2

  31 March 1990

  Note:

  1The year in which the last Annual Report and accounts for the Central Electricity Generating Board as a whole was produced.

  Sources:

  Annual Reports and Accounts except Electricity Area Boards, where the Main Prospectus for the Regional Electricity Companies Share Offers was used.

  Nuclear Levy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money has been raised by the nuclear levy on consumers' bills since 1990 to the present day in 1995 prices. [12477]

  Mr. Page
  The total amount raised by the fossil fuel levy for financing nuclear and renewables generators from 1990–91 to 1994–95—the latest figure available—is £6.686 billion in 1994–95 prices.

  Source:

  Office of Electricity Regulation. Converted to 1994–95 prices using the GDP Market price deflator.

  Nuclear Industry (Insurance)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the requirements for insurance to cover the risk of accidents including radioactive materials following privatisation of the nuclear industry; what assessment he has made of whether appropriate cover is available from commercial insurance sources; what contingency plans have been drawn up for the Government to continue to cover such risks in the absence of commercial insurance; and what charge would be made to the privatised industry for such state insurance. [12240]

  Mr. Page
  Under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, a UK nuclear generator is required to have insurance for third party nuclear liability of £140 million for any one incident. For claims over £140 million, compensation may be paid out up to a total of around £280 million, from public funds. Parliament may also vote further funds. These arrangements apply whether the operator is in the public or private sector in accordance with the UK's obligations under the Paris and Brussels conventions on civil nuclear liability. When these limits were set in 1994, they took into account the capacity of commercially available insurance.

  British Energy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the net present value of estimated future profit of British Energy; and what discount rate this assumes. [12479]
  658
  Mr. Eggar
  The net present value of estimated future profit of British Energy depends on the discount rate used. If such information is to be made available to investors, it will be included in the prospectus.

  Departmental Staff (Energy Matters)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff(a) specialise in energy and (b) spend time on energy-related issues. [12481]

  Mr. Eggar
  Within my Department, there are at present 484 staff in the energy command, which deals with energy-related issues. There are also staff elsewhere in the Department who spend time on energy matters where these impact on their main areas of responsibility, but it is not possible to quantify the number of staff falling into this category.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many companies made successful applications to the national insurance fund as a result of failing to meet statutory obligations to provide redundancy payments for employees under the terms of current employment legislation for each year since 1979; and if he will provide the figures for each year with regard to the total cost of the approved applications from the national insurance fund expressing the costs(a) on a consistent basis and (b) at constant 1979 prices. [12612]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information is not available in the form requested. The total cost to the national insurance fund of statutory redundancy payments made to employees under section 106 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 is set out in the table. The figures include payments to former employees of insolvent businesses.

  Year

  £ million

  £ million at constant 1979 prices1

  1979–80

  19.3

  19.3

  1980–81

  42.0

  35.5

  1981–82

  53.0

  40.8

  1982–83

  72.2

  51.9

  1983–84

  69.0

  47.4

  1984–85

  57.1

  37.4

  1985–86

  54.6

  33.9

  1986–87

  50.2

  30.2

  1987–88

  34.9

  19.9

  1988–89

  32.4

  17.4

  1989–90

  25.7

  12.9

  1990–91

  67.6

  31.3

  1991–92

  131.8

  57.6

  1992–93

  161.9

  67.9

  1993–94

  130.6

  53.2

  1994–95

  89.5

  35.8

  1GDP Deflator used to calculate constant 1979 prices.

  Post Office (Privatisation)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultation he has had with the Post Office on a timetable for privatisation. [12605]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  None.

  AEA Technology
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made in separating AEA Technology from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. [13066]

  Mr. Page
  The Secretary of State intends to give a direction to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority under section 1(1) of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1995 to make a scheme providing for the transfer, on 31 March 1996, of the property, rights and liabilities of what constitutes AEA Technology to a single successor company, AEA Technology plc, owned by the Secretary of State.

  From that date, the commercial activities of the authority will be carried on by the new company. The authority itself will focus in future on the safe and cost-effective maintenance and decommissioning of its nuclear liabilities. It will also continue to run the UK's nuclear fusion programme.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the findings from the research into the wider effects of inward investment will be made available. [13067]

  Mr. Eggar
  The commissioning Departments for this research have received the consultants' report on the "Assessment of the Wider Effects of Inward Investment in Manufacturing in the UK". I have placed copies of the report in the Libraries of the House. Copies are available from my Department, regional development division, room 3.E.45, 1 Victoria street, London SW1H 0ET.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each of the English regions the expenditure on regional selective assistance offers accepted by companies in(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93, (c) 1993–94 and (d) 1994–95, the proportion of regional selective assistance expenditure on foreign-owned firms and regional selective assistance expenditure per employee in manufacturing. [12703]

  Mr. Eggar
  Offers of regional selective assistance accepted in the period 1991–92 to 1994–95 were as follows:

  RSA offers accepted £000

  Preparation to foreign-owned firms Percentage

  Amount offered by head of employee in manufacturing projects £000

  1991–92

  East

  —

  —

  —

  East midlands

  1,580

  25

  1,834

  London

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  10,266

  13

  5,724

  North east

  16,912

  15

  3,944

  North west

  15,066

  9

  3,203

  South east

  —

  —

  —

  South west

  4,190

  —

  4,889

  660

  RSA offers accepted £000

  Preparation to foreign-owned firms Percentage

  Amount offered by head of employee in manufacturing projects £000

  West midlands

  12,620

  60

  3,032

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  18,012

  72

  7,077

  Total

  78,646

  33

  4,111

  1992–93

  East

  —

  —

  —

  East midlands

  848

  18

  2,681

  London

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  8,861

  42

  6,719

  North east

  25,225

  49

  6,312

  North west

  18,773

  32

  4,281

  South east

  —

  —

  —

  South west

  6,376

  41

  5,643

  West midlands

  7,921

  40

  2,809

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  11,463

  25

  3,647

  Total

  79,467

  39

  4,623

  1993–94

  East

  240

  —

  3,169

  East midlands

  4,244

  50

  2,947

  London

  116

  —

  3,562

  Merseyside

  13,920

  38

  4,375

  North east

  33,698

  50

  5,870

  North west

  18,240

  12

  3,252

  South east

  478

  —

  3,093

  South west

  8,486

  30

  5,149

  West midlands

  21,950

  32

  3,656

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  17,225

  13

  3,756

  Total

  118,597

  32

  4,140

  1994–95

  East

  2,782

  —

  2,525

  East midlands

  5,546

  30

  3,006

  London

  2,396

  —

  2,419

  Merseyside

  13,541

  41

  3,820

  North east

  37,681

  51

  5,730

  North west

  25,382

  43

  2,939

  South east

  3,116

  —

  5,471

  South west

  14,321

  27

  4,771

  West midlands

  33,231

  48

  4,361

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  22,520

  10

  5,519

  Total

  160,522

  37

  4,335

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of regional selective assistance grants in each intermediate and development area in 1994 and 1995. [12388]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Offers of regional selective assistance accepted in 1994 and 1995 were as follows:

  £000

  1994

  1995

  DA

  IA

  DA

  IA

  East

  —

  2,273

  —

  1,844

  East Midlands

  4,190

  2,229

  1,739

  4,263

  London

  —

  1,102

  —

  3,643

  Merseyside

  12,104

  357

  14,679

  150

  North-east

  27,680

  1,455

  33,940

  957

  661

  £000

  1994

  1995

  DA

  IA

  DA

  IA

  North-west

  5,845

  17,470

  5,665

  10,278

  South-east

  1,383

  1,502

  2,148

  3,777

  South-west

  3,845

  11,170

  2,518

  9,005

  West Midlands

  10,252

  20,704

  19,467

  9,949

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  6,780

  9,781

  6,492

  14,863

  Total

  72,079

  68,043

  86,648

  58,729

  European Framework Programme for Research and Technological Activities
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the individual awards given to United Kingdom based companies under the European framework programme for research and technological activities in each of the years from the establishment of the programme. [12324]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Information on the funding provided to individual UK companies under the European Union's framework programme for research and technological development is held only by the European Commission and is not made available to member states.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department, his Department's agencies non-departmental public bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11436]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Disaggregated information on the basis requested is not available for the Department and the non-departmental public bodies and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  I have asked agency chief executives to reply directly to the hon. Member as they have their own budgetary responsibility for travel and subsistence costs.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about expenditure on overseas travel, accommodation and other associated expenses incurred by The Insolvency Service.

  Costs associated with overseas travel by The Service are:

  Financial Year—Costs including VAT

  1994/95: £9,000

  1995/96: £12,500 (to date)

  1995/96: £13,500 (estimated full year)

  1996/97: £12,000 (estimated)

  Prior to 1994/95 overseas travel was paid centrally by the Department of Trade and Industry. A breakdown of expenditure for the financial years preceding 1994/95 could only now be provided at disproportionate cost.
  662
  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about expenditure on overseas travel, accommodation and associated costs. I regret that disaggregated information on the basis you requested is not available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Michael Goddard to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Competition and Consumer Affairs has asked me to reply to your Question about overseas travel and subsistence costs. The information for the Radiocommunications Agency, which is only available in an aggregated form, for the periods quoted is as follows:

  1991–92: £399,185

  1993–94: £454,503

  1994–95: £538,202

  1995–96: £633,263 (estimated outturn)

  1996–97: £615,864 (estimated)

  The Radiocommunications Agency was set up with effect from 2 April 1990. Expenditure on overseas travel and subsistence before that date was the responsibility of the DTI and is not available.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply, in relation to the Patent Office, to your Question about overseas travel.
  The total expenditure on overseas travel, including accommodation and associated expenditure is:

  1993/94: £172,921

  1994/95: £184,754

  1995/96: £245,000 (forecast)

  1996/97: £260,000 (forecast)

  Further disaggregation of the above and expenditure for 1979/80, 1980/90 and 1991/92 are not available and could only he provided at disproportionate cost.

  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 overseas travel by Laboratory of the Government Chemist (LGC), an executive agency of DTI.
  The following table sets out the information that is readily available.

  Amount excluding VAT

  1991/92: £77,000

  1992/93: £50,000

  1993/94: £72,000

  1994/95: £99,000

  1995/96: £78,000 (estimated to year end).

  Information on 1979/80 and 1989/90 could only be provided at disproportionate cost. A forecast for 1996/97 is not available.

  Letter from David Durham to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  John M 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 expenditure relating to overseas business travel by our staff for certain years since 1979.

  The information you seek is as follows:

  Expenditure on Overseas Travel

  1989–90: £15,000

  1991–92: £26,000

  1993–94: £21,000

  663

  1994–95: £12,000

  1995–96: £20,000 (to date)

  1995–96: £24,000 (full year estimate).

  The expected expenditure for 1996–97 is not available at this stage as Companies House is still developing its budget plans for next year. Information on earlier years can only be provided at disproportionate costs.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of his Department's expenditure on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96, to date; and if he will list the publications purchased for the latest year for which information is available. [11437]

  Mr. Taylor
  Excluding its agencies, my Department's expenditure on newspapers and mass circulation journals for the years requested was as follows:

  1993–94: £291,270

  1994–95: £255,512

  1995–96: £204,875 (to end December 1995)

  This includes expenditure on national daily and Sunday newspapers, regional newspapers, and mass circulation magazines and journals. A full list of titles cannot be supplied except at disproportionate cost. The titles taken change to meet the changing requirements of the Department.

  I have asked each of the agency chief executives to write to the hon. Member about their expenditure on newspapers and magazines.

  Letter from David Durham to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  You recently asked the President of the Board of Trade for information about his department's expenditure on newspapers and magazines.
  Attached is a summary of Companies House's expenditure for the years you requested to date, together with a list of the publications purchased in 1995–96 to date.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Newspapers and Magazines Expenditure

  1993–1994: £11,201

  1994–1995: £5,488

  1995–1996: £2,235 (to date)

  Newspapers

  Y-Cymro

  Financial Times x 2

  Times

  Western Mail

  Daily Telegraph

  Independent

  Guardian

  Liverpool Daily Post

  South Wales Echo

  Magazines

  U.K. On-Line Users Group Newsletter

  Wordperfect Magazine x 2

  The Mac

  Exhibition Bulletin

  Management Today

  Bulletpoint

  What to buy for business

  664

  What's new in business information

  On-Line CD-ROM

  Health and Safety at work

  Information World Review

  Financial Regulatory Briefing

  The Economist

  The Administrator

  Company Secretaries Review

  Hansards—House of Commons

  Hansards—House of Lords

  Investors Chronicle

  Direct Response

  Equal Opportunity Review

  Inside Release 1–2–3 Release 3

  Windows User

  PC Direct x 2

  PC Magazine x 3

  Inside Wordperfect for Windows

  "Ingenuity" Tech Publication

  Project Manager Today

  Personal Computer World

  PC Pro x 2

  Software Futures

  Computer Finance

  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 expenditure on newspapers and magazines by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist (LGC), an executive agency of DTI.
  We do not keep sufficiently detailed records of the newspapers and magazines purchased to provide a comprehensive reply to your question. The information sought could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  However, expenditure on the provision of services by the library (including scientific journals, newspapers and magazines; books; and on-line searches) was as follows:

  Excluding VAT

  1993–94: £89,000

  1994–95: £108,000

  1995–96: £36,000

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 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 purchase of newspapers and magazines.
  The total expenditure is shown below and a list of publications purchased for the present year is attached.

  1993–94: £50,903

  1994–95: £59,442

  1995–96: £42,674 (Year to 31 December 1995)

  The range of publications purchased reflects the need for patent examiners, in particular, to have state of the art knowledge of developments in their work area.

  Publications Purchased For 1995–96

  ABC Rail Guide

  ABC World Airways Guide

  Advanced Battery Technology

  Amateur Photography

  American Dyestuff Reporter

  Applied Optics

  Applied Physics Letter

  665

  AT and T Technical Journal

  Australian Law Reports

  Author

  Auto Motor und Sport

  Autocar

  Automative Engineer

  B R E Update Package

  Bike Magazine

  Biotechnology

  Bookseller

  British Food Journal

  British Journal of Photography

  British National Formulary

  British Printer

  British Telecommunications Engineering and Supplement to British Telec Engineering

  Byte

  Cabinet Maker

  Cable and Satellite Europe

  Chemical Abstracts Service

  Chemistry and Industry

  Chilton's Automative Industries

  Commercial Motors

  Common Market law Reports and Antitrust Reports

  Computer—IEEE Computer Magazines

  Computer Journal

  Computer Journal Abstracts

  Control Engineering

  Control and Instrumentation

  Copyright World

  Copyright and Design Law

  Cryogenics

  Current Papers in Electrical and Electronics Engineering

  Daily Express

  Data Communications International

  Database—The Magazine of Databases References and Reviews

  Defense Electronics

  Dr Dobb's Journal—Software Tools For The Professional Programmer

  Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin

  Economist

  Electric World and Wireless

  Electrical Products

  Electronic Engineering

  Electronic Letters Plus All IEE Proceedings

  Electronic Packaging And Production

  Electronic Review

  Electronics—Cleveland

  Electronics and Communication Engineering Journal

  Elektor Electronics

  Engineer

  Eureka

  European Intellectual Property Review

  European Patent Office Reports

  European Patent Sourcefinder

  European Plastics News

  European Production Engineering

  Filtration and Separation

  Financial Times

  Fire

  Fish Farmer

  Fleet Street Reports

  Flight

  Fluid Abstracts—Process Engineering

  Food Trade Review

  Future and The Inventor

  Games and Puzzles

  Glass

  Glass Industry

  Glass Technology and Physics and Chemistry of Glasses

  Gramophone

  Harpers Sports and Leisure

  Heating and Plumbing Monthly

  Hi Fi News

  I P Asia

  666

  IBM Journal of Research and Development

  IEE Review and IEE News

  IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications

  IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications

  IEEE Network—The Magazine of Computer Communications

  IEEE Spectrum

  IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation

  IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology

  IEEE Transactions on Communications

  IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics

  IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices

  IEEE Transactions on Image Processing

  IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing

  IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology

  IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems

  Industrial Heating

  Industrial Robot

  Industry and Higher Education

  Information Management and Technology

  Information World Review

  Information and Software Technology

  Intellectual Property Decisions

  Intellectual Property Newsletter

  Intellectual Property Reports

  International Defense Review and IDR Despatches

  International Media Law

  ITC—International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law

  Journal of Cellular Plastics

  Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences

  Journal of Imaging Science and Technology

  Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

  Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering

  Journal of Plastic Film and Sheeting

  Journal of Systems Management

  Journal of The Acoustical Society of America

  Journal of The American Society for Information Science

  Journal of The Copyright Society of The USA

  Journal of The Patent and Trademark office Society

  Journal of The Society of Dyers and Colourists and Review of Progress in Coloration

  Key Abstracts—Antennas and Propagation

  Key Abstracts—Computer Communications and Storage

  Key Abstracts—Electronic Circuits

  Key Abstracts—Electronic Instrumentation

  Key Abstracts—Factory Automation

  Key Abstracts—Machine Vision

  Key Abstracts—Measurement in Physics

  Key Abstracts—Neutral Networks

  Key Abstracts—Robotics and Control

  Key Abstracts—Telecommunications

  Key Abstracts—Optoelectronics

  Knitting International

  Laboratory News

  Lancet

  Lastauto Und Omnibus

  Leading Edge

  Management Services

  Management Today and Professional Manager

  Managing Intellectual Property

  Manual For The Handling of Applications For Patents, Design, Trademarks Throughout World

  Materials Handling News

  Measurement Science and Technology

  Metal Finishing and Guidebook and Directory

  Microprocessors and Microsystems

  Mims Monthly Index of Medical Specialities

  Mine and Quarry

  Modern Plastics International

  Motorboat and Yachting

  Nature

  New Law Journal and Supplements

  New Scientist

  New Zealand Law Reports

  667

  Nuclear Engineering International and World Nuclear Industry Handbook

  Offshore Engineer

  Online—The Magazine of Online Information Systems

  Online and CD Notes

  Optics and Laser Technology

  OS/2 Pointers

  Packaging—Highlands Ranch

  Packaging Today

  Packaging Week

  Paper Technology

  Patent Throughout The World and Supplements

  Patent World

  PC Support Advisor—Personal Computer

  PC World

  Physics Today

  Pipes and Pipelines International

  Playthings

  Popular Science

  Power Engineering Journal

  Practical Householder

  Proceedings of The Institution of Mechanical Engineers

  Railway Gazette International

  Recherche

  Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

  Research Disclosure

  Road and 4 Wheel

  Science—AAAS—Weekly Paper Edition

  Science Et Vie

  Scientific America

  Solar Energy

  South African Law Reports

  Steel Times

  Sunday Times

  Surveyor

  Television

  Television—London

  Textile Month

  The Daily Telegraph

  The Guardian

  The Independent

  The Observer

  The Times

  Trademark World

  Trademarks Throughout The World

  Trends In Food Science and Technology

  Ultrasonics and Ultrasonics Sonochemistry

  Virtual Reality World

  Water Environment Research

  What PC

  What's New In Building

  Woodworker

  Woodworking

  WordPerfect Magazine UK

  World Intellectual Property Reports

  World Oil

  World Patent Information

  Zeolites

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about newspaper and magazine expenditure by The Insolvency Service.
  It is not possible from the existing financial database to specifically identify the cost of newspapers and magazines charged to a General Publications heading, a major part of which relates to legal and accountancy reference books and updates and technical journals covering law, accounting, finance, management and training. Expenditure on all publications in 1994/95 totalled £42,000 and in 1995/96, to date, £46,400. Newspapers purchased across The Service's 34 locations are generally limited to the national daily broadsheets.
  668
  Letter from Michael Goddard to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 January 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your Question about expenditure on newspapers and magazines.
  The information for the Radiocommunications Agency for the periods quoted is as follows:

  1993–94: £41,852.15

  1994–95: £28,982.76

  1995–96: £26,322.06 (to date).

  These figures include periodicals in non-paper format; ie microfiche, disc and CD-ROM.
  A list of current subscriptions, which runs to 19 pages and contains nearly 300 titles, is available if required.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 30 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 expenditure on newspapers and magazines. Until recently the cost of magazines was not separately identified with the result that we do not have a figure for the cost of magazines in 1993/94. The Agency's expenditure on newspapers and magazines in 199495 was approximately £1,500 and I expect this year's figure to be similar.
  The only newspaper purchased is The Times, and the following list of publications represents the latest position in a continuing review of expenditure on publications.

  BSI News

  Business Briefing

  The Economist

  The Engineer

  Engineering Design and Manufacturing Index

  Health and Safety at Work

  Le Point

  Measurement

  Measurement and Control

  New Scientist

  Personal Computer World

  Precision Engineering

  Quality Today

  Trading Standards Review

  Training Officer

  WordPerfect Magazine.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97. [11433]

  Mr. Taylor
  Disaggregated information in the form requested in respect of the non-departmental public bodies, and for the financial year 1979–80 in respect of the Department and its agencies, could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Figures for 1996–97 are still subject to the outcome of the Department's management information system for Ministers process. The other information requested is as follows:
  669

  Area of Department

  1989–90 £

  1991–92 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 Budget £

  Centre DTI (excluding net controlled agencies and trading funds)

  246,601

  399,720

  519,037

  516,357

  580,000

  Net controlled agencies and trading funds

  Accounts Service Agency

  1—

  300

  300

  300

  n/a

  Companies House

  2—

  5,600

  11,542

  18,289

  12,300

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  3—

  17,685

  27,122

  29,000

  33,000

  National Engineering Laboratory

  1—

  36,000

  10,000

  13,500

  8,162

  National Physical Laboratory

  1—

  45,881

  70,221

  83,799

  35,307

  Patent Office

  2—

  8,000

  18,000

  15,143

  17,500

  Radiocommunications Agency

  1—

  21,993

  33,575

  35,921

  48,388

  Total

  535,179

  689,797

  712,309

  734,657

  1Established as net controlled agencies after 1989–90.

  2Information not readily available for period before attainment of trading fund status in October 1991.

  3Information not available for this period and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Work previously carried out by the Accounts Services Agency, National Physical Laboratory was contracted-out on 1 April and 1 October respectively. The National Engineering Laboratory was privatised on 31 October 1995.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of departmental expenditure on administration for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11434]

  Mr. Taylor
  Total running cost expenditure, net of VAT, for both the gross and net controlled areas of the Department is set out in the following table:

  £ million

  Year

  DTI running costs

  1979–80 outturn1

  66

  1989–90 outturn2

  371

  1991–92 outturn2

  433

  1993–94 outturn2

  442

  1994–95 outturn3

  401

  1995–96 outturn2

  402

  1996–97 plans2

  350

  Source:

  1Appropriation Accounts 1979–80, Volume 2: Classes IV–IX. This figure reflects the running costs for the then separate Departments of Trade and Industry. It does not reflect any machinery of government changes that took place after 1979–80.

  2Trade and Industry Annual Report 1995.

  3Appropriation Accounts 1994–95, Volume 4: Class IV.

  The fall in expenditure over the years 1993–94 to 1996–97 reflects in part the contractorisation and privatisation of work previously carried out by the Department's agencies. The figures do not reflect the machinery of government changes announced on 5 July 1995. More up-to-date information will be published in March in the Department's 1996 annual report.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the annual cost to his Department and his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies of their empty and under-utilised properties for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11435]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is providing figures for vacant space on the common user estate. These 670
  figures cover most of my Department's properties. This reply supplements the central response by supplying information covering properties classed as departmental estate for which my Department, including its agencies and non-departmental public bodies, currently has direct responsibility.

  The cost of vacant property on the departmental estate for which my Department was responsible in 1995–96 is expected to be £215,000. Figures for empty property prior to 1995–96 are available only at disproportionate cost.

  Responsibility for the remainder of the civil estate occupied by my Department will transfer to my Department from the Department of the Environment on 1 April 1996. The transfer is expected to increase the cost of vacant property for which my Department is responsible by £1,200,000 for 1996–97.

  The annual cost of under-utilised property in my Department can be estimated only at disproportionate cost.

  Export Credit Guarantees
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what level of export credit guarantees extended to companies in or the Government of Nigeria has been claimed by United Kingdom companies; and what is the estimated cost to the taxpayer. [9822]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 16 January 1996]: As at 31 December, 1995 the Export Credits Guarantee Department had paid claims on Nigeria of £1,840 million which were yet to be recovered, the ECGD's records are not held in a way that enables it to arrive at a cumulative total of all claims which it has ever paid on Nigeria.

  Such claims paid by the ECGD on its trading operations do not represent a direct charge against public expenditure, although to the extent payments by the ECGD in any one year exceed receipts there is a corresponding increase in the PSBR.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has(a) read, collated or received and (b) authorised civil servants or any other persons to read,

  671
  collate or receive copies of draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report circulated by Sir Richard Scott to Ministers, civil servants and other persons. [10224]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: The handling of extracts of Sir Richard's draft report, subject to guidance received from the inquiry, is for those to whom they are sent. The Government do not disclose details of correspondence between the inquiry and individual witnesses.

  Jordan and Saudi Arabia (Export Credits)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the amount paid under Export Credits Guarantee Department guarantees since 1980 in relation to trade with(a) Jordan and (b) Saudi Arabia; if he will give the amount paid to banks under buyer credit and line of credit facilities, the amount paid directly to exporters under short-term or supplier credit facilities and the amount subsequently recovered; and if he will estimate the proportion of each figure paid in respect of (i) the export of military and related equipment and (ii) the export of military and related equipment where the end user has been assessed to have been Iraq. [11251]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]: As at the end of December 1995, the total amount of claims paid and recoveries made since 1980 under ECGD guarantees in relation to trade with Jordan and Saudi Arabia was as follows:

  £ million

  Claims Paid

  Recoveries

  Buyers credit and lines of credit

  Short term and supplier credit

  Buyer credit and lines of credit

  Short term and supplier credit

  Jordan

  273

  14

  38

  14

  Saudi Arabia

  0

  63

  0

  26

  The ECGD estimates that approximately 85 per cent. of the claims paid on Jordan in respect of project and capital goods were in respect of military and related equipment. The ECGD does not maintain its records in a way which enables it to categorise its short-term business by industry sector.

  The ECGD has no record of cases where the end user was in Iraq.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total principal value of payments by the Export Credits Guarantee Department to the Midland bank since 1980 in respect of trade with Saudi Arabia by(a) Astra Holdings and its subsidiaries, (b) British Aerospace and its subsidiaries, (c) Royal Ordnance and its subsidiaries, (d) Vickers and its subsidiaries, (e) Racal and its subsidiaries, (f) Plessey and its subsidiaries and (g) Thorn EMI and its subsidiaries. [11308]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 24 January 1996]: The ECGD has no record of payments to Midland bank since 1980 in respect of capital goods and project business with Saudi Arabia by any of the named companies. In the case
  672
  of its now privatised short-term business the ECGD maintains no record of the supplier in cases where it has paid claims to banks.

  Balance of Trade
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the percentage change in each year since 1990 in(a) the volume of manufactured exports and (b) the volume of manufactured imports; and in each year, what proportion of imports consisted of (i) capital and intermediate goods and (ii) consumer goods. [11900]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: The information is given in the two tables:

  Volume of UK trade in manufactures (percentage changes1 on previous year)

  Exports

  Imports

  1991

  1.0

  -7.0

  1992

  2.0

  7.5

  1993

  -1.0

  2.0

  1994

  13.7

  8.8

  1Changes in the indices of trade in 1990 prices.

  UK imports of capital, intermediate and consumer goods—(proportions1 of total UK imports)

  Capital and intermediate goods Per cent.

  Consumer goods Per cent.

  1990

  30.3

  18.4

  1991

  31.0

  17.2

  1992

  32.0

  18.1

  1993

  33.2

  18.7

  1994

  34.5

  18.5

  Notes:

  1Proportions derived from imports in current prices.

  Source:

  Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics, CSO.

  Stamp Prices
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations his Department had with the Treasury prior to the 1995 Budget announcement regarding the impact on small and medium enterprises of a rise in the price of stamps. [11957]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 29 January 1996]: My Department had discussions with the Treasury on a range of issues in determining the financial targets which were set for the Post Office in the 1995 Budget. These did not specifically include the impact on SMEs of an increase in letter tariffs, as it is for the Post Office to assess the detailed impact of such changes on its customers which will depend primarily on the nature of their business. Letter tariff rates were last increased on 1 November 1993 and the Post Office has undertaken to maintain these rates until at least 31 March 1996, the longest period of stability since the late 1960s.

  Business Links
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the members of each business links board. [11961]
  673
  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 29 January 1996]: The information requested is not available. It could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what requirements are placed on business links to publish their membership; [11958]

  (2) what requirement there is on business links to ensure that members of their boards include those working in firms with (a) under 50 employees, (b) 20 employees, and (c) 10 employees; [11960]

  (3) in what form the membership of the boards of business links is published. [11949]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answers 29 January 1996]: Business link proposals to be considered by the business link national assessment panel have details of board membership, giving names and company details, where known. Business links inform training and enterprise councils in their area of business link board membership. Although there are no formal requirements to publish their membership, most business links are required to register board membership with Companies House as private limited companies by guarantee.

  Guidance on board membership is given in the October 1994 supplement to the business link prospectus. This states that the business link board should have a majority of members from private sector businesses.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the indicative allocations in(a) ecu and (b) pounds (i) for the United Kingdom in total and (ii) by standard region, from (a) the European regional development fund and (b) the European social fund under objective 2 for the period 1997 to 1999. [11699]

  UK European regional development fund allocations 1989 to 1995 under objectives 1, 2 and 5B

  million ecu, 1994 prices

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1989–95 Total

  Objective 1

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65

  71

  136

  Highlands and Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  27

  49

  Northern Ireland

  79

  88

  92

  129

  120

  96

  103

  707

  Total Objective 1

  79

  88

  92

  129

  120

  183

  201

  892

  Objective 2

  North east England

  52

  62

  59

  81

  77

  73

  77

  480

  Eastern England

  80

  95

  90

  124

  118

  —

  —

  507

  West Midlands

  60

  71

  67

  93

  89

  88

  92

  560

  North west England

  70

  83

  79

  108

  103

  73

  76

  592

  West Cumbria

  3

  3

  3

  4

  4

  6

  6

  30

  East Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19

  20

  39

  East London and Lea Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  18

  36

  Plymouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  8

  15

  Thanet

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  75

  78

  153

  674
  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 29 January 1996]: Indicative allocations of objective 2 grant from the European structural funds in 1997–99 will not be set until later in 1996. The European Commission will calculate a total for each eligible member state; the Government will allocate shares to each of the eligible areas of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar. Indicative figures for grants from each fund are also due to be settled before the end of 1996.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what estimate he has made of the number of jobs to be safeguarded by the European regional development fund's supported activities in the United Kingdom between 1994 and 1999; [11697]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of jobs to be created by European regional development fund supported activities in the United Kingdom between 1994 and 1999. [11698]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answers 29 January 1996]: No such estimates have been made, but the 52 current single programming documents and community initiative programme documents, which provide for grants over varying periods of years from this and the other European structural funds, include targets for jobs to be created and safeguarded, as well as many other quantified objectives.

  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 under the European regional development fund over the last available five years. [11658]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 29 January 1996]: The full information requested could be made available only at disproportionate cost. Allocations of ERDF grant money from 1989 to 1995 for the principle eligible areas are set out in ecu in the table. The table does not include the structural funds community initiatives, which are not generally allocated regionally, or some other minor schemes of ERDF grant. Receipts arise over varying periods subsequent to the allocations, and at varying exchange rates.
  675

  UK European regional development fund allocations 1989 to 1995 under objectives 1, 2 and 5B

  million ecu, 1994 prices

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1989–95 Total

  Western Scotland

  69

  82

  78

  107

  102

  71

  74

  583

  Eastern Scotland

  22

  27

  25

  35

  33

  31

  32

  205

  South Wales

  34

  41

  39

  53

  51

  45

  47

  310

  North east Wales

  10

  12

  11

  16

  15

  —

  —

  65

  Total Objective 2

  400

  477

  451

  621

  593

  510

  532

  3,584

  Objective 5b

  South west England

  11

  28

  24

  16

  13

  17

  23

  132

  The Marches

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  8

  Midlands Uplands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Northern Uplands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  10

  18

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  6

  10

  East Anglia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  6

  11

  Rural Wales

  16

  41

  34

  23

  19

  14

  18

  165

  Highlands and Islands

  15

  38

  32

  21

  17

  —

  —

  124

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2

  5

  4

  3

  2

  4

  5

  24

  Borders of Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  5

  Central Scotland/Tayside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  5

  Grampian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  4

  7

  Total Objective 5b

  44

  112

  93

  62

  51

  64

  83

  510

  Total England

  276

  343

  321

  426

  404

  467

  500

  2,737

  Total Scotland

  108

  152

  139

  166

  155

  135

  148

  1,002

  Total Wales

  61

  94

  84

  92

  85

  59

  65

  539

  Total Northern Ireland

  79

  88

  92

  129

  120

  96

  103

  707

  Total Objectives 1, 2 and 5 b

  524

  677

  636

  812

  764

  757

  816

  4,986

  £ million, 1994 prices

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1989–95 Total

  Objective 1

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  54

  59

  113

  Highlands and Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  23

  41

  Northern Ireland

  53

  63

  64

  95

  93

  80

  86

  535

  Total Objective 1

  53

  59

  62

  87

  80

  153

  168

  661

  Objective 2

  North east England

  35

  44

  41

  59

  60

  61

  64

  365

  Eastern England

  54

  68

  63

  91

  92

  —

  —

  368

  West Midlands

  40

  51

  47

  68

  69

  73

  77

  426

  North west England

  47

  59

  55

  79

  81

  61

  63

  445

  West Cumbria

  2

  2

  2

  3

  3

  5

  5

  23

  East Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16

  17

  33

  East London and Lea Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  15

  30

  Plymouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  7

  13

  Thanet

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  63

  65

  128

  Western Scotland

  46

  59

  54

  79

  80

  59

  62

  439

  Eastern Scotland

  15

  19

  18

  25

  26

  26

  27

  155

  South Wales

  23

  29

  27

  39

  40

  38

  39

  235

  North east Wales

  7

  9

  8

  12

  12

  —

  —

  47

  Total Objective 2

  269

  340

  315

  456

  463

  425

  443

  2,712

  Objective 5b

  South west England

  8

  20

  16

  12

  10

  14

  19

  99

  The Marches

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  7

  Midlands Uplands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Northern Uplands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  8

  15

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  5

  8

  East Anglia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  5

  9

  Rural Wales

  11

  29

  24

  17

  15

  12

  15

  122

  Highlands and Islands

  10

  27

  22

  16

  14

  —

  —

  89

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  3

  3

  2

  2

  3

  4

  18

  676 677

  £ million, 1994 prices

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1989–95 Total

  Borders of Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  4

  Central Scotland/Tayside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  4

  Grampian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  6

  Total Objective 5b

  30

  80

  65

  46

  40

  53

  69

  383

  Total England

  185

  245

  225

  313

  316

  389

  417

  2,090

  Total Scotland

  73

  108

  97

  122

  121

  113

  123

  757

  Total Wales

  41

  67

  59

  68

  66

  49

  54

  404

  Total Northern Ireland

  53

  63

  64

  95

  93

  80

  86

  535

  Total Objectives 1, 2 and 5 b

  352

  483

  445

  597

  597

  631

  680

  3,785

  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 has received under the trans-European network programmes to date; [11670]

  (2) how much in (a) ecu and (b) pounds by standard region and in total is allocated to the United Kingdom from the trans-European network programmes under the current financial perspective. [11671]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answers 29 January 1996]: The size of the trans-European networks—TENs—budget is determined annually through the EU budget process. Amounts are not pre-allocated to member states, nor are receipts divided by region.

  From the 1995 budget, the first year for which TENs grants became available, the United Kingdom expects to receive some 30 mecu, or £25 million, for UK TENs

  UK SPD Allocations: 1994–99

  million ecu, 1994 prices

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Total

  Objective 1

  Merseyside ERDF

  65

  71

  76

  81

  88

  95

  475

  Highlands and Islands ERDF

  22

  27

  28

  31

  34

  38

  180

  Northern Ireland ERDF

  96

  103

  110

  119

  121

  129

  677

  Total UK Objective 1 ERDF

  183

  200

  214

  231

  243

  262

  1,332

  Estimated UK SPD Allocations: 1994–99

  (£ million, 1994 prices (Using an exchange rate of £1=1.20 ecu)

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Total

  Objective 1

  Merseyside ERDF

  54

  59

  63

  67

  73

  79

  396

  Highlands and Islands ERDF

  18

  22

  24

  26

  28

  32

  150

  Northern Ireland ERDF

  80

  86

  92

  99

  101

  107

  564

  Total UK Objective 1 ERDF

  152

  167

  178

  192

  202

  218

  1,110

  UK SPD allocations: 1994–96

  Million ecu, 1994 prices

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Total

  Objective 2

  North-east England ERDF

  73

  77

  81

  —

  —

  —

  231

  West Cumbria ERDF

  6

  6

  7

  —

  —

  —

  19

  678
  projects, plus an as yet unquantifiable amount from some joint projects in which it has an interest.

  It is too early to estimate 1996 receipts.

  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 is allocated to the United Kingdom from the European regional development fund under the present structural funds agreement. [11659]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 29 January 1996]: There is no single agreement. Currently, 26 single programming documents and 26 community initiative programme documents provide for grants, over varying periods of years, from this and the other European structural funds. The Community initiative programmes are not generally allocated regionally. The figures for grants from the European regional development fund in the single programming documents—SPDs—for eligible UK areas are set out in the table.
  679

  UK SPD allocations: 1994–96

  Million ecu, 1994 prices

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Total

  Yorkshire and Humberside ERDF

  75

  78

  81

  —

  —

  —

  234

  East Midlands ERDF

  19

  20

  21

  —

  —

  —

  59

  West Midlands ERDF

  88

  92

  97

  —

  —

  —

  278

  North-west ERDF

  73

  76

  81

  —

  —

  —

  230

  East London and Lea valley ERDF

  18

  18

  19

  —

  —

  —

  56

  Thanet ERDF

  4

  4

  4

  —

  —

  —

  12

  Plymouth ERDF

  7

  8

  8

  —

  —

  —

  23

  Total England Objective 2 ERDF

  364

  379

  400

  —

  —

  —

  1,142

  Industrial South Wales ERDF

  45

  47

  49

  —

  —

  —

  141

  Eastern Scotland ERDF

  31

  32

  34

  —

  —

  —

  97

  Western Scotland ERDF

  71

  74

  78

  —

  —

  —

  223

  Total Scotland Objective 2 ERDF

  102

  106

  112

  —

  —

  —

  320

  Total United Kingdom Objective 2 ERDF

  510

  531

  561

  —

  —

  —

  1,603

  Estimated UK SPD allocations: 1994–96

  £Million, 1994 prices (Using an exchange rate of £1 = 1.20 ecu)

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Total

  Objective 2

  North-east England ERDF

  61

  64

  68

  —

  —

  —

  193

  West Cumbria ERDF

  5

  5

  6

  —

  —

  —

  16

  Yorkshire and Humberside ERDF

  63

  65

  68

  —

  —

  —

  195

  East Midlands ERDF

  16

  16

  17

  —

  —

  —

  49

  West Midlands ERDF

  74

  77

  81

  —

  —

  —

  232

  North-west ERDF

  61

  64

  67

  —

  —

  —

  192

  East London and Lea valley ERDF

  15

  15

  16

  —

  —

  —

  46

  Thanet ERDF

  3

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Plymouth ERDF

  6

  6

  7

  —

  —

  —

  19

  Total England Objective 2 ERDF

  303

  315

  333

  —

  —

  —

  952

  Industrial South Wales ERDF

  37

  39

  41

  —

  —

  —

  118

  Eastern Scotland ERDF

  26

  27

  28

  —

  —

  —

  81

  Western Scotland ERDF

  59

  62

  65

  —

  —

  —

  186

  Total Scotland Objective 2 ERDF

  85

  88

  93

  —

  —

  —

  266

  Total United Kingdom Objective 2 ERDF

  425

  443

  468

  —

  —

  —

  1,336

  UK SPD Allocations: 1994–99

  million ecu, 1994 prices

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Total

  Objective 5b

  South West England ERDF

  17

  23

  26

  26

  26

  26

  145

  The Marches ERDF

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  24

  Midlands Uplands ERDF

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  8

  Northern Uplands ERDF

  8

  10

  12

  12

  12

  12

  65

  Lincolnshire ERDF

  4

  6

  6

  6

  6

  7

  36

  East Anglia ERDF

  5

  6

  7

  7

  7

  7

  41

  Total England Objective 5b ERDF

  38

  50

  57

  57

  58

  58

  318

  Rural Wales ERDF

  14

  18

  21

  21

  21

  21

  115

  Borders of Scotland ERDF

  2

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  21

  Dumfries and Galloway ERDF

  4

  5

  6

  6

  6

  6

  34

  Central Scotland/Tayside ERDF

  2

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  17

  Grampian ERDF

  3

  4

  5

  5

  5

  5

  29

  Total Scotland Objective 5b ERDF

  12

  16

  18

  18

  18

  18

  101

  Total United Kingdom Objective 5b ERDF

  64

  83

  96

  96

  97

  98

  534

  680 681

  Estimated UK SPD Allocations: 1994–99

  £ million, 1994 prices (Using an exchange rate of £1 = 1.20 ecu

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Total

  Objective 5b

  South West England ERDF

  14

  19

  22

  22

  22

  22

  121

  The Marches ERDF

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  20

  Midlands Uplands ERDF

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  7

  Northern Uplands ERDF

  6

  8

  10

  10

  10

  10

  54

  Lincolnshire ERDF

  3

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  30

  East Anglia ERDF

  4

  5

  6

  6

  6

  6

  34

  Total England Objective 5b ERDF

  32

  41

  48

  48

  48

  48

  265

  Rural Wales ERDF

  11

  15

  17

  17

  17

  18

  96

  Borders of Scotland ERDF

  2

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  17

  Dumfries and Galloway ERDF

  3

  4

  5

  5

  5

  5

  29

  Central Scotland/Tayside ERDF

  2

  2

  3

  3

  3

  3

  14

  Grampian ERDF

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  24

  Total Scotland Objective 5b ERDF

  10

  13

  15

  15

  15

  15

  84

  Total United Kingdom Objective 5b ERDF

  53

  69

  80

  80

  81

  81

  445

  Lloyds and Unichem Merger
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what study his Department is undertaking to ascertain the effect on small pharmacies of the Lloyds and Unichem merger. [12161]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 29 January 1996]: In the first instance, it is for the Director General of Fair Trading to advise my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on qualifying mergers. In giving his advice, the director general will take account of all relevant factors.

  Pharmacy Industry
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in respect of vertical integration in the pharmacy industry. [12162]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 29 January 1996]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no general policy in respect of vertical integration in the pharmacy industry. Each case on which he is required to make a decision, whether or not involving vertical integration, must be considered on its own merits.

  Industrial and Provident Societies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will amend the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts to increase the limit on shareholding to £50,000 to facilitate higher levels of capital formation. [9948]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  The shareholding limit for industrial and provident societies was doubled to £20,000 in 1994. Since then, there has been little demand from the movement for a further increase and the Government have no current plans to review the existing level.

WALES

  Local Government Finance
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will announce his decision on the 1996–97 local government revenue settlement; and if he will make a statement. [13086]

  Mr. Hague
  I have given careful consideration to the representations that I have received on my provisional settlement proposals for local authorities and police authorities in Wales, which I announced on 28 November and 30 November. I chaired a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 18 December, at which settlement matters were discussed.

  Having taken account of all the representations, I believe that my proposals provide the new unitary authorities with the appropriate level of funding in 1996–97, their first year of operation. Like the rest of the public sector, the new authorities will need to assess their budget priorities carefully. However, inflation remains low and the Government have made it clear that pay increases should be met from efficiency savings and other economies.

  I also believe that, subject to a small adjustment in the figures due mainly to the postponement of the transfer of responsibility for warrant enforcement work from police authorities to magistrates courts, my provisional settlement proposals provide an appropriate level of funding for police authorities in Wales.

  I have therefore decided to set total standard spending at £2,867.6 million and aggregate external finance at £2,517.9 million for 1996–97. The settlement provides for an increase in standard spending of £85.6 million, 3.1 per cent. on the comparable amount of 1995–96. Total standard spending includes £149.6 million for community care and £331.7 million to fund police services. Police funding comprises £165.5 million in cash-limited police grant provided by the Home Secretary and £166.2 million in standard spending assessments.
  683
  Aggregate external finance will comprise £1,792 million in revenue support grant, £459 million in distributable non-domestic rates, £237.8 million in specific grants, and £29.1 million to damp council tax increases arising from the disaggregation of county and district councils' 1995–96 standard spending assessments and budgets to unitary authorities.

  My settlement proposals take account of a number of minor changes to specific grants within total standing spending and aggregate external finance. My decisions are subject to the approval of the House of Commons.

  I have considered the representations that I have received about the potential average council tax increases which could arise if authorities budget to the maximum indicated by the provisional capping criteria which I announced on 13 December. I have decided that, in addition to the £29 million I am making available for damping within aggregate external finance, I will make available an extra £15.9 million for damping. This will be targeted so as to ensure that no council tax increase, excluding community council precepts, can exceed 25 per cent. This is a maximum figure, and I expect the great majority of increases to be well below this figure. I have assumed that authorities will make reasonable collection rate assumptions for 1996–97 and that capping principles will be adhered to. Details of the amounts proposed for individual unitary authorities under the two elements of the damping scheme are as follows:

  £000 (rounded)

  Disaggregation

  Targeted

  Total

  Anglesey

  0

  0

  0

  Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire

  1,450

  541

  1,991

  Aberconwy and Colwyn

  0

  0

  0

  Denbighshire

  3,139

  0

  3,139

  Flintshire

  393

  248

  641

  Wrexham

  16

  1

  16

  Powys

  0

  0

  0

  Cardiganshire

  3,684

  0

  3,684

  Pembrokeshrie

  0

  0

  0

  Carmarthenshire

  0

  119

  119

  Swansea

  0

  0

  0

  Neath and Port Talbot

  3,293

  452

  3,745

  Bridgend

  0

  1,877

  1,877

  Vale of Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  6,432

  3,916

  10,348

  Merthyr Tydfil

  687

  394

  1,081

  Caerphilly

  1,509

  2,453

  3,962

  Blaenau Gwent

  3,631

  1,005

  4,635

  Torfaen

  0

  1,163

  1,163

  Monmouthshire

  0

  0

  0

  Newport

  0

  0

  0

  Cardiff

  4,895

  3,621

  8,517

  Total

  29,128

  15,789

  44,917

  Actual council tax levels will depend on the budgetary decisions of individual local authorities.

  I envisage this additional assistance as a "one off", giving authorities time to adjust service expenditure and bring it more in line with their standard spending assessments. In looking at next year's settlement, I shall have regard to the efforts of unitary authorities in this respect.
  684
  I propose to lay the local government finance report (Wales) 1996–97 before the House, for its approval, later this week. At the same time, I shall be laying for the house's approval the limitation of council tax and Precepts (notional amounts) report (Wales) 1996–97.

  I am placing final settlement details for individual unitary authorities and police authorities in the Library of the House.

  Paediatric Emergency Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which units in Wales offer paediatric emergency services; and, of these, which currently do not have their full establishment of nursing staff. [11977]

  Mr. Hague
  This information is not collected centrally. The majority of NHS trusts/health units with casualty units are able to offer paediatric emergency services. Further information should be obtained directly from the relevant chief executives.

  Dentists
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much of the additional finance for NHS dentists in Wales has been spent; what assessment he has made of the response to the initiative; and if he will make a statement. [11965]

  Mr. Hague
  Recent reports from family health services authorities indicate that 26 general dental practitioners have so far been offered grants either to establish new, or to expand existing, dental practices. In addition, 12 NHS trusts have plans to recruit additional dentists.

  More than £1 million has already been reserved but, in most instances, it will take a few months for the new dentists to become operational and the grant payable. To date, £50,000 has been issued to support the community dental service appointments.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of departmental expenditure on administration for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11404]

  Mr. Hague
  The recorded running cost figures for my Department are as follows:

  £ million

  1979–80

  17.8

  1989–90

  45.7

  1991–92

  58.1

  1993–94

  76.5

  1994–95

  77.4

  1995–96 budget

  75.9

  These figures are not strictly comparable over time; for example, running costs in 1979–80 did not include superannuation charges, the training and enterprise council management fee and various overhead costs including accommodation, which have added at least £22 million to the 1995–96 figure. The Welsh Office has

  685
  assumed additional functions over this period, for example, further responsibilities for industry, higher education and training. Information for 1996–97 will be published in March in the Welsh Office departmental report.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department, his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11406]

  Mr. Hague
  Records are not held separately for expenditure on overseas travel by the Welsh Office or its agency, and are not held centrally for NDPBs.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97. [11403]

  Mr. Hague
  The figures are as follows:

  (a) Welsh Office £

  (b)Agency (Cadw) £

  1991–92

  35,982

  481

  1993–94

  26,818

  2,248

  1994–95

  28,784

  1,734

  1995–96

  113,713

  1346

  1995–96

  228,000

  21,500

  1996–97

  3—

  3—

  1Spend to 31 December 1995.

  2Budget for year.

  3Not yet determined.

  Records for earlier years are not available and expenditure by NDPBs is not held centrally.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of his Department's expenditure on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96, to date; and if he will list the publications purchased for the latest year for which information is available. [11407]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department's expenditure on newspapers and magazines is as follows:

  1993–94: £82,760

  1994–95: £74,820

  1995–96: £50,295 (April to December)

  Details of the publications purchased have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the annual cost to his Department and his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies of their empty and under-utilised properties for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–094, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11405]
  686
  Mr. Hague
  Welsh Office accommodation is part of the common user estate held in the name of the Secretary of State for the Environment and managed by Property Holdings, a directorate of DOE. Surplus accommodation and space on the common user estate are the responsibility of Property Holdings. Information for the common user estate will be provided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in his reply.

  Information is not held centrally for agencies and NDPBs which are not housed on the common user estate.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest calculation of the numbers of Welsh jobs that have been moved out of Wales in each of the past five years indicating those which have been relocated(a) elsewhere in the United Kingdom, (b) elsewhere in the EU and (c) elsewhere in the world. [12167]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No estimates of this kind have been made by the Welsh Office.

  Pemrhiwceiber School
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will be making additional funds available to build a new school at Pemrhiwceiber in the Cynon valley. [12738]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. friend is making available more than £508 million for local authority capital spending in 1996–97.

  It is for individual local authorities to determine how the resources that are made available are allocated between services, including education, in the light of their statutory responsibilities and their perception of local needs and priorities.

  Health Service (Consultants)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with trusts and health authorities in relation to the performance of consultants who are listed in the waiting times information bulletin of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority published in November 1995 as having total combined out-patient and in-patient waiting times in excess of 104 weeks. [12532]

  Mr. Hague
  The purpose of the waiting times information bulletin is to help GPs offer informed advice to those patients who need to be referred to hospital. Patients are, of course, entitled to be referred to the consultant of their choice, even where charter targets may not be met, provided that they are aware of this and are offered alternative referrals.

  My Department continues to work closely with health authorities and hospitals in Wales to reduce hospital waiting times, and my officials are currently visiting hospitals where progress has been below expectation. The waiting times information bulletin serves as useful background information to this dialogue with the NHS and for the hospital visits in particular.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to issue new guidelines on the private earnings of medical consultants employed by NHS trusts;
  687
  and what plans he has to make their NHS earnings directly proportionate to the number of sessions worked for the NHS. [12570]

  Mr. Hague
  I have no plans to issue new guidelines on the private earnings of medical consultants.

  NHS earnings of consultants employed on national terms and conditions of service are already directly proportionate to their NHS work.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all(a) loans, (b) grants and (c) other payments in excess of £100,000 made in each of the last five years by the Welsh Office to (a) the Tesco company and (b) other companies; and if he will make a statement. [12719]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Office made an offer of regional selective assistance of £2 million in 1989 to the Tesco company in respect of a project to locate its administration centre in Cardiff. In 1992, an offer of £3.8 million was made to encourage the company to locate a distribution centre in Magor. Details of the amounts paid against these offers are commercially confidential.

  The Welsh Office has made no other loans or payments to the company.

  Details of regional selective assistance payments to other companies are also covered by commercial confidentiality. Total payments of RSA made in respect of projects in Wales in the last five years are shown in the table.

  £ million

  RSA payments £ million (Gross)

  1999–91

  31.0

  1991–92

  55.1

  1992–93

  61.7

  1993–94

  50.8

  1994–95

  56.9

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the expenditure on regional selective assistance offers accepted by companies in(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93, (c) 1993–94 and (d) 1994–95, the proportion of regional selective assistance expenditure on foreign-owned firms and regional selective assistance expenditure per employee in manufacturing. [12702]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is given in the following table.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Value of RSA

  offers

  £76.9

  £72.5

  94.6

  38.2

  accepted

  million

  million

  million

  million

  Percentage to

  foreign-owned

  firms

  55.7

  42.2

  58.2

  33.0

  Grant per job

  in

  manufacturing

  projects

  £5,764

  £5,784

  £7,361

  £6,031

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority (Correspondence)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he willl place in the Library a copy of the corrective letter issued by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority to its September 1995 waiting times information bulletin with respect to the information on the orthopaedic waits for the University hospital of Wales; if he will specify what the inaccuracies were in that corrective letter, as referred to in the apology issued in the November information bulletin; and if he will make a statement. [12572]

  Mr. Hague
  A copy of the letter of 4 October 1995, distributed with the September 1995 edition of the NHS Wales waiting times information bulletin, will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The table of hospital waiting times at University Hospital of Wales Healthcare NHS trust, which accompanied the letter, quoted a zero waiting time or that no data were available for first out-patient appointments in respect of the consultants listed for trauma and orthopaedic specialities. This mistake was corrected in the November 1995 edition of the bulletin.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of his Department's expenditure on administration for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11424]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Information for 1979–80 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Details of my Department's expenditure on administration for the years 1989–90 to 1996–97 are contained in table 11.1 of my Department's annual report, Cm 2816, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northerr Ireland what is his estimate of the annual cost to his Department and his Department's agencies and non-departmental Ministerial public bodies of their empty and under-utilised properties for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11425]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. Shiji Lapite
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General what action he proposes to take following the jury verdict of unlawful killing of Mr. Shiji Lapite; and if he will make a statement [12763]
  689
  The Attorney-General
  Following the verdict of the inquest jury, the Crown Prosecution Service has requested transcripts of the evidence given at the inquest together with copies of any documents which may have been produced to the jury. Once this material has been carefully considered, together with the pre-inquest evidence, and any further inquiries which may prove necessary have been completed, the Crown Prosecution Service will decide whether criminal proceedings should be instituted.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 9 January,Official Report, column 17, if Her Majesty's Government will discuss with the Libyan Government guarantees that the two Libyans accused of crimes in relation to the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie would be made available for trial in The Hague if Britain set up a trial in Holland; and if he will examine the related issues of the absence of an extradition treaty with Libya. [11738]

  The Prime Minister
  No. The Government's position on a trial in a third country is clear.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Cardiff Bay Opera House
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will require the Millennium Commission to release the contents of all reports concerning the proposed Cardiff Bay opera house to the Cardiff Bay Opera Trust. [8694]

  Mr. Sproat
  Directions issued to the Millennium Commission under section 26 require it, where it considers it necessary, to take expert advice into account when making funding decisions. It is for the Millennium Commission to decide what information to publish.

  Disabled People (Sport)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on her Department's policy in relation to the development of sports for disabled people. [9215]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government fully support sport for people with disabilities. The Sports Council gives annual grants to the main disability sports organisations and has recently announced an additional grant of £200,000 to the British Paralympic Association to assist with training and participation in the Atlanta Paralympic games. The Government's sportsmatch scheme specifies sport for people with disabilities as one of its priority areas disability sport projects are also eligible for national lottery funding. The Sports Council is also working closely with the disability sports organisations and the governing bodies of sport on the implementation of the recommendations of the ministerial review report on sport for people with disabilities "Building on Ability".

  British Library
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures her Department has made to monitor the efficiency and spending on the British Library building project. [10906]

  Mrs. Virginnia Bottomley
  Following its creation in 1992, the Department of National Heritage assumed responsibility for this project. I attach great importance to its successful delivery. A steering committee, chaired at a senior level, meets monthly to review progress and to take strategic decisions. The Department's project team, headed by a very experienced project director, is based at the site, and works closely with the consultants, contractors and project managers who are under contract to us. Progress is monitored against budget and a detailed programme of work, covering many thousands of activities. Spending is constantly under review, through detailed reports which show expenditure and expected outturn against each parcel of work.

  Positive about Disabled People Symbol
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage 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 about disabled people symbol for(a) external recruitment and (b) internal recruitment and promotion. [11908]

  Mr. Sproat
  This Department undertakes very little external recruitment. The positive about disabled people symbol is not currently used for either external recruitment or internal recruitment and promotion. However, my officials are currently considering its use for external recruitment. The Department has responsibility for two agencies: the Historic Royal Palaces agency and the Royal Parks agency. The agencies have their own arrangements for recruitment and promotion. At present, neither agency uses the symbol.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her estimate of the number of people who purchase national lottery tickets regularly; and what is the average sum spent each week by those purchasing such tickets. [7441]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 January 1996:]: This is an operational matter. I have therefore asked the Director General of the National Lottery to write to the hon. Member and to place copies of the reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage 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) 1991–92, (ii) 1993–94, (iii) 1994 –95, (iv) 1995–96 and (v) 1996–97; and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas of (a) to (c). [11342]
  691
  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: While all the information requested is not available, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost, the available information is as follows:

  1993–94 actual £

  1994–95 actual £

  1995–96 estimate £

  1996–97 estimate £

  Department of National Heritage

  168,000

  203,598

  257,000

  n/a

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  109,702

  158,349

  158,824

  202,000

  Royal Parks Agency

  163,031

  190,871

  196,000

  160,000

  My Department makes use of CCTA's metropolitan telephone service, which provides us with fully managed telephone and directory services. Internal telephone directories are available to staff in my Department and both agencies.

  1993–94 actual £

  1994–95 actual £

  1995–96 spend to date £

  1995–96 estimate £

  1996–97 estimate £

  Department of National Heritage

  1,547,360

  467,497

  276,376

  460,000

  n/a

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  3,708,000

  1,381,000

  282,000

  545,000

  n/a

  Royal Parks Agency

  748,195

  848,033

  486,427

  810,000

  750,000

  Information on non-departmental public bodies is not available, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage 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) 1991–92, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95 and

  1993–94 (actual) £

  1994–95 (actual) £

  1995–96 (spend to date) £

  1995–96 (estimate) £

  1996–97 (estimate) £

  Department of National Heritage

  103,850

  57,000

  192,353

  302,000

  n/a

  Advertising

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  n/a

  Press and PR

  78,850

  Nil

  5,352

  Nil

  n/a

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  1,161,047

  1,065,018

  1,250,742

  1,245,742

  n/a

  Advertising

  1,019,047

  955,417

  1,140,516

  1,120,516

  n/a

  Press and PR

  102,000

  88,000

  90,000

  105,000

  n/a

  Royal Parks Agency

  46,240

  52,459

  65,110

  103,672

  107,610

  Advertising

  240

  2,262

  1,063

  1,063

  1,500

  Press and PR

  Nil

  5,197

  12,547

  19,109

  19,110

  Information on DNH non-departmental public bodies is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  692
  The Government telephone network connects over 1,000 Government offices nationwide. As a user of the GTN, a GTN dialling codes booklet is also available to all members of staff in this Department.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the expenditure of her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all external consultants including management consultants for each of the years(a) 1991–92, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95 and (d) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate she has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if she will estimate the savings accruing to her Department from the use of consultants in each of these years. [11339]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: My Department uses consultants for a wide variety of tasks, only a small proportion of which are aimed at achieving cost savings. No central record is held on overall savings and it would not be possible to isolate those consultancies and quantify the cost savings without incurring disproportionate cost. The available information is given in the following table:

  (d) 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. [11340]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: While all the information requested is not available, the available figures are as follows:

  Windsor castle
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 17 January,Official Report, columns 625–26, if she will list the name

  693
  of each of the 13 military knights in residence at Windsor castle, their rank at the end of military service and the principal ceremonial duties they undertake. [11565]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 29 January 1996]: There are normally 13 military knights at Windsor, although at present only 12 of the appointments are held. They are as follows:

  1. Major General P. A. Downward—Governor

  2. Brigadier A. L. Atkinson

  3. Brigadier J. F. Lindner

  4. Major W. L Thompson

  5. Major L. W. Dickerson

  6. Major J. C. Cowley

  7. Lieutenant Colonel N. L. West

  8. Major G. R. Mitchell

  9. Lieutenant Colonel R. Tamplin

  10. Major P. H. Bolton

  11. Brigadier T. Hackworth

  12. Major R. J. Moore

  The military knights undertake ceremonial duties at St. George's chapel on Sunday mornings, the Queen's official birthday, Garter day, St. George's day, the quarterly obit services and state visits when held at Windsor.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 18 January 1996,Official Report, columns 625–26, from what sources the balance of £25.2 million for that restoration of Windsor castle will he found. [11564]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 29 January 1996]: The balance will be met from the net surplus from visitor admissions to the state rooms at Buckingham palace and the precincts at Windsor castle.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  EC Dairy Regime
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish in pounds sterling and ecu, the EC expenditure on the dairy regime in the latest year for which figures are available in each member state showing the average support per cow in each state and the European average. [10673]

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  1994 expenditure on the CAP dairy regime

  Average support per cow

  MECU

  £ million

  ECU

  £

  Netherlands

  995.1

  762.5

  566.4

  434.0

  France

  942.7

  722.4

  198.7

  152.3

  Germany

  677.5

  519.1

  129.5

  99.2

  Denmark

  381.5

  292.3

  532.1

  407.7

  Ireland

  320.2

  245.4

  252.3

  193.3

  Belgium

  311.2

  238.5

  453.6

  347.6

  UK

  290.7

  222.8

  106.3

  81.5

  Italy

  187.7

  143.8

  90.7

  69.5

  Spain

  74.1

  56.8

  55.3

  42.4

  Portugal

  57.9

  44.4

  162.6

  124.6

  Greece

  7.6

  5.8

  35.2

  27.0

  694

  1994 expenditure on the CAP dairy regime

  Average support per cow

  MECU

  £ million

  ECU

  £

  Luxembourg

  2.6

  2.0

  53.1

  40.7

  EC12 average

  —

  —

  219.7

  168.3

  Emtryl (Game Birds)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to enforce European Commission regulation EC 1798 banning the use of Emtryl in treating game birds; what penalties he plans to apply to offences against the regulation when it comes into force; and what warnings have been issued to(a) landowners, (b) breeders, (c) owners of shooting rights and (d) others involved against using Emtryl. [11625]

  Mrs. Browning
  Banning therapeutic products containing dimetridazole, the active ingredient of Emtryl, would have serious health and welfare consequences for turkeys, game birds and pigs. The UK believes that such products can be used safely and, pending discussions with the European Commission, no action has been taken to withdraw the marketing authorisations for them. The use of DMZ for disease prevention, in accordance with EEC directive 70/524, is not affected by these regulations.

  The Animals, Meat and Meat Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) Regulations 1991, as amended—the residues regulations—make it an offence to administer substances in annexe IV of the Council regulation to an animal, or to sell for human consumption any meat or meat product containing such a substance, provided the relevant amending Commission regulation is contained in schedule 1 to the residues regulations. The penalties for non-observance of these regulations are set out in regulation 21, which provides for a fine.

  The application of the Commission regulation has been the subject of several discussions with game birds, poultry, farming and distribution interests.

  Veterinary Staff
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the range of hourly rates; and what is the overall average hourly rate charged to abattoirs for the services of official veterinary surgeons. [11892]

  Mrs. Browning
  The range of official veterinary surgeon hourly rates provided by the Meat Hygiene Service is from £17.50 to £140 before the application of capping for the 1995–96 financial year, which keeps the normal time rate to a maximum of £35 per hour. Overtime rates are not capped.

  The overall average hourly rate charged to abattoirs for OVS services is £32.42.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many local veterinary inspectors there are currently; and how they are(a) selected and (b) paid. [11692]
  695
  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: At 1 January 1995 there were 5,722 local veterinary inspectors. Data for 1 January 1996 have not yet been collated.

  Before an LVI is appointed, he/she must be a member of an established veterinary practice. For an initial appointment they must have spent at least three months in the practice. They will be subject to interview and procedural training carried out by MAFF. The initial LVI appointment is provisional for a period of six months during which time a field assessment may be carried out by the divisional veterinary manager or one of his or her veterinary officers. If duties have been carried out satisfactorily, full appointment will be granted at the end of the six months period, otherwise further training must be undertaken.

  Where LVIs carry out services directly for the Minister, they are paid in accordance with the scale of fees agreed between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the British Veterinary Association. Where an LVI carries out work directly for his/her client, the fee is a private matter between the client and the LVI.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the certification procedures operated by the local veterinary inspectors. [11693]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: A working party was set up by senior managers of the state veterinary service in September 1993. This working party was chaired by Mr. Hugh Morris, a divisional veterinary officer.

  The terms of reference were to examine existing export procedures in both animal health offices and the field; to make recommendations to policy divisions and senior managers to ensure that high standards of veterinary health certification would be maintained and that there were mechanisms in place to monitor those standards.

  The report of the working party, which has become known as the Morris report, was written for internal management purposes and was not intended for publication. It confirmed that the necessary information and instructions were already available. However, some deficiencies were identified both in the administrative procedures in some animal health offices and in the standards of identification and examination of animals by local veterinary inspectors. The report made more than 80 recommendations to correct these deficiencies, including the re-writing of existing instructions to make them more user friendly.

  All necessary action has been taken on the major recommendations of the report to ensure that high standards of veterinary export certification are maintained.

  Positive about Disabled People Symbol
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [11920]
  696
  Mr. Boswell
  Neither the Ministry, nor its agencies nor the Intervention Board executive agency currently uses the Employment Service's positive about disabled people symbol for external recruitment or for internal recruitment and promotion. The Ministry is consulting the Employment Service about the steps necessary for approved use of the symbol.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what action his Department has taken to supervise collection centres for intra-Community trade in livestock; [11978]

  (2) what responsibilities his Department has for the supervision of dealers' premises in respect of intra-Community trade in livestock. [11979]

  Mrs. Browning
  Local veterinary inspectors or veterinary officers are present to inspect animals during assembly at collection centres and dealers' premises of consignments for export to other member states. In relation to imports from other member states, dealers' premises are subject to random non-discriminatory checks as provided for under EC rules.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many breeding cattle were imported into the United Kingdom during the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [9856]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: Official overseas trade statistics recorded 3,842 pure-bred breeding cattle as having been imported into the United Kingdom during the period October 1994 to September 1995. Imports of non-pure-bred breeding cattle are not separately available.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are(a) the guidelines, (b) the enforcement procedures and (c) the monitoring arrangements in respect of the certification of live animals for export by local veterinary inspectors. [11690]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: Written instructions are issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the form of animal health circulars and in sets of instructions. They are sent to all veterinary practices which have local veterinary inspectors approved for the certification of live animals for export. Notes for guidance of LVIs on completion of an individual certificate may also be issued with the certificate. In addition, it is incumbent upon every local veterinary inspector to follow the ethical guidance concerning veterinary certification given in the guide to professional conduct issued by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

  Where there is evidence of statutory or procedural deficiencies, appropriate action is taken, including prosecution by local authorities.

  Where an LVI infringes or fails to comply with his/her conditions of appointment, performs duties unsatisfactorily or is guilty of conduct which indicates that suspension or termination of the appointment may be necessary, an investigation will be mounted and the appropriate action taken.
  697
  Where a veterinary surgeon has issued misleading, inaccurate or untrue certificates, the matter may be considered by the disciplinary committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. In several cases, the disciplinary committee has held that the issue of inaccurate certificates has amounted to disgraceful professional conduct. The veterinarian's name has been removed from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons and the veterinarian has been unable to practise.

  To monitor the arrangements for veterinary certification, audit visits are carried out by members of the veterinary field service to LVI practices to check that, among other things, the practice has a current set of instructions and that individual LVIs are aware of current procedures. LVIs are required to return copies of completed export certificates to animal health offices. These are checked to see that they have been completed correctly. Apparent errors in certification and non-receipt of copy certificates are followed up with the LVI concerned. Unannounced audit visits are carried out by members of the veterinary field service to check on LVIs carrying out export certification. In addition, certification and consignments of live animals may be checked at the port of export by Ministry staff. Any deficiencies found in certification or procedures are followed up.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he plans to take to ensure that local veterinary inspectors carry out their duties in accordance with his instructions in animal health circular 94/31 on "Procedures for checking the identification of cattle to be exported to EC Member States", and if he will make a statement. [12164]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 29 January 1996]: Procedures are already in hand to monitor the duties carried out by LVIs in respect of export certification. I refer to my earlier reply today.

  Animals (Definition)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will press for a redefinition of animals in the treaty of Rome from agricultural products to sentient beings; and if he will make a statement. [12163]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 29 January 1996]: The Government attach high priority to animal welfare. We secured the declaration, attached to the Maastricht treaty, which calls for full account to be taken of animal welfare in agricultural and other policies. We are considering possible options for building on this declaration as part of our detailed preparations for the intergovernmental conference later this year.

  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 Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund over the last available five years in respect of (i) the structural funds and (ii) the price guarantees. [11654]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 29 January 1996]: A table containing details of UK receipts under the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund is set
  698
  out. A breakdown by standard region is not available. The guidance section is one of the structural funds. The guarantee section finances market support.

  Total UK receipts under the EAGGF guidance and guarantee sections

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  11994–95

  (a) Ecus (million)2

  (i) Guidance section3

  93

  134

  100

  104

  82

  (ii) Guarantee section

  2,226

  2,457

  2,150

  3,569

  3,141

  (b) £ (million)

  (i) Guidance section3

  66

  94

  71

  82

  63

  (ii) Guarantee section

  1,579

  1,718

  1,525

  2,810

  2,416

  Notes:

  1Estimated outturn.

  2Exchange rates used are as follows: 1990–91: £1 = 1.41 ecu, 1991–92: £1 = 1.43 ecu, 1992–93: £1 = 1.41 ecu, 1993–94: £1 = 1.27 ecu, 1994–95: £1 = 1.30 ecu.

  3Up to and including 1993–94 an element of EAGGF guidance section funding related to fisheries.

  Source:

  1990–91 to 1993–94: 1995 departmental report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's smaller departments, table 9.4, "Receipts from European Institutions analysed by Department".

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Information Technology
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 23 January,Official Report, column 131, if he will list all cases where spare computer capacity has been sold to other Departments since 1987, giving the value of each contract. [12075]

  Mr. Willetts
  Information on the sale of spare computer capacity between Departments is not held centrally.

  Chauffeurs
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many chauffeurs are employed by Her Majesty's Government; and what percentage of them are disabled. [12227]

  Mr. Willetts
  This is an operational matter on which I have asked the chief executive of the Security Facilities Executive—SAFE—to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from John King to Mr. Gordon McMaster, dated 29 January 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Deputy Prime Minister seeking information on the number of chauffeurs employed by the Government and what percentage are disabled.
  My Agency is responsible for the Government Car Service which employs the majority of the governments' chauffeurs. There are currently 148 GCS drivers/chauffeurs, none of which are at present registered disabled.
  The nature of the GCS drivers duties, which includes security and safety considerations, call for people who can meet the exacting physical requirements for the job.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of absenteeism rates in days per annum for staff in his Department for 1995–96. [11373]

  Mr. Willetts
  The table gives the available absenteeism figures for the central Cabinet Office, including No. 10 and the executive agencies for which I am responsible. Figures for previous years and 1995–96 are not available.

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Central Department

  8.48

  8.45

  COI

  7.76

  9.67

  CS college

  7.00

  6.40

  HMSO

  9.86

  7.03

  OHSA

  8.82

  14.52

  RAS

  8.58

  12.99

  Chessington

  9.00

  10.37

  SAFE

  4.34

  11.05

  TBA

  9.97

  8.70

  Total

  8.35

  8.61

  Absence rates represent total days absent divided by total number of staff.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is his estimate of departmental expenditure on administration for(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [11505]

  Mr. Willetts
  Details of running costs and administrative spending by the Cabinet Office, including the Prime Minister's Office, and the Office of Public Service for the years 1989–90 through to 1997–98 are contained in tables 7.5 and 7.6 of my Department's annual report, Cm 2820, copies of which are available in the Members' Library. This years' report, due to be published at the end of March, will reflect the Cabinet Office's new responsibilities, following the machinery of government and other changes.

  Public Information Films (Cold Weather)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many public information films on the effects of cold weather on plumbing have been shown in the cinema or on television since 1966, indicating who produced the films and when they were shown on television and cinema screens. [12704]

  Mr. Willetts
  Many energy efficiency campaigns have been run since 1966. All have contained information on the effects of cold weather on pipes. Details of these campaigns cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the deregulation task force's priority areas for 1996; and what action has arisen as a result of priority area status. [12262]

  Mr. Freeman
  The priority areas for work in 1995–96 identified by the deregulation task force in its first annual report are: the labour market; planning; building regulations; financial services; the health sector; and 700
  longer-term issues, such as risk pricing and reviewing legislation. The task force is also following up areas covered in its 1994–95 report, such as taxation and national insurance, and health and safety.

  The task force has been holding meetings with Ministers and officials from the relevant Government Departments. It expects to make recommendations on these areas in its next annual report.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Residence and Asylum Status (Revocation)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the incidences since 1979 when Her Majesty's Government have(a) refused an asylum application and (b) revoked an existing residency or asylum permission granted to a foreign national as a result of the overriding interests of British diplomatic or trade relationships with the country of origin of the individuals concerned. [8646]

  Miss Widdecombe
  No asylum application has been refused and no grant of refugee status has been revoked on foreign relations or economic grounds.

  Crime (Old People)
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number and proportion of recorded crimes were committed against people aged over the state retirement age in(a) 1975, (b) 1985 and (c) 1995; and if he will provide a breakdown by type of recorded crimes. [10202]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the victims of recorded crime is not routinely collected by the Home Office. However, extracts from an ad hoc survey giving, information on the age and gender of victims of recorded offences of violence against the person for 1990 to 1992 were published in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1994", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, after 5 February, in respect of asylum seekers (i) appealing against a negative decision and (ii) applying for asylum in-country, lack of funds will he considered an acceptable reason for failing to attend an interview; and if his Department plans(a) to start interviewing asylum applicants at their homes and (b) to fund their travel-to-interview costs. [11831]

  Miss Widdecombe
  After 5 February, as at present, applicants will be expected to attend interviews. The immigration rules make it clear that failure, without reasonable explanation, to comply with a request to attend for interview may lead to the refusal of the application. Any reasons put forward by an applicant for failing to attend an interview will continue to be considered against his or her individual circumstances.

  The Home Office has no plans to interview asylum applicants at their homes or to pay their travel costs.
  701
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the practice of withholding permission to work to asylum applicants for six months after 5 February. [11803]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The employment concession for asylum seekers is kept under regular review.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the administrative costs that might arise after 5 February in the serving of papers on asylum applicants not receiving benefits who are(a) homeless and (b) living in temporary nightshelters. [11804]

  Miss Widdecombe
  In cases where the Home Office has been supplied with details of a representative but does not know the whereabouts of the applicant, the decision will be served on the representative. The Immigration Appeals (Notices) Regulations 1984 provide that the requirement to serve a notice is satisfied if the notice is served on a person appointed to act on behalf of the applicant.

  However, the Immigration Appeals (Notices) Regulations 1984 also make it clear that there is no requirement to give written notice of a decision if the officer or authority responsible for giving it has no knowledge of the whereabouts or place of abode of the person concerned. The onus will continue to be on the asylum applicant to maintain contact with the Home Office.

  Metropolitan Police (Arrests)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were(a) arrested and (b) charged by the Metropolitan police in the latest available period; and if he will break down the figures by age group. [11856]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and is contained in the table.

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Overall Man days (average per day)

  13,684

  14,000

  13,431

  12,915

  12,704

  12,768

  13,121

  13,384

  Percentage of time spent on street duties

  31.1

  31.8

  31.9

  31.8

  32.3

  34.6

  34.9

  35.0

  Crime (Young People)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to combat crime among young people. [11857]

  Mr. Maclean
  Provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 strengthened the powers of the courts to deal with the most serious and persistent juvenile offenders. The single regeneration budget supports many crime prevention activities with a youth focus. My Department also provides core funding for Crime Concern, which works closely with the business sector on a wide range of youth crime prevention programmes. The aim of the new ministerial group on juveniles, which held its first meeting on 18 January, is to strengthen measures to intervene effectively with those children who are most likely to offend.
  702

  Arrests and charges in the Metropolitan police district—12 months to June 1995

  Age group

  Number of arrests

  Number of charges

  10–16

  20,937

  5,045

  17–18

  13,513

  7,879

  19–20

  11,508

  7,252

  21–30

  46,768

  33,299

  31–40

  21,650

  16,016

  41–50

  7,307

  5,180

  51 and over

  3,541

  2,277

  Unrecorded age

  15,601

  4,845

  Total

  140,825

  81,793

  Police (Complaints)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 January,Official Report, columns 484–85, what explanation has been made to him regarding the increase in complaints against the North Wales police for 1994 compared with 1993. [11874]

  Mr. Maclean
  This is a matter for the chief constable of North Wales, but I understand that the figures for 1995 are expected to show a fall in the number of complaints recorded.

  Police (London)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in each of the London divisions in each year since 1988–89; and how many of these officers were allocated to foot patrols. [11855]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of officers attached to individual divisions is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on the total number of officers attached to divisions over the past eight years and the overall percentage of this time which was spent on street duties are set out in the table:

  Mr. J. M. Roberts
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he is proposing to give a substantive response to the submission made on behalf of Mr. J. M. Roberts, J43565, following his letter of 11 July 1995, Ref. PO 11651/95. [12092]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Since receiving the letter of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Baker), my officials, in consultation with Mr. Roberts' solicitors, have acted to secure further material which may he relevant to Mr. Roberts's conviction. As a result, we expect to he in a position to take a decision about the case soon.

  Crime Prevention
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount spent by each
  703
  police force area on crime prevention for each year since 1990. [10517]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation for the regulation and licensing of the private security industry. [11849]

  Mr. Maclean
  We are currently considering the case for statutory regulation of the private security industry.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97. [11443]

  Mr. Howard
  Following is the information about expenditure on hospitality and entertainment by my Department:

  Year

  Department (excluding agencies and non-departmental public bodies) £

  Agencies £

  Non-departmental public bodies £

  1989–90

  28,630

  —

  527

  1991–92

  28,094

  —

  766

  1993–94

  15,233

  33,784

  2,270

  1994–95

  15,990

  11,478

  1,552

  1995–96 (provisional)

  27,970

  32,600

  6,227

  1996–97 (provisional)

  30,300

  13,000

  7,029

  Details of expenditure in 1979–80 are not available.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of departmental expenditure on administration for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11444]

  Mr. Howard
  Expenditure by my Department on administration, as set out at annexe 3 to the Home Office annual report 1995, Cm 2808, is as follows:

  £ million

  1989–90

  Outturn

  1,085

  1991–92

  Outturn

  1,441

  1993–94

  Outturn

  1,623

  1994–95

  Estimated outturn

  1,729

  1995–96

  Plans

  1,746

  1996–97

  Plans

  1,780

  Comparable details of expenditure in 1979–80 are not available.
  704
  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department, his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11446]

  Mr. Howard
  The estimate of expenditure for my Department on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses is as follows:

  (a) 1979–80: not available.

  (b) 1989–90: this information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  (c) 1991–92: this information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  (d) 1993–94: this information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  (e) 1994–95: £1,758,692.

  (f) 1995–96: expenditure to date £2,055,439. An estimate of the total for the year can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  (g) 1996–97: an estimate for the year can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of his Department's expenditure on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96, to date; and if he will list the publications purchased for the latest year for which information is available. [11447]

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is as follows:

  1993–94: £232,800

  1994–95: £226,154

  1995–96: £110,338 (to date).

  These figures relate to newspapers and magazines purchased centrally through the Home Office information and library services for the Home Department, including the Prison Service headquarters and the immigration and nationality department. No central record is held of materials purchased from divisional funds, or in respect of purchases by non-departmental public bodies for which my Department is responsible.

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

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the annual telephone costs to(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) his Department's non-departmental public bodies staff for each of the years (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97; and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas of (a) to (c). [11386]
  705
  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: The annual telephone costs to my Department are as follows:

  £ thousands

  Year

  Department (excluding agencies and non-departmental public bodies)

  Agencies

  Non-departmental public bodies

  1993–94

  4,706

  8,400

  392

  1994–95

  4,577

  8,995

  381

  1995–96 (provisional)

  5,019

  1647

  406

  1996–97 (provisional)

  4,816

  11,055

  455

  1Details of the provisional expenditure by the Prison Service executive agency in 1995–96 and 1996–97 are not yet available.

  Details of expenditure prior to 1993–94 are not available.

  Staff of my Department in central London offices make use of CCTA's metropolitan telephone service—MTS—which provides fully managed telephone and directory services. The MTS requires the Department to maintain a current directory of staff, location and telephone extensions to enable the MTS operators to provide a directory inquiry service to internal and external callers. All offices on the MTS are connected to the Government telephone network–GTN–as are many other offices of my Department outside the central London area. The GTN dialling codes booklet is available to all staff in these offices. It enables them to identify the operator in any other Government building for inquiry services.

  The Home Office staff telephone directory is available to all staff in my Department and its agencies, and to staff in certain Home Office sponsored non-departmental public bodies. Other non-departmental public bodies produce their own internal telephone directories.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the annual cost to his Department and his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies of their empty and under-utilised properties for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11445]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies assume accountability for all the offices in which they have occupations, including any vacant space therein, from 1 April 1996 only. Up to that date, responsibility for the whole of the Government common user office estate—CUE—in which Government Departments were housed, rests with Property Holdings, and, prior to 1 April 1990, rested with the Property Services Agency. That part of the question covering previous years is, therefore, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  For 1996–97, the Home Office received a transfer of £1.4 million from Property Holdings to cover the costs of vacant space in offices occupied by the Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies.

  For future years, efficiency plans being prepared within the Department are expected to lead to a reduced requirement for office accommodation, and the resultant
  706
  rationalisation of the estate will enable the Home Office to deliver greater value for money across the range of services it provides.

  Holding Centre (Glasgow Airport)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held with the British Airports Authority concerning the building of a holding centre at Glasgow airport; what estimate he has made of the cost of construction; and if he will make a statement. [11675]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  There have been no discussions with the British Airports Authority about building a holding centre at Glasgow airport.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the appointment of a chairman for the Criminal Cases Review Commission. [12323]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  An announcement will be made once the process of selection and appointment currently under way is completed.

  British Nationality (Hong Kong)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made as to likely changes in the ratio of dependants to principal beneficiaries under the British nationality (Hong Kong) selection scheme. [12526]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  With almost 97 per cent. of the principal registrations under the scheme now completed, we do not expect there to be any change in this ratio. Some spouses and dependants who were not included in the original application may apply for registration before the end-1996 deadline, but these are not likely to affect the figure significantly.

  Restraint Techniques
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the commissioner of police for London on(a) the conduct of individual police officers and (b) the practices in respect of the unlawful killing of Mr. Shiji Lapite; what action he proposes to take to compensate Mr. Lapite's family; what measures he proposes to alter the practices which led to Mr. Lapite's death; and if he will make a statement. [12764]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that, following the verdict of the coroner's inquest, the case has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions who will again consider the criminal aspects of the case. It would not he appropriate for me to comment further on the details of the case at this stage.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers is currently considering its guidelines on the use of restraint techniques. I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that no claim for compensation has yet been received from Mr. Lapite's family.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ban the use of neck choke holds by
  707
  (a) the police and (b) prison officers; and if he will make a statement. [12722]

  Mr. Maclean
  No. The law provides that any person may use reasonable force in upholding the law. What particular means of restraint is reasonable is a matter for the courts in the circumstances of the particular case.

  Police Grant
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he plans to allocate police grant in 1996–97. [13101]

  Mr. Howard
  I yesterday laid before the House the police grant report (England and Wales) 1996–97. This should be read in conjunction with, for England, the Local government finance report, the special grant report (No. 16) and, for Wales, with the information laid before the House this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  The police grant report includes the allocation of funding for the 5,000 extra officers announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Funding figures for each police authority are set out in the table:

  £ million

  Police force area

  1995–96 funding1

  1996–97 funding1

  English Shire Forces

  Avon and Somerset

  147.8

  154.6

  Bedfordshire

  55.4

  57.3

  Cambridgeshire

  62.7

  66.4

  Cheshire

  93.1

  98.5

  Cleveland

  70.7

  73.3

  Cumbria

  54.3

  57.1

  Derbyshire

  88.3

  92.5

  Devon and Cornwall

  146.5

  153.4

  Dorset

  62.6

  64.9

  Durham

  68.0

  71.5

  Essex

  146.7

  151.7

  Gloucestershire

  56.3

  58.5

  Hampshire

  169.0

  175.3

  Hertfordshire

  87.0

  89.9

  Humberside

  98.1

  103.1

  Kent

  158.1

  163.9

  Lancashire

  155.5

  163.5

  Leicestershire

  89.9

  94.8

  Lincolnshire

  57.1

  59.0

  Norfolk

  71.2

  76.0

  Northamptonshire

  55.8

  58.4

  North Yorkshire

  66.7

  69.7

  Nottinghamshire

  110.2

  115.2

  Staffordshire

  101.2

  108.9

  Suffolk

  58.5

  61.7

  Surrey

  85.1

  88.0

  Sussex

  145.8

  151.1

  Thames Valley

  192.8

  202.6

  Warwickshire

  47.7

  49.2

  West Mercia

  97.8

  103.5

  Wiltshire

  58.7

  60.7

  English Metropolitan Forces

  Greater Manchester

  327.1

  342.5

  Merseyside

  215.0

  221.9

  Northumbria

  179.6

  188.2

  South Yorkshire

  147.2

  154.7

  West Midlands

  329.3

  344.0

  West Yorkshire

  249.8

  260.9

  708

  £ million

  Police force area

  1995–96 funding1

  1996–97 funding1

  London Forces

  Metrpolitan Police2

  1,628.7

  1,649.6

  City of London3

  57.3

  59.1

  English Total

  6,092.6

  6,314.9

  Welsh Forces

  Dyfed-Powys

  46.3

  458.6

  Gwent4

  60.1

  62.8

  North Wales

  66.0

  69.3

  South Wales4

  143.4

  151.1

  Welsh Total

  315.8

  331.7

  Total

  6,408.4

  6,646.7

  1Includes SSA, Police Grant and Special (SSA) Reduction) Grant (Police Funding Review). Figure are rounded to the nearest £100,000.

  2Figure for the Metropolitan Police does not include funding allocated to the Receiver under the Other Services Block SSA for school crossing patrols, Magistrates' Courts and the Probation Service.

  3Figure for the City does not include Capital Financing and Other Services Block SSAs which are allocated to the Common Council of the City of London as a whole in respect of all its functions.

  4Figures for South Wales and Gwent police authorities have been adjusted to show what they would have received in 1995–96 had the transfer of the Rhymney Valley from South Wales to Gwent, due to take effect on 1 April 1996, been effective for 1995–96. These adjustments enable valid comparisons to be made between these forces' allocations for 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Police Cautions (Burglary)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the practice and policy of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in respect of cautioning persons who have been apprehended following a reported or suspected burglary; and if he will make a statement; [11261]

  (2) how many people have been cautioned in the Metropolitan police area over the past two years following their being apprehended following a reported or suspected burglary. [11262]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answers 29 January 1996]: I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that Metropolitan police practice and policy on the cautioning of offenders follows guidance provided in the Home Office circular number 18 of 1994 "The Cautioning of Offenders".

  During 1994, 959 people were cautioned in the Metropolitan police district for burglary offences. Figures for 1995 are not yet available.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will given an estimate on the number of physical attacks on rough sleepers in 1995; and if he will make a statement; [9974]

  (2) if his Department keeps official statistics on the number of physical attacks on rough sleepers; and if he will make a statement. [9975]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answers 29 January 1996]: This information is not collected centrally and there are no plans to do so.

HEALTH

  Doctors and Nurses
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors and nurses worked in the NHS in each year from 1992 to 1995; and how many currently work in the NHS. [9504]

  Mr. Malone
  For figures relating to doctors, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health gave the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) on 18 December 1995,Official Report, columns 947–50. For the figures relating to the nurses, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 8 November 1995, Official Report, column 973.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the Government health warnings on tobacco advertisements on the consumption of tobacco by teenagers. [10762]

  Mr. Horam
  We are not aware of any research which looks specifically at the effect of health warnings on consumption of tobacco by teenagers. In practice, many factors influence the teenagers' consumption of tobacco—notably, price and parental influence. It is very difficult to isolate the specific effect of health warnings on consumption from the influence of other factors.

  District Nurses
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patient contacts there were with district nurses in each year since 1989–90. [10928]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is published in "Patient Care in the Community, District Nursing, Summary for Information for 1994–95, England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the overall NHS outturn against revenue and capital cash limits in 1994–95. [10934]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the table.

  National Health Service Cash Limited Spending (Voted) 1994–95

  £ million

  Final cash limit

  Outturn

  Revenue1

  22,386

  22,289

  Capital

  947

  881

  Total

  23,333

  23,170

  Source:

  Department of Health Appropriation Accounts 1994–95.

  Notes:

  1Includes amounts earned by NHS trusts through contract prices to fund capital spending and the costs of drugs prescribed by general practitioner fundholders.

  1. Includes voted loans from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to NHS Trusts to finance trust capital spending.

  HealthNet
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the proposed applications for data to he transmitted on HealthNet; and how patient consent will be obtained for these purposes. [11189]

  Mr. Horam
  The following applications will not process patient identifiable information, so that the question of patient consent does not arise:

  purchase of and payment for supplies;

  knowledge bases;

  bulletin boards;

  statistical databases;

  clinical education and training applications.

  Patient information is involved in the following applications:

  Test investigation requests and results;

  GP referrals;

  discharge information;

  shared patient record information;

  patient administration information;

  commissioning and contracting information services;

  prescription information.

  In August 1994, the Department issued draft guidance on confidentiality of patient information. The guidance has been re-drafted to address many comments received, including those from the British Medical Association and the Data Protection Registrar. The guidance, which will be published shortly, will clarify who may have access to patient information and will require the national health service to inform patients about the purposes for which patient information is used. The guidance will apply to all patient information, whether conveyed on paper or via computer systems and networks. Copies of the guidance will be placed in the Library.

  Personal Information
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the categories of those who will have authorised access to patients' identifiable personal health information through the HealthNet network; what will be the process for obtaining patients' consent for such information to be available to these categories; and how patients will be informed that access has been made. [11679]

  Mr. Horam
  The categories of those who have authorised access to patients' identifiable personal health information, and the process for obtaining patients' consent and for informing patients are the same, whether or not the information is to be passed over a network.

  In August 1994, the Department issued draft guidance on confidentiality of patient information. The guidance has been re-drafted to address many comments received, including those from the British Medical Association and the Data Protection Registrar. The guidance, which will be published shortly, will clarify who may have access to patient information and will require the national health service to inform patients about the purposes for which patient information is used. The guidance will apply to all patient information, whether conveyed on paper or via computer systems and network. Copies of the guidance will be placed in the Library.

  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will write to the chairs of all health authorities with a psychiatric hospital due to close by the year 2000 to ask for evidence to satisfy him that there are adequate replacement services. [12292]

  Mr. Bowis
  The national health service executive have already made it clear that no psychiatric hospital should close until appropriate replacement services are in place.

  General Practitioner Practices
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of general practitioner practices were below minimum standards by family health services authority for each year since 1990. [10519]

  Mr. Malone
  Available data are contained in health service indicators, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Insulin Injections
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to provide free injection pens for insulin injections were a clinical need for such injections has been approved. [10687]

  Mr. Malone
  The clinical needs of people requiring insulin injections may be met through the existing provision of disposable syringes and needles on general practitioner prescription. Disposable injection pens are also available on GP prescription and insulin injection systems may be provided free through the hospital service.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the annual cost to his Department and his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies of their empty and under-utilised properties for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11538]

  Mr. Horam
  The buildings occupied by the Department of Health and its agencies formed part of the Government civil estate and then, from 1990, the Government common user estate. Vacant space has been the responsibility of Property Services Agency for the civil estate, then Property Holdings for the common user estate. From 1 April 1996, Departments take over responsibility for the vacant space in their buildings on the common user estate.

  The estimated annual cost to the Department of Health, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies of their empty and under-utilised properties is £200,000 in 1991–92, £200,000 in 1993–94 and £910,000 in 1996–97. The increase in 1996–97 reflects the transfer of responsibility for vacant space from property holdings to the Department.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of departmental expenditure on administration for(a) 1979–80,
  712
  (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11537]

  Mr. Horam
  Details of the Department's administration costs from 1989–90 to 1993–94 are provided in the Department's annual report for 1995–96 to 1997–98, Cm 2812, copies of which are available in the Library. Figures for the Department of Health for 1979–80, prior to the split of the DHSS, are not available.

  Departmental expenditure for 1994–95 was £242 million, and the estimated outturn for 1995–96 is £235 million. The planned expenditure for 1996–97 is £281 million, but this is on a new basis which is not comparable with previous figures.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department and his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11539]

  Mr. Horam
  Estimates of the expenditure of the Department of Health, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all forms of travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenditure for 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 are shown in the table.

  1993–94: £1,823,000

  1994–95: £1,698,000

  1995–96: £1,436,000 (estimate)

  1996–97: £264,000 (non-departmental public bodies only)

  Figures for the central Department and its agencies and complete data for the non-departmental public bodies are not available for 1979–80, 1989–90 and 1991–92. The Department formed part of the Department of Health and Social Security until July 1988 and for 1989–90 and 1991–92 the Department's accounting records did not separately identify overseas travel costs from United Kingdom travel expenditure. Estimates for 1996–97 for the central Department and its agencies are not yet available.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97. [11536]

  Mr. Horam
  For the amount spent on hospitality expenditure by the Department and its agencies for 1994–95, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Health gave the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 1 May 1995,Official Report, column 23. For details of expenditure for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Health gave the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 1 November 1994. Official Report, columns 1073–74.
  713
  For the amount spent on hospitality during 1995–96, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Newham, North-West on 18 December 1995, Official Report, column 935. Estimates of expenditure in 1996–97 are not yet available.

  Information on hospitality expenditure for non-departmental public bodies is not available for 1979–80. Figures for the other years requested are shown.

  NDPBs

  1989–90: £10,918

  1991–92: £16,416

  1993–94: £21,208

  1994–95: £21,152

  1995–96: £14,378

  1996–97: £15,000

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of his Department's expenditure on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96, to date; and if he will list the publications purchased for the latest year for which information is available. [11540]

  Mr. Horam
  The expenditure in the Department was as follows:

  1993–94: £45,740

  1994–95: £44,130

  1995–96: £31,087 (up-to end December 1995)

  A list of the titles currently received follows.

  List of Newspapers currently received by the Department of Health Title

  Daily Express

  Daily Mirror

  Daily Mail

  Daily Record

  Daily Star

  Daily Telegraph

  European

  Evening Standard

  Financial Times

  Guardian

  Independent

  Mail on Sunday

  Morning Star

  Observer

  News of the World

  Northern Echo

  South London Press

  Sun

  Sunday Express

  Sunday Mirror

  Sunday People

  Sunday Telegraph

  Sunday Times

  Times

  Wall Street Journal

  Weekly Guardian

  Yorkshire Post/Evening Post

  List of Magazines currently received by the Department of Health Title

  Big Issue

  Campaign

  Care Weekly

  Caterer and Hotel Keeper

  Community Care

  Computer Weekly

  Economist

  Health Service Journal

  Mac User

  714

  Mac World

  Media

  Nature

  Net

  New Scientist

  New Statesman

  Nursery World

  Nursing Times

  Private Eye

  Spectator

  Tablet

  TV/Radio Times

  Voice

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total number and percentage of the population of(a) men aged 65 years or over and (b) women aged 60 years or over in the years 2017 to 2040. [12168]

  Mr. Horam
  The latest available information using the mid-1992—based national population projections is shown in the table. Mid-1994-based projections will be available shortly. Summary figures will be published in Office of Population Censuses and Surveys monitor in February.

  England and Wales

  Men aged 65 and over

  Women aged 60 and over

  Year

  Thousands

  As percentage of total male population

  Thousands

  As Percentage of total female population

  2017

  4,568

  16.7

  7,276

  26.3

  2018

  4,635

  16.9

  7,370

  26.6

  2019

  4,701

  17.1

  7,470

  26.9

  2020

  4,759

  17.3

  7,575

  27.3

  2021

  4,824

  17.5

  7,694

  27.7

  2022

  4,897

  17.8

  7,822

  28.1

  2023

  4,977

  18.1

  7,957

  28.6

  2024

  5,061

  18.3

  8,097

  29.0

  2025

  5,152

  18.7

  8,235

  29.5

  2026

  5,256

  19.0

  8,362

  30.0

  2027

  5,366

  19.4

  8,478

  30.4

  2028

  5,480

  19.9

  8,579

  30.7

  2029

  5,599

  20.3

  8,675

  31.1

  2030

  5,713

  20.7

  8,752

  31.4

  2031

  5,816

  21.1

  8,830

  31.7

  2032

  5,907

  21.5

  8,885

  31.9

  2033

  5,983

  21.8

  8,917

  32.0

  2034

  6,054

  22.1

  8.926

  32.1

  2035

  6,110

  22.3

  8,921

  32.1

  2036

  6,164

  22.6

  8,902

  32.1

  2037

  6,199

  22.7

  8,868

  32.0

  2038

  6,211

  22.8

  8,836

  32.0

  2039

  6,199

  22.8

  8,824

  32.0

  2040

  6,176

  22.8

  8,820

  32.0

  Hospices
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the separate dedicated registration of(a) adult and (b) children's hospices. [12391]

  Mr. Horam
  None at present.
  715
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what factors underlay his decision to end the separate central funding of children's hospices from 1994–95; and what consultations his Department undertook with(a) children's hospices and (b) local health authorities prior to that decision; [12393]

  (2) what discussions he has had with local health authorities in respect of the target of 50:50 funding for children's hospices from health authority purchasers; [12390]

  (3) if it is his policy that children's hospices should be eligible for matching funding from the NHS. [12394]

  Mr. Bowis
  There was never separate central funding for children's hospices. The target of 50:50 funding was a national target and did not apply to individual hospices. It was never applied to children's hospices. From 1994–95, funding for specialist palliative care has been built into health authorities' general allocations. This was announced in the NHS executive letter EL(93)14 issued in February 1993, copies of which are available in the Library. Services for children with life-threatening illnesses are now eligible for funding and health authority commissioners can negotiate with children's hospices for the services that they wish to purchase in the same way as they do for adult hospices.

  Mr. Cunnigham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were cared for in each of the last three years in children's hospices in the United Kingdom. [12392]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospice beds there were in each of the last five years. [12716]

  Mr. Horam
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Number of hospice beds from 1991 to 1995 (England)

  Year

  Number of beds

  1991

  2,171

  1992

  2,321

  1993

  2,409

  1994

  2,521

  1995

  2,587

  Source:

  St. Christopher's Hospice Information Service.

  Deregulation (Still Birth Death Registration) Order 1996
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what cost-benefit analysis has been made of the saving to(a) business and (b) public funds accruing from the Deregulation (Still Birth and Death Registration) Order 1996. [12259]

  Mr. Horam
  I am advised by the Registrar General that he does not anticipate that there will be a large take-up of the proposed facility for the making of declarations of death and still birth before any registrar in England and Wales. There is likely to be no impact on business. Local authorities may incur some small additional expenditure in postage and telephone costs.

  Methadone (Child-proof Bottles)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department issues in respect of regulating the dispensing of methadone into child-proof bottles. [12290]

  Mr. Malone
  None. However, the council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain has, since 1991, recommended that all dispensed preparations of methadone mixture should be supplied in containers with child-resistant closures. From 1 January 1995, it has been a professional requirement that all liquid medicines dispensed by pharmacists are dispensed in child-resistant containers.

  Sheffield Children's Hospital
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 January,Official Report, column 549, on what date he invited the Sheffield children's hospital to co-ordinate the monitoring of the occupancy of intensive care paediatric beds; on what date the hospital agreed to co-ordinate the monitoring; and if the decision was taken by the trust. [12319]

  Mr. Bowis
  We asked the chief executive of Sheffield children's hospital national health service trust to help us arrange this exercise on 20 December 1995 and he agreed immediately. I am most grateful for the trust's co-operation.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 January,Official Report, column 549, on what date the Sheffield children's hospital commenced the monitoring of the occupancy of intensive care paediatric beds; what resources are to be put into the monitoring exercise; and at what intervals each hospital asked for an information update. [12321]

  Mr. Bowis
  On 23 January. An administrator has been appointed to collect and analyse daily returns from the paediatric intensive care units.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis Ministers judged the adequacy of intensive care paediatric beds before their monitoring by Sheffield Children's hospital. [12322]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for health authorities to assess the health needs of their resident populations and contract for the services necessary to meet their needs. The arrangements we have made for Sheffield children's hospital to undertake a national survey of occupancy and demand for paediatric intensive care beds will assist them with this task.

  Children (Life-threatening Illnesses)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on services to children with life-threatening illnesses and their families; and if he will publish the results of those studies. [12389]

  Mr. Bowis
  In February 1992, we announced that £1 million would be provided each year for five years to pilot new services in England for children with
  717
  life-threatening conditions and their families. A number of projects have been commissioned, spread evenly across England, which have included both statutory and voluntary initiatives. These projects cover hospital-based services, community home nursing services, voluntary respite and sitting services, counselling and psychological support.

  This initiative still has a year to run, but in June 1994 an interim report was prepared jointly by the Association for Children with Life-threatening or Terminal Conditions and their Families—ACT—and the Department of Health. Copies of this report can be obtained from ACT.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 January,Official Report, columns 161–62, on NHS staff, if he will provide a regional breakdown of the figures. [12775]

  Mr. Malone
  Provisional expenditure, by region is shown in the table.

  Hospital and Community Health Service Salary Costs for Managerial, Administrative Clerical Staff and Nursing and Midwifery staff 1994–95

  £000

  Managerial expenditure

  Administrative and clerical expenditure

  Nursing and midwifery expenditure

  Northern and Yorkshire Region

  100,963

  199,367

  856,849

  Trent Region

  59,387

  139,380

  598,343

  Anglian and Oxford Region

  70,363

  148,005

  586,048

  North Thames Region

  122,388

  285,923

  974,093

  South Thames Region

  112,835

  243,981

  843,465

  South and West Region

  91,730

  183,010

  808,721

  West Midlands Region

  70,588

  166,298

  624,969

  North West Region

  93,474

  212,515

  885,259

  Special Health Authorities

  1,633

  3,650

  6,268

  Total England

  723,361

  1,582,129

  6,184,015

  Sources:

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

  2. The annual financial returns of NHS trusts.

  Notes:

  1. The figures are provisional.

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

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

  4. The figures are based upon gross costs including employers' national insurance and superannuation contributions.

  Casualty Departments
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of casualty departments by region. [12632]

  Mr. Horam
  The latest available figures are shown in the table. Information is collected on the basis of trusts and directly managed units with accident and emergency services. Some trusts include more than one hospital each with its own accident and emergency department.

  Trusts and directly managed units with accident and emergency departments by region in England 1994–95

  Number

  Northern

  11

  Yorkshire

  16

  Trent

  19

  East Anglian

  11

  North-west Thames

  13

  North-east Thames

  18

  South-east Thames

  18

  South-west Thames

  14

  Wessex

  12

  Oxford

  9

  South Western

  15

  West Midlands

  27

  Mersey

  12

  North Western

  21

  Total

  216

  Source:

  KHO3 returns

  Mental Health Beds (Wandsworth)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental health beds there were in Wandsworth health authority area in each of the last five years. [12636]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on ward beds for patients with mental illness is published annually in "Bed availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Cancer-related Deaths
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate the number of patients who died in hospital in each of the last five years as a result of cancer. [12717]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of deaths from cancer in hospitals and communal establishments for the care of the sick are published, for 1990–92, in "Mortality statistics—general", OPCS series DH1 Nos. 24, 26 and 27 (table 7), copies of which are available in the Library. Figures for 1993 onwards are not yet available.

  Tuberculosis
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the notification rate of tuberculosis by health authorities in each of the last five years. [12620]

  Mr. Horam
  The figures are shown in the table
  719

  All tuberculosis rates per 100,000 population (excluding chemoprophylaxis)

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995 Provisional

  RHA

  Northern

  7.60

  8.65

  8.22

  6.29

  6.83

  Yorkshire

  13.31

  10.57

  12.57

  10.75

  12.15

  Trent

  9.46

  8.87

  10.87

  9.60

  10.52

  East Anglian

  4.03

  3.69

  3.39

  2.87

  4.23

  North-west Thames

  22.13

  25.61

  24.17

  28.35

  30.21

  North-east Thames

  19.99

  22.35

  21.14

  23.93

  23.51

  South-east Thames

  9.88

  10.32

  11.41

  11.45

  10.97

  South-west Thames

  7.73

  8.14

  9.07

  8.78

  8.45

  Wessex

  3.33

  3.41

  3.65

  4.03

  5.10

  Oxford

  7.19

  7.48

  8.21

  5.32

  7.96

  South Western

  3.61

  4.10

  4.65

  5.37

  4.54

  West Midlands

  15.55

  16.47

  14.90

  13.79

  12.50

  Mersey

  4.55

  5.64

  7.42

  4.27

  6.14

  North Western

  13.76

  15.80

  15.08

  13.10

  12.36

  Wales

  5.74

  6.93

  6.85

  6.21

  6.18

  England and Wales

  10.64

  11.31

  11.51

  10.83

  11.18

  NHS Eyesight Tests
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS eyesight tests were conducted in each year since 1978. [12622]

  Mr. Malone
  The numbers of national health service sight tests paid for by family health services authorities in England in each year since 1978 are as follows:

  1978–79: 7.894 millions

  1979–80: 8.331 millions

  1980–81: 8.332 millions

  1981–82: 8.469 millions

  1982–83: 8.678 millions

  1983–84: 9.266 millions

  1984–85: 9.882 millions

  1985–86: 10.246 millions

  1986–87: 10.615 millions

  1987–88: 11.695 millions

  G&A Non-elective FCEs1

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Q1

  Q2

  Region

  1993–94

  1993–94

  1993–94

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1994–95

  1994–95

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1995–96

  Northern and Yorkshire

  142,361

  138,971

  143,879

  147,711

  144,692

  148,375

  152,309

  150,440

  153,811

  154,312

  Trent

  92,432

  92,814

  101,048

  101,871

  101,016

  102,026

  104,242

  109,248

  105,211

  107,594

  Anglia and Oxford

  86,480

  86,147

  90,419

  91,085

  89,674

  90,288

  96,997

  97,991

  93,873

  95,553

  North Thames

  121,632

  122,159

  122,454

  132,467

  126,881

  126,972

  128,533

  131,102

  128,551

  125,863

  South Thames

  112,589

  125,229

  119,552

  117,715

  118,540

  122,221

  123,613

  127,016

  122,827

  125,031

  South and West

  116,155

  121,228

  123,401

  125,056

  124,826

  122,042

  127,908

  129,339

  130,744

  132,950

  West Midlands

  100,397

  100,536

  102,638

  102,143

  101,067

  103,052

  111,984

  107,956

  105,957

  111,828

  North-west

  148,074

  142,317

  154,767

  155,404

  155,341

  152,765

  146,889

  165,908

  157,420

  163,281

  England

  920,119

  929,401

  958,159

  973,451

  962,039

  967,740

  992,476

  1,019,001

  998,394

  1,016,412

  Source:

  Fast Track NHS Executive.

  Notes:

  1. All estimates are derived from the NHS Executive's quarterly fast track management system. Figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95 have been adjusted to take account of definitional changes to allow direct comparison with 1995–96 figures.

  2. The estimates are on a "purchaser basis" and relate to activity purchased using NHS funds by health authorities and GP fundholders in England. This includes activity purchased from private hospitals and NHS hospitals outside England, but excludes private patients and patients from outside England treated in English hospitals.

  3. The figures are on a different basis to the long standing series published annually in "Ordinary and day case Admissions for England". The annual series is on a "provider basis", and counts all patients treated in NHS hospitals in England, including private patients and patients from outside England.
  720

  1988–89: 12.493 millions

  1989–90: 5.280 millions

  1990–91: 4.154 millions

  1991–92: 4.979 millions

  1992–93: 5.528 millions

  1993–94: 5.935 millions

  1994–95: 6.383 millions

  In April 1989, NHS sight tests were restricted to certain groups of the population. The figures for 1989–90 include some sight tests paid for in 1989–90 but conducted in 1988–89 under the previous scheme and are not, therefore, directly comparable with those for 1990–91 onwards.

  Hospital Admissions
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many non-elective general and acute admissions there were by region and quarter for(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96. [12624]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the table.

  Nurse Prescribing
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on nurse prescribing. [12628]

  Mr. Malone
  Preliminary findings show that the existing nurse prescribing pilot scheme is improving patient health care. Plans are being developed to test the scheme on a wider basis.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the effect nurse prescribing has on quality of care for patients. [12629]

  Mr. Malone
  My Department has commissioned Professor K. Luker, department of nursing, at the university of Liverpool, to carry out a detailed evaluation into the nurse prescribing pilot project, currently under way at eight sites.

  General Practitioner Beds
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of GP beds in each of the last five years. [12630]

  Mr. Horam
  The available information on hospital beds, including information on general practitioner maternity beds, is classified by ward category, recognising the flexible use of bed facilities, and is published annually in "Bed availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Hospital Beds
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) beds and (b) acute beds there were at St. George's, Tooting, and Guy's and St. Thomas's trusts in each of the last five years. [12634]

  Mr. Horam
  The national health service trusts were established on 1 April 1993. Details by trust are therefore available from 1993–94 and can be found in the publication "Bed availability for England 1993–94 and 1994–95", copies of which are available in the Library.

  "Employer's Guide to Stress"
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 28 November,Official Report, column 602, how many copies of the document "Employer's Guide to Stress" were printed; and if he will list all other costs incurred in connection with the document. [12773]

  Mr. Bowis
  Some 5,000 copies of this document were printed. No costs other than those set out in my reply to the hon. Member on 28 November,Official Report, column 602, have been incurred by the Department of Health.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if his Department employed consultants to advise on the form used to apply for rebates on prescription charges for 60 to 65-year-old men following the decision of the European Court; [12533]
  722
  (2) how many men between the ages of 60 and 65 years have claimed rebates on prescription charges following the decision of the European Court to treat men between these ages equally; and if he will make a statement. [12534]

  Mr. Malone
  No consultants were involved in advising the Department on the design of the refund claim form.

  About 195,000 registrations in total have been received by the prescription claims processing unit. The unit expects to have issued all remaining claim forms by the end of this week. To date, 114,350 completed claim forms have been received.

  Drug Misuse Database
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply of 16 January,Official Report, column 557, on the ownership of the drug misuse database, if he intends to make the data codes and structure of the database available to all those organisations that supply software to local drug agencies; and if he will make a statement. [12613]

  Mr. Bowis
  Yes, provided any other copyright owners agree to the information being used for this purpose.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the PFI initiatives that have been approved so far in London indicating the capital cost and revenue cost for each scheme for the NHS in each of the next five years. [12631]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 15 January,Official Report, column 343, and to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on 6 December, Official Report, column 224.

  National Health Service (capital Projects)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the capital projects in the NHS with works costs of over £1 million(a) in the primary sector, hospital sector and (b) in total in each financial year since 1990–91; if he will indicate the cost of each project; and if he will make a statement. [12633]

  Mr. Horam
  The national health service has invested over £1.594 billion in big building projects over the period 1990–91 to date. The majority of these projects will be in the hospital sector. The information does not distinguish between capital projects in the primary or hospital sectors. For information from 1990–91 to 1993–94, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary for Health gave the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 23 February 1995,Official Report, column 329. Information on the spending for each project with a works cost of over £1 million for the financial year 1994–95 will also be placed in the Library.

  Acute Hospital Beds
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of acute hospital beds in each of the last five years. [12718]
  723
  Mr. Horam
  The information is published annually in "Bed availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Emergency Admissions
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has carried out on the changes in levels of emergency admissions to hospitals in the last two years; and if he will make a statement. [12619]

  Mr. Horam
  National data are backed by a number of local studies which confirm that the rise is genuine. We are supporting five local projects to identify any lessons which can be learnt and examples of good practice.

  National Health Service (complaints)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of complaints about the NHS in each of the last five years. [12623]

  Mr. Horam
  The most recent available figures are shown in the tables.

  Year

  Number of complaints

  Hospital and community health services

  1990–91

  37,350

  1991–92

  51,511

  1992–93

  58,889

  1993–94

  87,184

  1994–95

  100,033

  Family health services

  1990

  2,025

  1991

  2,205

  1992

  1,974

  1993

  2,520

  1994

  2,490

  These figures should be seen in the context of total NHS activity.

  The number of complaints for hospital and community health services represents only 0.4 per cent. of the number of in-patient episodes and first out-patient attendances.

  The increase in number of complaints over the last five years reflects rising public expectations in general as well as the specific impact of the patients charter in making patients more aware that their complaints will be taken seriously.

  Official Hospitality
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the budget for official hospitality by his Department for 1995–96. [12625]

  Mr. Horam
  For the projected amount of expenditure on hospitality during 1995–96, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 18 December 1995,Official Report, column 935.

  Casualty Units (Vacancies)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of vacancies in medical posts in casualty units around the country. [12627]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ward Closures (London)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what notification has been received by his Department in respect of ward closures at St. George's, Tooting, and Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS trust. [12635]

  Mr. Horam
  Neither of these trusts has recently notified the Department of ward closures.

SCOTLAND

  Locate in Scotland (Inward Investment)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans next to meet representatives in the Galloway and Nithsdale area to discuss how Locate in Scotland can best attract industry and inward investment to that area; if he will liaise with the President of the Board of Trade on such matters; and if he will make a statement. [9287]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present for such a meeting. I have, however, recently agreed to meet representatives of Dumfries and Galloway regional council to discuss the economy of Upper Nithsdale and the Machars and this meeting is currently being arranged.

  My right hon. Friend liaises closely with the President of the Board of Trade on a wide range of issues affecting industry throughout Scotland.

  Speech and Language Therapy
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Scotland if he will make a statement on the funding provided to local authorities for the purchase of speech and language therapy for children with a record of needs. [11637]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Where they make provision for a recorded child, education authorities have a statutory duty to ensure adequate provision of speech and language therapy where this has been identified as one of the child's special educational needs. The sum of £3 million is included in the annual local government financial settlement to enable education authorities to discharge this duty by contracting with health boards and other providers of speech and language therapy services.

  Monofilament Nets
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received, and from whom on the Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Carriage of Monofilament Gill Nets) (Scotland) Order 1986 as part of the consultation process. [11577]
  725
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Of the 95 organisations and interests consulted about the proposed amendment, responses were received from:

  Atlantic Salmon Trust

  Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards

  West of Scotland Fish Producers' Organisation

  Clyde Fishermen's Association

  Scottish Fishermen's Federation

  Anglo Scottish Fish Producers' Organisation Ltd.

  South Wales, Sea Fisheries Committee

  Highland Regional Council

  Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  Federation of Highland and Islands Fishermen

  Northern Ireland Fishermen's Federation

  Hooktone Ltd.

  National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations

  Macduff Shipyards

  United Fish Selling Ltd.

  Salmon Net Fishing Association of Scotland

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee

  English Nature

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  River Tweed Commissioners

  Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland)

  Marine Conservation Society

  The Fishmongers Company.

  In summary, the sea fishing organisations favoured the proposed change. The majority of the salmon fishing interests could accept a derogation for large mesh nets. Conservation interests were concerned that the change might lead to an increase in the incidental capture of marine mammals, and asked for this to be monitored.

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research he(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effect of the ban on the carriage and use of monofilament gill nets in Scottish waters prior to the consultation process. [11578]

  Mr. Robertson
  Research undertaken by the marine laboratory, Aberdeen shows no evidence that large mesh monofilament nets will result in a larger by-catch than similar sized nets made of other synthetic materials.

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the results of the consultation exercise before making changes too the legislation on the Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Carriage of Monofilament Nets) (Scotland) Order 1986. [11579]

  Mr. Robertson
  Copies of the responses to the consultation exercise are available from the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department on request.

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the future monitoring of the use of monofilament gill nets. [11580]

  Mr. Robertson
  The arrangements already in place for monitoring by-catches of cetaceans in fishing nets will be extended to any large mesh monofilament gill nets.

  EU Funding
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the schemes approved for European funding in Scotland by(a) name, (b) region and (c) level of expenditure under (i) PESCA and (ii) Leader II. [11588]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Implementation of the UK PESCA programme and the Leader II programmes in Scotland is carried out at a local level as provided for in the approved programmes.

  For PESCA, the two Scottish sub-programmes are delivered by local partnerships responsible for implementing business plans approved by the Scottish Office. For Leader II, separate programmes are managed by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise through business plans prepared and implemented by local action groups. Individual projects are selected for support by these local groups, within the terms of the approved business plans.

  The tables detail the groups and the approved budgets for each plan.

  Table 1: PESCA (UK Programme)

  Local PESCA Group

  Value of Business Plan (1995–1999)

  Approximate value in £'s

  Objective 1 subprogramme (mecu)

  Argyll

  0.676

  571,342

  Caithness and Sutherland

  0.860

  726,856

  Lochaber

  0.189

  159,739

  Orkney

  0.286

  241,722

  Wester Ross

  0.218

  184,250

  Shetland

  0.442

  373,570

  Skye and Lochalsh

  0.297

  251,019

  Western Isles

  0.608

  513,870

  Total

  3.576

  3,022,368

  Regional projects

  0.387

  327,082

  Management

  0.398

  336,382

  Total

  4.361

  3,685,836

  Non-objective 1 subprogramme (mecu)

  Grampian

  8.149

  6,887,383

  Tayside/Fife

  1.34

  1,132,430

  South West Scotland

  1.34

  1,132,430

  Borders

  1.34

  1,132,430

  Total

  12.169

  10,284,673

  Table 2: Leader II (two Scottish programmes)

  Local action group

  Value of business plan (1995 and 1996)1

  Approximate value in £'s

  Objective 1 programme (mecu)

  Argyll

  0.736268

  622,280

  Caithness and Sutherland

  0.153125

  129,418

  Ross and Cromarty

  0.487500

  412,026

  Inverness and Nairn

  0.177500

  150,002

  727

  Table 2: Leader II (two Scottish programmes)

  Local action group

  Value of business plan (1995 and 1996)1

  Approximate value in £'s

  Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey

  0.158125

  133,644

  Western Isles and Skye

  1.052500

  889,553

  Orkney

  0.350000

  295,813

  Shetland

  0.404750

  342,087

  Lochaber

  0.475000

  401,146

  Total

  3.994768

  3,375,969

  1Figures have yet to be finalised for 1997–99. (Total value for five year programme is 11.962 mecu).

  Local action group

  Value of business plan (1995 and 1999)

  Approximate value in £'s

  Objective 5B programme (mecu)

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2.771845

  2,342,712

  North and West Grampian

  2.300047

  1,943,957

  Rural Stirlingshire

  0.356348

  301,179

  Scottish Borders

  1.769266

  1,495,351

  Upland Tayside

  1.118042

  944,948

  Total

  8.315548

  7,028,146

  Housing
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authority houses have been sold under the right-to-buy scheme in rural Scotland; what is the remaining stock of(a) land authority and (b) housing association rented housing in rural Scotland; and what is the level of homelessness in rural Scotland. [11968]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Information on the sales and remaining stock of local authority dwellings in each district and islands area will be published in the Scottish Office statistical bulletin HSG/1996/1 "Housing Trends in Scotland: Quarter ended 30 June 1995" on 31 January. A copy will be placed in the Library. Information on homelessness applications was published in the Scottish Office statistical bulletin HSG/1995/7 "Operation of the Homeless Persons Legislation in Scotland 1983–84 to 1993–94: District Analyses". A copy is available in the Library. Information on housing association dwellings available for letting in rural local authorities is set out in the table.

  District/islands area

  Housing association letting stock at 31 March 1994

  Berwickshire

  247

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  441

  Roxburgh

  400

  Tweeddale

  412

  Stirling

  617

  Annandale and Eskdale

  115

  Nithsdale

  370

  Stewartry

  150

  Wigtown

  336

  North East Fife

  401

  Banff and Buchan

  990

  728

  District/islands area

  Housing association letting stock at 31 March 1994

  Gordon

  361

  Kincardine and Deeside

  404

  Moray

  856

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  121

  Caithness

  525

  Inverness

  308

  Lochaber

  292

  Nairn

  99

  Ross and Cromarty

  576

  Skye and Lochalsh

  159

  Sutherland

  112

  Argyll and Bute

  1,265

  Clydesdale

  230

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  134

  Kyle and Carrick

  222

  Angus

  867

  Perth and Kinross

  1,289

  Orkney Islands

  188

  Shetland Islands

  181

  Western Isles

  102

  Total rural authorities

  12,770

  Source:

  Housing Associations Statistics 1994.

  Scottish Homes.

  Mr. Stefan Adolf Kock
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in which years since 1990 Mr. Stefan Adolf Kock has appeared on the register of potential public appointees. [12732]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Mr. Kock does not appear on the current Scottish Office public appointments list and as far as I am aware has never applied for an appointment on a body sponsored by my Department.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the annual cost to his Department and his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies of their empty and under-utilised properties for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11410]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Most of the office space occupied by the Scottish Office is part of the Government's common user estate—CUE—and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will provide the details of vacant space on the CUE which are available centrally. Information regarding other property occupied by the Scottish Office, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally and details could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department, his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11411]
  729
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on overseas travel and accommodation costs in the Scottish Office and its individual agencies is not held separately. It cannot be disaggregated from total expenditure on travel and accommodation without disproportionate costs in staff time.

  Information on non-departmental bodies is not kept centrally.

  Children (Scotland) Act 1995
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of state for Scotland if he will make a statement on the necessary implications for the new unitary authorities of the implementation of the Children (Scotland) Act. [11618]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Many of the provisions in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 require significant preparation and training if they are to be successfully implemented. For this reason, the views of a number of organisations, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, were taken into account in setting a date of April 1997 for the implementation of those provisions involving local authorities.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the loss of income to local authorities as a result of parents choosing non-local authority provision for the nursery voucher scheme will be calculated; and at what stage in the year a local authority will know how its funding has been affected. [11619]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  When an authority learns how many vouchers parents have presented at its schools, it wil be able to calculate the resulting income.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the allocations of funding for the current year and each of the past five years to voluntary organisations eligible for assistance under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. [11673]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table. Allocations of funding provided by the Scottish Office to voluntary organisations under section 10(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act for the current year and each of the past five years are:

  1990–91: £4.483 million

  1991–92: £4.830 million

  1992–93: £5.213 million

  1993–94: £5.373 million

  1994–95: £6.745 million

  1995–96: £7.202 million (budget figure)

  Voluntary organisations are eligible for assistance from local authorities under section 10(3) of the Act. Information on this funding is not held centrally.

  Prisoners (Escapes)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) male prisoners and (b) female prisoners have escaped from custody while (i) travelling to and from hospital and (ii) undergoing hospital
  730
  treatment in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [11674]

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

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 30 January 1996:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of male and female prisoners who have escaped from custody whilst (i) travelling to and from hospital and (ii) undergoing hospital treatment in each of the past 10 years.
  To provide the information you requested would only be achieved at disproportionate cost but you may find it helpful to have the number of escapes of category B prisoners from hospital escort since 1991. The information is as follows:

  Year

  Male

  Female

  1991

  4

  —

  1992

  8

  —

  1993

  8

  1

  1994

  6

  —

  1995

  6

  —

  Advocates Depute
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the results of his review of the role and remuneration of advocates depute. [12128]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The review is being carried out by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. A working group, appointed by his predecessor and chaired by the Solicitor-General for Scotland, has completed taking evidence and hopes to report to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate by the middle of March.

  Mr. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current salary of an advocate depute; and what has been the average length of service of advocates depute in the last 10 years for which information is available. [12135]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The current salary of an advocate depute is £43,147. The average length of service of advocate deputes in the last 10 years has been three years.

  Departmental Vacancies
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what in the current establishment of(a) the Crown Office and (b) the procurator fiscal service; and how many vacancies there are in each. [12129]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The current establishment of the Crown Office is 140.1 and there are three vacancies—two administrative and one typing grade.

  The current establishment of the procurator fiscal service is 920.3 and there are four vacancies—legal grades.
  731
  A legal recruitment board is scheduled to take place next month to fill the current vacancies and any which arise during this year.

  Alcoholic Liquor Sales (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many licence holders were prosecuted for selling alcoholic liquor to persons who were under age in the last 10 years for which information is available; and in how many cases convictions were obtained. [12130]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of persons proceeded against where the main offence was under section 68(1) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act is in the table.

  Year

  Number proceeded against

  Charge proved

  1985

  175

  90

  1986

  212

  106

  1987

  231

  113

  1988

  270

  106

  1989

  156

  78

  1990

  134

  68

  1991

  151

  63

  1992

  80

  39

  1993

  77

  35

  1994

  81

  29

  Mr. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many licence holders were prosecuted by the procurator fiscal at Linlithgow for selling alcoholic liquor to persons who were under age in the last 10 years for which information is available; and in how many cases convictions were obtained. [12131]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of persons proceeded against in Linlithgow sheriff court and West Lothian district court where the main offence was under section 68(1) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act is as follows:

  Year

  Number proceeded against

  Charge proved

  1985

  2

  0

  1986

  0

  0

  1987

  3

  1

  1988

  2

  2

  1989

  3

  2

  1990

  7

  6

  1991

  0

  0

  1992

  0

  0

  1993

  1

  1

  1994

  0

  0

  Mr. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Lord Advocate last issued directions to procurators fiscal with regard to the policy to be adopted in relation to prosecutions for the sale of alcoholic liquor to persons who are under age. [12132]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has not issued directions to procurators fiscal with regard to the prosecution of persons who are alleged to have contravened the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. General 732
  guidelines on the prosecution of all summary offences, and on the use of alternatives to prosecution, were issued to procurators fiscal on 1 December 1995.

  Mr. Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy with regard to the prosecution of(a) licence holders who sell alcoholic liquor to persons who are under age and (b) persons who are under age who purchase alcoholic liquor. [12133]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The prosecution of persons charged with a contravention of section 68 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976—prohibition on sale of alcoholic liquor to a person under 18—is a matter for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. Procurators fiscal will take court proceedings in cases where there is sufficient evidence and where, having regard to all the circumstances, a prosecution would be in the public interest.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new jobs were created in Scotland in each year since 1979 to the last date for which figures are available; and if he will list how many in each year were(a) part time and (b) full time. [12709]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information requested is not available.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of jobs which have been moved out of Scotland in each of the past 16 years; and if he will indicate how many went to(a) the rest of the United Kingdom, (b) the rest of the EU and (c) the rest of the world. [12710]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information requested is not available.

  Pre-school Education Initiative
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with arrangements for the evaluation of the pre-school education initiative as proposed in the invitation to local authorities to submit pilot schemes issued by his Department last month. [13127]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Scottish Office is today inviting several research institutions to respond to a specification for an implementation evaluation of the pilot. The remit for this evaluation is wide. It demands that the evaluators look at the experience of parents and providers; examine the way vouchers are used and their effects; and look at the patterns of provision that emerge and at the growth in places that is achieved. We are serious about learning from the pilot; and we are demonstrating that in what we do.

  Film Production
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to increase film production in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [13139]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend attaches great importance to the development of the film industry in Scotland. Scottish Office funding for film has risen from £1 million in 1993–94 to almost £1.5 million
  733
  in the current financial year. This includes an additional £180,000 for the Scottish Film Council to enable it to commission a CD-ROM, for delivery in April this year, which will give film makers throughout the world access to information about Scotland.

  My noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for the arts in Scotland has held a number of discussions with leading figures in the UK and overseas film industry to seek their views on what more can be done to stimulate film production in Scotland. In addition, two studies have been commissioned from Hydra Associates. One is examining measures that might be taken to stimulate the film and television industry in Scotland and the other focuses on the need to improve the present arrangements for funding major film productions. Both studies are due to be completed next month.

  Mental Health (Hospital Transfers)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the security arrangements at Dykebar hospital, Paisley, with particular reference to an incident involving a patient who had been transferred from Carstairs state hospital. [9370]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]: The security arrangements for restricted patients at Dykebar hospital are kept under review by Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS trust. The level of security and supervision imposed on individual patients will reflect the circumstances of each case and, in particular, considerations of public safety.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are in place for assessing the security risk of patients who have been transferred from Carstairs state hospital to community-based mental health hospitals and who have subsequently escaped or left such hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [9373]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]: Public safety is the prime consideration when a restricted patient escapes or absconds from a mental health hospital. Any subsequent action to alert the general public and to effect recapture will reflect that priority. The procedures followed when any such incident occurs are set out in the Scottish Office memorandum on procedure, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The circumstances of any escape or absconding are carefully reviewed. Where appropriate, the patient is returned immediately to the state hospital.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the procedure for transferring an individual committed to Carstairs state hospital to mainstream community hospitals dealing with mental health; what is the range of security measures which can be made available; what restrictions are placed upon the free movement of such patients outwith the curtilage and precincts of the hospital; how(a) the risks to the community and (b) the needs of the individual are assessed and by which bodies; and if he will make a statement; [9372]

  (2) if patients transferred from the Carstairs state hospital who are transferred to community-based hospitals dealing with mental health are, or can be, made subject to security restrictions; what options are available for dealing with such individuals; who
  734
  determines what arrangements should be put in place; and if he will make a statement; [9369]

  (3) what arrangements are in place to ensure the safety of the community in the vicinity of local mental health hospitals, with particular reference to patients transferred from Carstairs state hospital; what assessment is made of the need for security when such a patient is transferred; what reassessment is made when such a patient absents him or herself from the hospital; and if he will make a statement. [9368]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]: The transfer of a patient, who is subject to the special restrictions in section 62 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, from the state hospital, Carstairs, to a local mental health hospital requires my consent, which will be given only when I am satisfied, on the basis of reports from the responsible medical officer, my Department's psychiatric adviser and other relevant information, that the patient no longer requires treatment in the special security of the state hospital and that the arrangements proposed for treatment and supervision in the local hospital are appropriate. Such transfers constitute an important step in the rehabilitation of the patient and are designed to begin a gradual but supervised process towards eventual integration into the community. Treatment plans in each case are geared to individual circumstances and reflect both the health and safety requirements of the patient and public protection considerations.

  Movement outwith the hospital is permitted only following careful assessment by the clinical team, in collaboration, where appropriate, with other professional interests, and with the approval of my Department. Initially, the patient will be escorted by hospital staff.

  The progress of a restricted patient in a local hospital is carefully monitored and regular reports are submitted to the Scottish Office. In addition, my Department's psychiatric adviser visits each patient annually and will do so more frequently, if required. Should a patient not respond satisfactorily or abscond from the hospital, the treatment plan is completely re-assessed. Where necessary, the patient can be returned immediately to the state hospital.

  The procedures to be followed, in cases where transfer or leave of absence of restricted patients fail to be considered, are set out in a Scottish Office memorandum on procedure, a copy of which I have placed in the Library.

  Highway Maintenance Contracts
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many contracts for the maintenance of highways in Scotland have been put out to public tender; what proportion of the contracts now let on this basis have been won (i) by private contractors and (ii) by local authority consortia; and if he will make a statement. [11846]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 January 1996]: There have been eight contracts for the maintenance of trunk roads in Scotland that have been put out to public tender by the Scottish Office; three of the contracts have been awarded to local authority consortia; and the remaining five contracts are currently being assessed.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Motability
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the Schroeders merchant bank report on Motability Finance Ltd. [5092]

  Mr. Burt
  The Schroeders merchant bank report was commissioned by the governors of Motability and is confidential to them.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his Department expects to agree the National Audit Office report on Motability and its associated financial arms. [5138]

  Mr. Burt
  The NAO study on Motability has been received in draft and we are currently discussing with the National Audit Office a timetable for clearance.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if Motability controls the moneys in the Motability 10th anniversary fund. [5142]

  Mr. Burt
  No. The Motability Tenth Anniversary Trust is an independent charity and a registered company. Its moneys are controlled by trustees who are appointed by Motability, the Secretary of State for Social Security and by the bankers who fund the Motability scheme.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the Child Support Agency cases deferred in December 1994 were taken on in(a) November 1995 and (b) December 1995; and what he estimates to be the month-by-month take-up until the end of the current financial year. [10182]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 29 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the take on of Child Support Agency cases deferred in December 1994.
  The special take on of such cases in November and December 1995 was as follows:

  November 1995—292

  December 1995—178

  As you are aware at the time of deferral some 340,000 cases were affected. The Secretary of State set the Agency a milestone target to commence the take on of these cases by the end of 1995. We formally started taking on the remaining cases in November last year, but in practice had already dealt with many of them because the parent with care had either specifically asked us to do so, or had made a repeat claim to a prescribed benefit, and had therefore been treated as a new claim.
  I expect the rate of special take on of deferred cases to remain steady for the remainder of the financial year.
  I hope this is helpful.
  736
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many incoming telephone calls were made to(a) the Child Support Agency centres and (b) the national inquiry line month by month since September 1994. [11195]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 29 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about telephone calls made to the Child Support Agency.
  The numbers of incoming calls made to Child Support Agency Centre Client Help Lines and the National Enquiry Line for the period requested are set out in the attached table.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Calls made to client help line and national enquiry line from September 1994

  Month

  Calls made to client help line (a)

  Calls made to national enquiry line (b)

  Totals

  September 1994

  274,722

  75,952

  350,674

  October 1994

  324,905

  65,786

  390,691

  November 1994

  384,181

  62,205

  446,386

  December 1994

  365,813

  45,393

  411,206

  January 1995

  316,345

  69,377

  385,722

  February 1995

  252,743

  46,010

  298,753

  March 1995

  300,610

  67,148

  367,758

  April 1995

  848,089

  76,028

  924,117

  May 1995

  306,152

  53,001

  359,153

  June 1995

  205,732

  52,229

  257,961

  July 1995

  203,482

  56,697

  260,179

  August 1995

  293,351

  55,603

  348,954

  September 1995

  499,104

  59,639

  558,743

  October 1995

  318,824

  55,941

  374,765

  November 1995

  553,986

  58,861

  612,847

  December 1995

  446,909

  40,327

  487,236

  Totals

  5,894,948

  940,197

  6,835,145

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes were made on what dates to the arrangements for answering incoming calls at the Child Support Agency between September 1994 and September 1995; and when they were made. [11181]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 29 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about changes made in the arrangements for answering incoming calls received in the Child Support Agency.
  To improve customer services, management decided to centralise the National Enquiry Line and to create a section within each Child Support Agency Centre (CSAC) that would deal solely with incoming calls.
  The National Enquiry Line based in Liverpool became fully operational on 21 June 1994 and the Central Call Handling sections with Automatic Call Distribution equipment within each CSAC were fully operational on the following dates:-

  Belfast: 8 August 1994

  Birkenhead: 8 August 1994

  Dudley: 11 July 1994

  737

  Falkirk: 5 September 1994

  Hastings: 1 August 1994

  Plymouth: 22 August 1994

  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 18 December,Official Report, column 894, how the total figures for reduced benefit directives imposed by each Child Support Agency centre were arrived at. [11194]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 29 January 1996:

  Good cause accepted

  Absent parent named

  Good cause not accepted

  Reduced benefit direction implemented

  Investigations completed

  Dudley

  April

  335

  63

  580

  311

  978

  May

  503

  98

  617

  306

  1,218

  June

  450

  243

  820

  389

  1,513

  July

  493

  354

  548

  265

  1,395

  August

  576

  371

  749

  531

  1,696

  September

  541

  370

  599

  464

  1,510

  October

  619

  391

  682

  384

  1,692

  November

  568

  386

  595

  386

  1,549

  Total

  4,085

  2,276

  5,190

  3,036

  11,551

  Hastings

  April

  321

  n/a

  522

  721

  843

  May

  460

  111

  790

  785

  1,361

  June

  469

  222

  723

  631

  1,414

  July

  544

  219

  679

  466

  1,442

  August

  472

  207

  687

  361

  1,366

  September

  495

  273

  582

  532

  1,350

  October

  555

  300

  727

  836

  1,582

  November

  540

  335

  716

  537

  1,591

  Total

  3,856

  1,667

  5,426

  4,869

  10,949

  Falkirk

  April

  369

  94

  471

  283

  934

  May

  534

  161

  833

  335

  1,528

  June

  626

  345

  944

  242

  1,915

  July

  589

  331

  645

  219

  1,565

  August

  642

  408

  939

  276

  1,989

  September

  633

  448

  862

  306

  1,943

  October

  572

  428

  757

  394

  1,757

  November

  637

  463

  918

  362

  2,018

  Total

  4,602

  2,678

  6,369

  2,417

  13,649

  Birkenhead

  April

  389

  96

  470

  510

  955

  May

  556

  185

  615

  511

  1,356

  June

  592

  287

  713

  445

  1,592

  July

  625

  361

  786

  278

  1,772

  August

  582

  334

  637

  430

  1,553

  September

  678

  428

  686

  455

  1,792

  October

  722

  536

  775

  401

  2,033

  November

  801

  567

  951

  382

  2,319

  Total

  4,945

  2,794

  5,633

  3,412

  13,372

  Belfast

  April

  418

  137

  540

  260

  1,095

  May

  599

  195

  740

  473

  1,534

  June

  488

  271

  689

  250

  1,448

  738
  I am reply to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how the totals for reduced benefit directions (RBD) imposed by each Child Support Agency Centre were arrived at in Official Report, column 894 of 18th December 1995.

  I do apologise that having looked again at the totals detailed for the RBD section of the tables provided in the above report, I can see that they were wrong. The sum shown at the bottom of these particular columns is not the the total of the individual figures in them.

  I have enclosed an updated version of the full tables supplied by way of answer to your Parliamentary Question set out in Official Report, column 894. You will note that the relevant columns do now show their correct totals. I am very sorry I did not spot this error in my previous reply.

  I hope this is helpful.
  739

  Good cause accepted

  Absent parent named

  Good cause not accepted

  Reduced benefit direction implemented

  Investigations completed

  July

  544

  427

  680

  393

  1,651

  August

  631

  425

  744

  392

  1,800

  September

  668

  526

  805

  336

  1,999

  October

  624

  561

  736

  347

  1,921

  November

  676

  780

  789

  300

  2,245

  Total

  3,348

  1,981

  4,198

  2,751

  13,693

  Plymouth

  April

  340

  100

  452

  276

  892

  May

  467

  112

  617

  458

  1,196

  June

  508

  216

  684

  389

  1,408

  July

  494

  294

  680

  392

  1,468

  August

  438

  259

  575

  373

  1,272

  September

  508

  267

  490

  274

  1,265

  October

  450

  264

  567

  474

  1,281

  November

  641

  364

  559

  341

  1,564

  Total

  2,755

  1,248

  3,498

  2,977

  10,346

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what consultations his Department has had with(a) the Australian and (b) New Zealand Governments on the operation of the Child Support Agency; [11801]

  (2) what plans he has to commission research into the workings of the child support agencies of (a) Australia, (b) New Zealand and (c) North America. [11805]

  Mr. Mitchell
  There have been a number of visits by officials from this Department to Australia and New Zealand to examine their schemes. There have also been discussions with officials from those countries at international conferences on child support and when officials from Australia and New Zealand have visited this country.

  Building on these contacts, officials regularly exchange information about their schemes, including the results of studies into the workings of the schemes in the different countries.

  Employees (Data-matching Exercise)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many employees(a) were discovered to be involved in breaches of confidence and illegal benefit claims and (b) have subsequently faced (i) dismissal and (ii) disciplinary action in the data-matching exercise on employees in his Department in November 1995; and what evaluation his Department will undertake of the exercise. [10834]

  Mr. Burt
  No such data-matching exercise has taken place. The Department has in place effective security measures to reduce the risk of internal fraud, and to identify and deal with it if it occurs.

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate his Department has made of the level of housing benefit fraud which is organised internally within local authorities; and what guidance, instructions and financial incentives his Department provided to local authorities to minimise organised housing benefit fraud. [10831]
  740
  Mr. Roger Evans
  Local authorities, as employers and the bodies responsible for housing benefit administration, must take action against benefit fraud by their own employees. The information requested about such fraud is not collected centrally.

  Medical Tests
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department are taking to monitor the precision with which the all-work tests for incapacity benefit are conducted. [11187]

  Mr. Burt
  We continue to monitor closely all stages of the all-work test to ensure that it is operating as intended.

  Medical examinations conducted as part of the all-work test for incapacity benefit are undertaken by fully qualified medical practitioners, recruited and trained by the Benefits Agency to an approved standard. The standard is maintained through continuous quality monitoring supported by sampling exercises, annual review of individual performance and careful monitoring of any complaints and appropriate remedial action where necessary.

  The standard of adjudication decisions on incapacity benefit is monitored routinely by the chief adjudication officer and his staff, and a special sampling exercise has been conducted to examine a higher proportion of cases following introduction of the benefit.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals against the all-work medical test for incapacity benefit have resulted in a tribunal decision; and in how many cases the original decision was upheld. [11186]

  Mr. Burt
  Up to 30 November 1995, 993 appeals against the all-work test for incapacity benefit resulted in a tribunal decision. The original decision was upheld in 525 cases.

  Divorce
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to give couples considering(a) divorce and (b) judicial separation

  741
  information about their state earnings-related pension scheme rights. [11633]

  Mr. Heald
  Currently, anyone who thinks that he or she may have SERPS entitlement rights can apply to the Benefit Agency's retirement pension forecasting and advice unit—RPFA—for a forecast of his or her retirement pension position. This will include details of his or her potential SERPS entitlement.

  In order to facilitate the operation of the measures in section 166 and section 167 of the Pensions Act 1995, the Department is currently considering the feasibility of the RPFA providing a valuation of SERPS entitlement for the purposes of divorce and judicial separation.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have applied for disability living allowance due to the loss of a finger or thumb or the loss of the use of a finger or thumb; and how many have been awarded disability living allowance with this condition. [11724]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information requested is not available.

  Housing Insurance
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what powers local authorities that operate contents insurance schemes for the tenants of their housing stock have to make deductions from housing benefit to cover the premiums of claimants who(a) participate and (b) are eligible to participate in such schemes; what guidelines he issues to local authorities on such matters; and if he will make a statement. [12221]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Local authorities are required to adjust the rent eligible for housing benefit to reflect the cost of any ineligible services, such as contents insurance, included in the rent. This Department's guidance makes it clear that this duty applies even where the charge is not specified or separately identified. There is no need to adjust housing benefit where people who are eligible to participate in such schemes choose not to do so.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of his Department's expenditure on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96 to date; and if he will list the publications purchased for the latest year for which information is available. [11530]

  Mr. Burt
  The available information on expenditure is in the table. In addition, local offices of the Department's agencies may subscribe to local or specialist publications, details of which are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  742
  Expenditure on weekly/daily journals and newspapers recorded centrally by the Department and its agencies is as follows:

  Year

  Amount £

  1993–94

  25,707

  1994–95

  29,041

  1995–96 (up to end of December 1995)

  23,451

  Publications currently purchased include:

  Accountancy Age

  Benchmarking

  Blesmag

  Campaign

  Caterer and Hotel Keeper

  Certified Accounting

  Community Care

  Computer Weekly

  Consult

  Customer Service Manager

  Daily Mail

  Daily Telegraph

  Daily Express

  Daily Mirror

  Daily Record

  Daily Star

  Economist

  Euromoney

  European

  Evening Chronicle

  Evening Standard

  Financial Times

  Gee's Pay Monthly

  Guardian

  Handelblatt

  Health Service Journal

  Independent

  Internet

  Investors Chronicle

  IR Tax Bulletin

  Le Monde

  Mail on Sunday

  Management Accounting

  Managing Service Quality

  Money Marketing

  Morning Star

  Nature

  New Scientist

  New Statesman

  New of the World

  Northern Echo

  Nursing Times

  Observer

  Pay Advice

  743

  Payroll Managers Review

  Payroll News

  Pensions Management

  PR Weekly

  Private Eye

  Scotland on Sunday

  Spectator

  Sun

  Sunday People

  Sunday Telegraph

  Sunday Express

  Sunday Sun

  Sunday Mirror

  Tax Journal

  Taxation Practitioner

  The Journal

  The Bullet Point

  The Big Issue

  The Herald

  Times

  Wall Street Journal

  Watsons

  Weekly Guardian

  West Lancashire Evening Gazette

  Word Processing

  Word Perfect

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department, his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11529]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  1989–90 £

  1991–92 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  11995–96 £

  Department

  25,477

  54,036

  38,525

  40,492

  19,313

  Agencies

  163

  37,898

  125,944

  86,647

  86,925

  Non-departmental public bodies2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  400

  1Estimated outturn.

  2Prior to 1995–96 NDPB figures are subsumed within category (a).

  No information is available for 1979–80 and NDPB expenditure is not separately identifiable before 1995–96. However, because DSS NDPBs are on-Vote NDPBs, their expenditure is subsumed within the Departmental figures provided.

  Maxwell Pension Scheme
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guarantees the Maxwell pension scheme has given to him that there will be no pension holidays before the repayment of the state scheme premiums owed to the Exchequer. [12527]

  Mr. Heald
  All Maxwell pension schemes which owe state scheme premiums have commenced winding up and have no active members. The question of pension holidays for these schemes does not therefore arise.
  744

  Expenditure on all forms of overseas travel for the Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies

  Year

  Cost £

  1989–90

  224,884

  1991–92

  429,013

  1993–94

  348,152

  1994–95

  389,610

  1995–96

  316,617

  1. Figures for 1979–80 are not available.

  2. Figures for 1995–96 are estimated.

  3. Detailed spending plans for 1996–97 are yet to be finalised.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of his Department's expenditure on administration for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11527]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table:

  Year

  Cost £ million

  1979–80

  837

  1989–90

  2,765

  1991–92

  3,470

  1993–94

  4,176

  1994–95

  4,223

  1995–96

  4,225

  1996–97

  4,207

  Source:

  Government's Expenditure Plans 1985–86—1987–88.

  Social Security Departmental Report, 995–96—1997–98.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97. [11526]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table:

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the annual cost to his Department, his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies of their empty and under-utilised properties for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11528]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  745
  In respect of DSS departmental estate, the cost of empty and under-utilised properties is shown in the table.

  Year

  Vacant or under-utilised properties

  Cost £000

  1979–80

  Minimal

  Minimal

  1989–90

  Minimal

  Minimal

  1991–92

  Minimal

  Minimal

  1993–94

  Minimal

  Minimal

  1994–95

  8,830m2

  420

  1995–96

  8,830m2

  1,682

  1996–97

  131,593m2

  15,500

  Providing the information for each executive agency and non-departmental public body could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  In response to the information required regarding the current and past financial years in respect of properties on the common user (office) estate, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Child Rearing Costs
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 23 January,Official Report, column 213, if he will cite the evidence which is available on the relative costs of bringing up children by lone parents and by couples; and if he will place copies of the evidence in the Library. [12457]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Extensive research has been carried out on the costs of children. A list of the published research findings includes:

  Bayley, R. et al (Ed), (1995), Policies for families: work, poverty and resources, London, Family Policy Studies Centre.

  Bradshaw J., (1993) Household Budgets and Living Standards, York; Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

  Bradshaw, J., and Morgan, J., (1987), Budgeting on Benefit: The consumption of families on Social Security, London, Family Policy Studies Centre.

  Buck, N. et al, (1994), Changing Households: The British Household Panel Study 1990–1992, ESRC, Colchester.

  Dickens, R. et al, (1995), The cost of children and the welfare state, Social Policy Research Findings, December 1995, York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

  Family Policy Studies Centre, (1995), Children in Britain, Family Report 2, London, Family Policy Studies Centre.

  Field, F., (1985), What price a child? A historical review of the relative cost of dependants, London, Policy Studies Institute.

  Ford, R., Marsh, A. and McKay, S., (1995), Changes in Lone Parenthood 1989 to 1993, DSS Research Series, Report no. 40, London, HMSO.

  Marsh, A. and McKay, S., (1993), Families, Work and the Use of Childcare, Employment Gazette, August.

  Middleton, S. et al, (1994), Family Fortunes, London, Child Poverty Action Group.

  Oldfield, N., and Yu, A., (1993) The Cost of a Child, London, Child Poverty Action Group.

  Oppenheim, C., (1990), The Cost of Child, London, Child Poverty Action Group.

  746

  Oppenheim C., (1993), Poverty: The Facts, London, Child Poverty Action Group.

  Piachaud, D., (1979), The Cost of a Child: A modern minimum, London, Child Poverty Action Group.

  Roll, J., (1986), Babies and money: birth trends and costs, London, Family Policy Studies Centre.

  Walker, R. et al, (1993), Mostly on the children, Working Paper 218, Centre for Research in Social Policy, University of Loughborough.

  All the above are publicly available. Work sponsored by the Government has been placed in the Library.

  Child Care Disregard
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants who have benefited from the child care disregard have child care costs of(a) between £40 and £60 per week and (b) over £60 per week. [12528]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  As at 30 September 1995, approximately 5,000 families receiving family credit had child care charges of between £40 and £60 a week, and a further 2,000 had child care charges of over £60 per week.

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample of family credit awards as at 30 September 1995.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants have benefited from the child care disregard in family credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit. [12530]

  Mr. Evans
  As at 30 September 1995, approximately 21,000 families were benefiting from help with child care charges in family credit. Information on families receiving help through housing benefit and council tax benefit will not be available until later this year.

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample of family credit awards as at 30 September 1995.

  Housing Benefit Fraud Review
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the statistical basis on which Cardiff was placed in a list of declining industrial towns and cities in the recent housing benefit fraud review. [12571]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The classification of local authorities used in the report of the housing benefit review was defined in terms of a comprehensive set of 37 social and economic variables drawn from the 1991 census to make the places in each of six types similar to each other while making each type clearly distinct from the others. Unfortunately, the description of the group including Cardiff was so abbreviated as to be inappropriate and misleading. The report has been amended to describe that group as "Ex-mining and industrial towns and other cities" and an apology has been sent to Cardiff and the other places affected.

  Executive Agencies (Overseas Travel)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for. Social Security if he will list for each of his executive agencies
  747
  for the last financial year in respect of overseas travel by staff of the agency (a) the cost, (b) the countries visited and (c) the posts held by the staff involved. [2357]

  Mr. Burt
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 December 1995,c. 378]The information that I gave regarding the cost of overseas travel within the Department's executive agencies was incorrect. The correct information is as follows:

  Cost of overseas travel

  Agency

  Cost £

  Benefits Agency

  113,266

  Child Support Agency

  9,584

  Resettlement Agency

  nil

  Contributions Agency

  15,040

  War Pensions Agency

  3,975

  Information Technology Services Agency

  56,364

  The principal countries visited were:

  Republic of Ireland

  Belgium

  France

  Germany

  USA

  The Netherlands

  Luxembourg

  Italy

  Australia

  Switzerland.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the number of statutory instruments considered by the House in each parliamentary Session from 1974 to date. [10768]

  Mr. Newton
  The figures for the numbers of statutory instruments considered by the House, in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House, for each Session since 1974 are as follows:

  Standing Committee

  Floor of the House

  1994–95

  126

  81

  1993–94

  69

  88

  1992–93

  199

  82

  1991–92

  60

  42

  1990–91

  139

  48

  1989–90

  114

  56

  1988–89

  117

  68

  1987–88

  156

  99

  1986–87

  69

  68

  1985–86

  97

  83

  1984–85

  100

  106

  1983–84

  96

  147

  1982–83

  70

  53

  1981–82

  80

  99

  1980–81

  62

  109

  1979–80

  131

  126

  1978–79

  70

  48

  1977–78

  138

  65

  1976–77

  126

  72

  1975–76

  96

  92

  1974–75

  101

  67

  1974

  38

  33

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.

Transport Policy
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will adopt the objectives for a sustainable transport policy and the targets for achieving them contained in the Royal Commission on the Environmental Pollution's 18th Report Transport and the Environment, published in October 1994.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, decisions on the Government's response will be taken in the light of the national debate on transport, as set out in the consultation paper Transport: The Way Ahead.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that interesting Answer. It is 16 months since the report was published. The report contained 110 recommendations and, as the Minister said, was followed by a debate on transport policy which was instigated by the former Secretary of State, Dr. Mawhinney. One of those recommendations was that the amount of freight moved by rail should treble in 15 years.
Lord Strathclyde: Question!
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, many people had an input, but when are we going to see something, even a smoke signal, come out of that bottomless pit? Can the Minister say when we are likely to have an answer?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it may be 16 months since the report was published, but that report took two and a half years to produce. I think that that gives some indication of the weight of that document. I believe that that report was valuable in putting forward environmental issues, but it also raised a number of other important matters. If those targets were to be accepted, there would have to be real change in terms of people's transport requirements. That is why we have undertaken such a major transport consultation exercise.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply hardly seems an answer given the urgency of the matter, bearing in mind that his own department's report indicated, among other things, that diesel pollution was killing thousands of people a year? repeat that his own department said that. Is the Minister not aware that unless and until the Government
1302
begin to approach transport as an integrated whole, they will never begin to solve the urgent problems affecting transport and the environment?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we are taking serious measures with regard to air quality, in terms of both static-based pollution and pollution from vehicles. We have a wide range of policies designed to address that matter. The fact that there has not yet been a specific response to the commission's report does not mean that we take those issues other than extremely seriously. The noble Lord calls for an "integrated transport policy". I am not always entirely clear what is meant by that, especially when it is proposed as a universal panacea.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does my noble friend recollect that the report of the special Select Committee on Sustainable Development made some clear recommendations about the establishment of more targets in relation to transport? Does he further recollect that in their reply the Government were not entirely enthusiastic about them? As there really is evidence that, without such targets, there is unlikely to be the sort of progress that many noble Lords would like, can my noble friend give the House an undertaking that the Government are looking again at this matter and that their response to the Royal Commission will take a step forward by setting targets on transport, as they have done so admirably in so many other environmental areas?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have sought to explain that we are addressing all of those issues in the extremely wide consultation exercise that we are undertaking at the moment. Indeed, I could describe that wide consultation as unparalleled. Of course, targets are important and we already have a number in relation to transport, on, for example, road casualty reductions and carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions. New targets are being developed in relation to air quality standards. They are extremely important, but the issues raised by the Royal Commission were very wide ranging and I think that we need to make the best possible response, which means involving the population as a whole in the wide transport debate that we have initiated.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of the worst areas for air pollution are our large inner-city centres? Is he aware that the situation in Manchester is giving cause for great concern among a substantial number of people? If Manchester and our other large cities are to deal with that problem, can they expect any assistance from the Government other than advice?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government have a wide range of policies designed to address the problem of air pollution. We have already taken forward new standards on emissions from vehicles, both in relation to those currently in use and for the production of new vehicles. I believe that such policies will help to address the difficult issue of air pollution.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that there is no coherence in what the

1303
Government are purporting to do in that regard? What we are promised is more and more analysis—in fact, that seems to be the determinant factor of government policy—but analysis on that scale can also mean paralysis.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am afraid that we are now back to slogans. I should have thought that even the party opposite would realise from the report that there are no easy answers to these questions. The Royal Commission proposed the doubling of fuel prices. Such a measure would have a real impact on the way in which people lead their lives. We need to give all such proposals proper examination and I think that wide consultation is the answer. We have strong transport policies, but we are not so arrogant as to believe that we know everything about this and that we should not involve the public.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my railway fare has gone up this week from £149 to £165? Does he believe that a contribution could be made towards solving the problem by making railway travel more attractive? Is his privatisation policy likely to contribute to that end?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we should make rail travel more attractive. Yes, rail privatisation will do precisely that. That is why we have taken the policy forward.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister explain how railway travel will be more attractive in the light of the result of government policy being that connections can no longer be made and that the service has been fragmented? Whereas three years ago a question about a train from the north of Scotland involving connections allowed the public to make the assumption that those connections would be met, the answer now from the separate parts of the rail network is that trains are no longer intended, or can be relied upon, to connect. How will that encourage the use of rail transport and reduce car pollution?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, such fears and scaremongering will be shot down as soon as the new services start to run. No one would seriously expect that privatised airlines, for example, would offer services that did not connect with others, or would offer unattractive fares. One has only to look to history. Those companies have shown themselves to have come from the public sector and be now providing the service that the passenger wants. That will happen with the railways as well.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that since 1950 billions of pounds have been poured into the railways by way of subsidy, and that the number of passengers travelling on the railways has reduced consistently? As someone who travels regularly by train, I can assure my noble friend that the service is far from excellent at present.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Some £15 billion has been invested in our national
1304
railways since 1979. It is clear that major structural change is required if we are to have the type of railway that we all want: an efficient railway with the best possible benefits for passengers. That will be achieved under privatisation.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in travelling from the north, as the result of competition fromthe airlines and the threat of privatisation, there has been a dramatic improvement in the condition of the coaches and the service which has been very noticeable?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend points to the advantages of competition, which the party opposite refuses to believe even in the face of such clear evidence.

Restraints on Prisoners
2.46 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now cancel any instructions issued in 1995 regarding the handcuffing of prisoners.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, in his Statement of 18th January, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary set out new arrangements for the use of restraints on prisoners attending hospital. The Prison Service Director of Security, Mr. Tony Pearson, wrote to governors with details of those new arrangements the following day.
The message to governors said that the changes should be implemented immediately. An instruction to governors formally cancelling the 1995 amendments to the security manual affected by those changes will be issued as soon as possible and a copy will be placed in the Library.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I welcome the news that that restriction on pregnant women will be removed. Do I gather that men, and women who are not pregnant, will still be subjected to that brutal and obscene practice? I have frequently visited prisons and prisoners in hospital, but I have never been told that handcuffing was necessary. I visited Holloway last week. Can the Minister, who we all know is so humane, possibly justify that drivel?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, moving prisoners from one place to another involves risk. It involves the risk of prisoners escaping and risk to the public. It sometimes involves risk to the prisoners themselves. Following assessment of risk, it will be necessary into the mists of time for some prisoners to be restrained. Governors have the flexibility not to restrain prisoners. We have already accepted that when medical advice is such, it may override the need for security.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that restraining prisoners to prevent them from

1305
escaping and damaging innocent victims is right and proper, and that police and warders should be given the appropriate powers to do that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I absolutely agree. It is worth recording that 150 prisoners have escaped since 1988. In the course of escaping, they have used guns, sharp instruments and blunt instruments. They have physically overpowered staff. They have even engaged their friends from outside to help them escape. There will always be a need to restrain prisoners in those conditions.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I am not quite clear about what the Minister was telling the House. Will she explain who takes the decision about the handcuffing of pregnant women prisoners who might want to escape? I find it difficult to believe that a pregnant woman about to give birth will get very far. Is it a Home Office Minister, the Home Secretary or the decision of the Prison Service? Is it a policy decision or an operational decision?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there will be a professional assessment of risk by the prison officers themselves. We have made it clear that the security manual will be adjusted so that no pregnant prisoner admitted to hospital to give birth will be physically restrained from arriving at the entrance to the hospital, right the way through all the treatment, including post-natal treatment, to leaving the hospital entrance. However, there will be exceptional circumstances. One of those exceptional circumstances will be where a prisoner is at risk of self harm, of harming the baby, or of harming members of the medical staff.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, many noble Lords welcome the Minister's concession with regard to women in labour and immediately after the birth. However, can she assure the House about two matters: first, is it correct that in recent years there has been a considerable extension of the handcuffing of non-violent prisoners? Secondly, in the light of her reply to a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, is the issue of whether a prisoner has a record of violence taken into account in the operational decision of whether to use handcuffs? In the past the handcuffing of non-violent prisoners did not appear to be necessary.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the issue was not always about non-violence. The assessment of risk includes the likelihood of a prisoner to escape using violence or not. This House takes the issue seriously. I know that I and my noble friend who held the post before me have had to face this House when prisoners have escaped. This House has been very critical of the Prison Service and in particular the Home Office after prisoners have escaped. There is a responsibility to ensure that prisoners do not escape, and therefore a violent record is not the only issue to be taken into account.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister said in an earlier answer that some prisoners must be restrained. Will she accept that we are bound to agree with that? However, is it not a presumption that female prisoners leaving prison for any purpose will be
1306
restrained—in other words, handcuffed—and is there not a conflict between that presumption and the need for a small minority to be restrained?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no. In the consideration of the prison officer when leaving the prison with any prisoner, whether a woman or a man—that is, with the exception of pregnant women—the rules are applied equally between men and women. The concern must lie with the likelihood of the prisoner escaping, the likelihood of the prisoner using violence, the likelihood of risk to the public and the responsibilities of the prison officer who must escort a prisoner between one place and another. Those are the considerations that are taken into account.
It is true that governors have the flexibility to allow prisoners not only to be released for hospital visits but, under licence, to keep a hospital appointment without any escort and without any restraint whatever. It is also possible for prisoners to go escorted but not restrained. The risk assessment is a judgment of members of the Prison Service and the prison staff concerned. If the risk assessment is such then that prisoner will be restrained. I have to ask myself, as this Question has been pressed so many times, on whose side are noble Lords opposite?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister accept that her explanation of policy is wholly satisfactory at least to some of us on this side of the House? Is she aware that when she draws the distinction between violence and the dedication to escape she is wholly right in believing that the most effective and dedicated escapers are usually non-violent?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend and I am grateful to him for his comments. They are pertinent to this Question.
Lord Howell: My Lords, may one ask a question on behalf of other hospital patients? As a result of these exchanges, will the Minister tell the House whether the Prison Service is now in charge of arrangements in our hospitals? I understand what the Minister has said and I appreciate the need to take action in appropriate cases. However, is she aware that it can be extremely depressing for other hospital patients, in particular for their visitors and children, to see people chained up in their ward? Will the Minister assure the House that the needs and rights of hospital patients are equally considered when these issues are determined?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can think of hospital patients who would be very relieved to know that some people who go into hospital are restrained in some way. The particular point that the noble Lord raised is important. We and the Prison Service have accepted that it must defer to medical advice and therefore the Prison Service is not in charge of hospitals. If the medical advice is such the restraints are removed. We want to see a better working relationship between the Prison Service and the hospitals.

ODA: Fundamental Expenditure Review
2.55 p.m.
Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the outcome of the fundamental expenditure review of the Overseas Development Administration; which bilateral and multilateral programmes are to be cut; and from which multilateral agencies it is proposed to withdraw.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the Fundamental Expenditure Review confirmed the need for continued substantial levels of concessional aid. The ODA's policy is to focus this aid on where it is most needed and where it can do most good, particularly in the poorest countries.
Final decisions on the exact distribution of resources for future years are not yet finalised. However, the planned allocation for bilateral aid is likely to be little changed from that set out in last year's FCO departmental report. We have no intention at present to withdraw from any multilateral agencies.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the review has underlined the fact that from 0.51 per cent. of gross national product, and rising in 1979, the aid budget was set to fall to 0.26 per cent. of GNP in 1997-98 even before the cuts of last November? Does he further agree that that is happening when across the world one in four people still live in absolute poverty, 800 million people still do not have enough to eat and every day 35,000 children die from preventable diseases? In view of the 114 specific recommendations in this interesting report and the falling resources available to the administration, will the Minister assure the House that the Government as a whole have any strategy at all for their part in the fight against world poverty?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I can certainly assure the noble Lord that we have a strategy. It remains to maintain a substantial and effective bilateral programme and to intensify efforts to ensure that our contributions to multilateral aid are spent effectively. The FER's conclusions were recommendations only. We are now considering how policies should be changed to respond to those recommendations and we welcome discussion thereon. As regards the amount of aid, it might be interesting for the noble Lord to realise that while we have had a minor reduction in the amount in this year's budget, last year Italy's aid expenditure fell by 36 per cent., Canada is reducing its aid by 20·5 per cent. and that the US, which provides only 0·15 per cent. of GNP as aid, is reducing its programme still further. I believe that the Government have a record considerably better than those other countries.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, considering that the Fundamental Expenditure Review does not take into account the 0·7 per cent. UN target for aid, is it not
1308
time for Britain to abandon its commitment to that under present spending arrangements and actually say that they have given up on aid?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, our position on that is unchanged. We have agreed to the UN target but not to a timetable for reaching it. Levels of aid will continue to depend on our economic circumstances and other demands on public funds.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, may I, through the noble Lord, invite the Government to complete their study of the review at an early date? Is the Minister aware that as a result of the recent sequence of reviews of overseas aid the level of disbursement to the specialised agencies of the United Nations has fallen considerably? Is he conscious of the fact that the United Nations Children's Fund, of whose national committee I am chairman, has noticed a considerable decline? Does he share my concern that at the end of the financial year, which is now not very far away, there may show an evident decline in the Government's support for that organisation, to which they have been most generous in the past and which fully meets the standards of efficiency that the Government now require from agencies of the United Nations?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we continue to support agencies as far as possible. However, we have had to take some very tough decisions this year which have resulted in cuts in the spending plans of many government departments.
Baroness Gardner of Parks: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that a considerable amount of aid is now being determined locally in such countries in need? Moreover, in view of the fact that we have had such Answers in the past, can my noble friend confirm that the money spent through the NGOs is providing very good value for money? Can my noble friend also assure the House that they will still be funded wherever that is possible?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to say that we really appreciate the efforts made by the NGOs. We shall do everything that we can to support them.
Lord Molloy: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross Benches!
Lord Avebury: My Lords—
Lord Molloy: My Lords, they have had a turn!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, we are running out of time. Of course, I am always in the hands of the House, but, if both noble Lords were able to ask their questions with expedition, I believe that we might be able to get each of them in before moving on to the next Question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that British overseas aid is highly respected in Africa, Asia and. indeed, in the United States of America and the

1309
Commonwealth? Anything that could damage that respect would harm the name of Great Britain. Remarkably, such aid was built up by all governments. I hope that the present Government will recognise that fact and ensure that our reputation is in no way harmed.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the efforts of past governments—and, indeed, those of the present Government—in that respect are certainly very highly valued. We are very well received all around the world as to what we are doing now.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister say how many states, apart from Dominica, have had their aid cut because they were in arrears with debt repayments; and how many states—again, apart from Dominica—have enjoyed a 350 per cent. increase in the aid paid to them this year, consequent upon the repayment of such arrears?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I would need advance notice of such a question. I shall write to the noble Lord on the matter.

British Coal Enterprise: Privatisation
3.2 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to privatise British Coal Enterprise.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the British Coal Corporation has invited competitive proposals for British Coal Enterprise. It expects to have completed the sale of this subsidiary company by the end of March.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, does he agree that British Coal Enterprise has an excellent record in the difficult task of generating employment in pit closure areas? Will the noble Viscount also confirm that the all-party Coal Fields Communities' Campaign has complained very strenuously to the Secretary of State about the proposed sale and that the European Commission, which has given BCE £10 million in grants, is also very much opposed to it? Is it not sheer vandalism to destroy such a successful operation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not believe that to be the case. However, I join the noble Lord in his praise for the work that British Coal Enterprise has done. That is indeed the case. Well over 100,000 people have passed through its auspices. But with the winding up of British Coal change is inevitable post-privatisation. We want to see the regeneration work that BCE has undertaken so successfully in the past continue. We believe that this move will be the best way to achieve that aim.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can the Minister say, first, how many bids have been submitted since British Coal advertised; secondly, whether the economic regeneration of the coal fields is still part of
1310
the bid criteria; and thirdly, whether the moneys raised from the sale will be ploughed back into the coal field communities?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first question, I understand that British Coal has prequalified 14 organisations to bid for all of BCE or its individual activities. I agree with the noble Lord that it is important to ensure that the regeneration work that BCE has undertaken so successfully should continue. As regards the issue of the revenues from the sale, I have to tell the noble Lord that, allowing for the repayment or the write-off of BCE's current debts, it is by no means certain what level of proceeds will accrue. However, such proceeds will go to British Coal.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, can my noble friend explain what is behind the idea that this regeneration can only be done by the public sector?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords, I cannot explain that because, as my noble friend knows, that is not the Government's policy. A number of other institutions—private companies and, indeed, organisations in the public sector—undertake such work. It is most important to realise that fact when considering the future for BCE.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as it appears to be generally agreed that valuable work has been done by British Coal Enterprise and that it is desirable that such work should continue under the new owners, can the Minister say whether there is anything in the conditions of sale which will make that come about? In other words, is there not a risk that, with the new ownership of such businesses, such efforts could be diverted into other activities?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not believe that that is the case. When considering the bids that are put forward, British Coal will be looking most carefully at the sort of undertakings that such bodies will be able to give to continue that work. Within its statutory obligations British Coal is clearly looking for such work to continue. I believe that that is the right way to go about it.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that British Coal Enterprise has been one of the most successful examples of job creation in the coal field areas and that there is no certainty at all that any new company will be as successful in that respect as regards what we have seen recently? Can the Minister also give a better assurance than the one he gave earlier that the money from the sale will be used in the coal field areas? Will he confirm that that money will not just he given to British Coal, but that it will be used in the coal field areas for the benefit of the people living there?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords; I have clearly stated the position on what will happen to the proceeds. The moneys will accrue to British Coal. As I said—and I agree with the noble Lord—BCE has been a great success. However, that now has to be put against the background of post-privatisation and a changing environment for BCE. With the gradual winding-up of

1311
British Coal, we have to look at the right environment to ensure that such activities are taken forward. We believe that this move will be the best way to achieve that aim.

Foreign Prison-made Goods (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Foreign Prison-made Goods Act 1897. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Avebury.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Disclosure and Use of Personal Health Information Bill [H.L.]
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the collection, use and disclosure of personal health information. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Walton of Detchant.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Standing Order 38
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with today to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Dubs to have precedence over the Chemical Weapons Bill and the Family Law Bill.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations (S.I. 1996 No. 30) be annulled.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we believe that the regulations we are debating this afternoon are rather shocking. They deliberately remove benefit from some of the most traumatised and troubled people to arrive in this country and that will leave them destitute. Why? Well, the Government occupy a world of some very simple propositions. The Government believe that the number of asylum seekers has increased without good cause and that almost all of them are bogus. The
1312
Government claim to know that because they say 70 per cent. of the applicants apply for asylum status once they are in this country and, accordingly, they are eating up the benefit bill and need to be deterred and the best way of doing that is to refuse them benefit. That is the Government's view. It is very tidy.
In this House—and, indeed, in the country—I believe that we are fortunate. We live under the rule of law; we have never been invaded; we have never had enemies on our land; and we do not fear government. In fact, many of us in this House are government. We do not fear terrorists; we do not fear police; we do not fear officials and we do not fear the dark. We know our rights. We are sure that the system is on our side. How do we begin to comprehend the situation where an asylum seeker comes from, or what it is like to arrive here confused, terrified, perhaps unable to speak English, often in broken health and desperate for the safety of anonymity? How can we comprehend that? Which of us has experienced that?
These regulations are chilling, not just because of the benefit income they refuse to defenceless people but because, in my view, they reveal a lack of imaginative understanding of what seeking asylum is all about and of what it means to be on the wrong side—the dark side—of the official system. Government, almost because they are government, can never understand that. That is why we believe that these regulations are founded on a set of propositions, every one of which is incorrect, and which together are indefensible and whose consequences are morally wrong.
Let us look at the Government's arguments. Their first proposition is that the number of asylum seekers has risen without good cause and therefore most must be bogus. The United Nation's High Commission for Refugees states in its evidence to the Government's own independent Social Security Advisory Committee,
"In our view the rise in asylum claims may be more rationally seen as a consequence of unprecedented scale of global conflict which produces refugee flows. Moreover refugee recognition rates must be analysed with considerable caution. A narrow application of the refugee definition will reduce the number of successful applicants but lower figures are then tendentiously used as evidence that bogus claims are increasing thereby justifying further restrictive measures. We believe that there are many dangers in such a self-justificatory and secular analysis".
Those are the words of the UNHCR, not ours. In the first six months of 1995 this country recognised just 5 per cent. of those seeking asylum as refugees, though of course it granted exceptional leave to remain to others. France and Germany recognised twice as many; Italy and Switzerland three times as many. Are we really saying that our asylum seekers are less genuine than theirs? Is it not more likely that our criteria are already more stringent than theirs, just as the UNHCR suggests?
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness might help the House by putting her figures into context and by telling the House

1313
how many asylum seekers seek applications in some of those states—for example, Italy—so that her percentage can be put against a figure.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am happy to try to give the House those figures. The latest complete figures I have are for 1994 when the figure for Germany was 127,000; for the Netherlands 52,000; and for the UK 42,000. I do not have the figures for 1995 but for the previous year Italy had a figure of 1,800, coming down from 31,700 in 1991. Nevertheless, the figure for Germany of 127,000 is twice our number of acceptances, and the position is similar in France. I do not have the figures for 1995 but I have given the complete figures for 1994 and they show that in Germany, France, Sweden and Switzerland both the absolute figures and the proportional figures were well above those of the UK.
Of course there is a proportion—perhaps a high proportion—of economic migrants for which this country cannot take responsibility. Of course we accept that a country must protect its borders and cannot permit unlimited entry. However, the right way to do that is to have fair but fast decisions on applications for asylum status. Instead, as at December last, 15 per cent. of those who applied in 1991 had not even had their initial determination heard. The figure was 15 per cent. in 1992; 15 per cent. in 1993; 25 per cent. in 1994; and 25 per cent.—but that is more understandable—in 1995. Nearly 70,000 people—some of whose applications were lodged before 1991—have not had even their original application heard.
I am sure that the Minister would welcome another foreign comparison. Germany in the first six months of 1995 heard 112,000 applications. This country in the same period managed just 12,000. Would the Minister care to comment? Perhaps he would not. Precisely because we do not resolve asylum bids on asylum grounds we instead are trying with these regulations to deter asylum bids on social security grounds. Because we do not—and will not—hear the applications when we should, we instead try to deter the applicant by denying him any means of financial support. In all fairness, whose fault is that—the person who seeks asylum or the system which will not hear his application on time, as is the case here? If we want to cut the social security bill, we should do so by hearing and determining applications speedily and then, but only then, denying benefits to those who do not merit them, not by withholding benefits indiscriminately from those who are genuine and those who are not, which is the Government's policy.
I now turn to the Government's second main proposition. The Government say, "We know that most are bogus because they apply for asylum once arrived in this country". The Government say that those applying at port of entry will receive benefits because they are true asylum seekers and that only those who apply once they are in the country will be denied benefits because they are bogus. I suggest that the Government are wilfully refusing to understand what it means to seek asylum and they are equally wilfully
1314
ignoring the advice of their own Social Security Advisory Committee. That committee states at paragraph 38 of its report to the Government,
"There are many valid reasons why people do not make their asylum claim immediately on arrival. Lack of knowledge of the procedures, arriving in a confused and frightened state, language difficulties or fear of officialdom may all be insuperable barriers to making any kind of approach to the authorities at port of entry. Many intending applicants will quite reasonably want to get help and advice before making their claim. We are told by refugee organisations that there is a common fear that making an asylum application while still in port is more likely to result in immediate deportation or being held in detention. For these and other reasons it is easy to see why for the majority of asylum seekers it appears much safer to make their claim from inside the UK".
I emphasise that these are the words of the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee. I suspect that what I have described is what each and every one of us would ourselves do in a similar situation.
The majority of asylum seekers—the Refugee Council says this applies to up to 80 per cent. of its clients—apply for asylum within a month of arrival and most do so within a week or so of being here. They are not holiday makers, tourists or visitors who are staying here after their money runs out to enjoy the delights of our social security system. Their first priority was to enter the safety of our country; their second was to get in touch with an organisation to help them; and their third was to seek official permission to stay. They did all of that within a couple of weeks of being here. Can anyone truthfully say that they were wrong?
Yet these regulations erect a distinction between application on arrival and application in the country. That distinction is, I believe—to coin a phrase—quite bogus. If the Government were right that those who apply at port of entry are genuine and those who apply when in country are not, virtually all those who gain asylum status or exceptional leave to remain would be from those who apply at port of entry. That would follow logically, would it not? Yet precisely the reverse is true. A lower number of people and a lower proportion of applicants gain refugee status at port of entry whereas a higher number and a higher proportion gain refugee status and exceptional leave to remain once they are in this country. Therefore by the Government's own criteria there are more likely to be genuine asylum seekers among those to whom the Government are denying benefit than among those to whom, under these regulations, they will continue to grant it. That is perverse, and it is wrong. Yet the Government are proposing tonight income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit to all in-country applicants. We know that they need the money because those are means-tested benefits without even a threshold of a capital limit. If asylum seekers had other means of support, they would not be eligible for any of those benefits. The old, the young, children, families, the sick, pregnant, disabled, and in some cases those who have been the victims of torture, will all he left without any means of support, in the belief, I suppose, not that they are less deserving than port applicants—the Government's own figures indicate that they are probably more deserving—but presumably in the seedy

1315
hope that such action will deter asylum seekers. They will therefore not come. Therefore the benefit bill will fall.
Are we really saying that we shall deny income support to traumatised children from Somalia in the hope and expectation that it will deter those from applying who are terrified of torture in Iran?
There is likely to be some 2,500 new applicants each month. If they are terrified enough they will still come; and precisely because they are terrified they are more likely to seek asylum once in this country as they fear otherwise that they will be turned away on arrival. What are they supposed to live on when the little money they have runs out and they wait the eight, 12 or 15 months, or the two or five years, to have their original application heard by the Home Office? How will they buy food? How will they keep warm? Where will they sleep? Do we expect them to join the rough sleepers? Do we expect them to huddle under Waterloo Bridge? Do we expect them to steal, to break windows, sell drugs or go into prostitution? They have no home to go back to in this country. Those applicants have no means of supporting themselves because they are not allowed to work for the first six months.
What can they do? What should they do? What do they do? Many will have children traumatised—perhaps deeply—by what they have been through. What will we be doing to them? Under the Children Act 1989, though government may walk away from those children, the local authorities cannot do so. What social security will not do, local social services will have to do. Will we take children into care and offer them dingy bed and breakfast accommodation, church halls, warehouses, with the spaces partitioned by flapping sheets on ropes, or tents?
As Save the Children has said:
"These proposals will devastate every aspect of children's lives causing homelessness, ill-heath, poor development, loss of education, family breakdown and emotional distress".
Are we deliberately going to let that happen to children because their parents did not tidily fit our regulations? Is that what we are willing to do?
We are utterly opposed to the regulations. They are morally repugnant. By convention we cannot vote against the regulations; nor can we amend them. Hence on today's Order Paper we have two Motions which we ask the Government to accept once the regulations have been implemented. We on these Benches will support the Motions in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that benefits should continue while appeals are being heard, and of our noble friend Lord Dubs in arguing that at the very minimum we should protect the position of children so far as we can. Our Motion will bring the children of asylum seeking families to a similar position to that of our own 16 and 17 year-olds: that though denied benefits as of right they should be eligible for discretionary hardship payments as regards living on or off the streets. We do not believe that the children of asylum seekers should be treated more harshly than our own. For centuries this country has been a sanctuary
1316
for those in distress. Virtue has been rewarded because yesterday's asylum seekers have become today's entrepreneurs.
Perhaps I may conclude with a final quotation from the Social Security Advisory Committee—the Government's own independent advisory committee—which states:
"The reality of the proposals is that thousands of men, women and children will be left with no means of providing themselves with food or shelter. Many will have no option but to live on the streets of our major cities and ports. Health professionals have warned that, given the vulnerability of many asylum seekers due to their already precarious physical or mental health, some will die".
The advisory committee continues:
"We do not believe that solution should be found by putting at risk of destitution many people who are genuinely seeking refuge in this country among whom may be some of the most vulnerable and defenceless in our society".
It is not too late for the Government, encouraged by this House, to think again. Otherwise some 30,000 to 40,000 troubled, traumatised and destitute families next year will be living on and off our streets. We can make a modest difference tonight if your Lordships choose to support the Motions.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations (S.I. 1996 No. 30) be annulled.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
3.26 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as I understand it, we are using a procedure similar to a grouping in Committee. Although there is only one Question formally before the House, we are debating a grouping of three Motions: that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham; my own; and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. We on these Benches support all three, each to the degree procedurally appropriate to its status within the conventions of the Chamber. I wish to speak to all three in turn. However, because my Motion and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, do not cover the whole field of regulations I speak, first, to the prayer in the name of the noble Baroness.
I listened to the debate on the regulations last Tuesday in another place. Almost the moment I entered, I was extremely surprised to hear myself being ticked off by name by the Secretary of State for agreeing with my honourable friend Mr. Alton that we are dealing not with bogus refugees but with bogus refusals. Since it is appropriate to respond to a Minister in another place, I should like, if I may, to begin by replying briefly to the Secretary of State.
First, the figures that he used were concerned only with those accepted for refugee status, and left out the 15 per cent. who are given exceptional leave to remain. That means that on his figures the genuine go up from 4 per cent. to 20 per cent. which is a significant change.
Secondly, I must repeat that I cannot regard the criteria used in the 1993 Act as satisfying me as a way of distinguishing between the bogus and the genuine. I accept, of course, in the words used by one of Henry VIII's bishops in commenting on one of that monarch's more wayward acts, "I take it for law because the lawyers so said. But my reason digested it not".

1317
Perhaps I may take one example. If I were a Bosnian Moslem living in Mostar, watching the Croat forces closing in, I might have a well founded fear of persecution. But to apply for asylum in this country under the terms of the 1993 Act in order to secure freedom from persecution by Croats I should have to walk from Mostar to the British consulate in Zagreb. My Lords, my reason digested it not.
There is, too, what has been described among immigration officers as a culture of disbelief. It so happens that the subject arose over drinks after my postgraduate seminar last week. I hasten to assure your Lordships that it was not I who introduced it. It was introduced by an articulate New Yorker with a Cambridge PhD who has been living for 10 years in this country. She has been married to and living with an Englishman long enough to have a daughter about to enter primary school. She was stopped at the airport, detained for questioning for many hours and threatened with deportation under the primary purpose rule. As soon as she raised the subject, she produced an outpouring of indignation from every overseas member of that seminar. They had all had similar experiences, all had friends with similar experiences.
From the point of view of our national interests, one of the most serious was a Canadian businesswoman coming to this country on her company's business. The company had neglected to get the paperwork fully completed, the kind of thing one would have thought a simple phone call might have settled. She was deported to Canada at Her Majesty's expense. That company has probably now taken its European Union business elsewhere. Noble Lords will understand why I speak of a culture of disbelief and why I do not accept that everyone who fails a Home Office test is therefore necessarily bogus.
It is also crucial to me that the regulations make absolutely no attempt to make a distinction between the genuine and the bogus; they apply to all equally. In the words of paragraph 30 of the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee:
"The proposal to address the perceived problem of economic migrants through the benefits system by financially penalising all but a minority of asylum seekers, without regard to the strength or validity of their claim, was seen as arbitrary and unjust".
I cannot help sharing that perception.
The question whether an asylum seeker is genuine or bogus is not one which can be addressed by any formula. It is about individual motives and it must be addressed by individual examination. According to Article 1 of the UN Convention on Refugees, it must be addressed by an individual hearing of claimants. No other way of dealing with bogus asylum seekers is even so much as relevant to the question. I do not know how many asylum seekers are bogus. I am prepared to believe that some are, but the question cannot be addressed by these regulations.
The only attempt to distinguish within the regulations is the discrimination against those who apply at the port of entry. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has saved me a little time by pointing out that more of those who apply in the country are accepted than of those who
1318
apply at the port of entry. So the Government do not believe their own distinction. In that case, I should like to join them: neither do I.
Apart from the points about language which I have made, one often needs help with handling government forms. I know that the Department of Social Security does its best with forms, but none of us always understands them. None of the postgraduates in my seminar with whom I was talking last week would have dreamed of applying at the port of entry. They did not have sufficient confidence in those who would have judged them.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships have ever tried to persuade a rape victim to tell her story in public. I have; I was not successful. Some of the applicants are literally rape victims, especially a number who come from Zaire, I understand. But other victims of torture may have similar difficulty in telling their story. Like the Social Security Advisory' Committee, I should be prepared to discuss a time limit for claiming asylum after entering the country. However, the attempt to make all people apply at the port of entry is insensitive to the evidence and is impractical.
I shall touch on two small points. The first is that the interim payments under the urgent cases rules for people caught by the habitual residence test are being stopped. Since those who have failed habitual residence tests include the niece of my late noble friend Lord Byers, who used to be our leader on these Benches, we believe that the net is catching too much. We must return to that on another occasion. Secondly, as for the rules about sponsorship, I do not understand why the Government have not made allowance for the case of sponsors going bankrupt, which may happen, as with everyone else. A bankrupt sponsor cannot be held to maintain the person for whom he was originally able to answer.
I turn to my Motion. Procedurally it is the type of Motion that will become known as an "Allen", after the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who moved one on 5th December 1995. It makes no attempt to stop the passage of the regulations. It asks the Government, following the passage of the regulations, to ensure that asylum seekers have visible legal means of support and that they have the right to pursue their appeals. When I was working in the Record Office of your Lordships' House last October, I happened to come across a Private Bill from 1610. It said:
"It is notorious that a sentence may be and is suspended by an appeal duly made to a superior judge. … It is incredible that any judge should proceed without regard of such appeal".
That was not said with reference to the present regulations, but I agree with every word.
When my honourable friend in another place, Liz Lynne, used what Conservatives described as "the argument of destitution", cries were heard from the Benches opposite of "Rubbish!". I shall offer the Minister a sporting chance. If he can show me that asylum seekers who are denied benefit have some other legal way of maintaining their livelihood, then he may convince me that that argument is rubbish. I cannot he convinced simply by the bare assertion; I have to hear of something else which may appropriately be done.

1319
The Government's answers so far have been a little uncertain. The Secretary of State in another place said (at col. 239 of Hansard for 23rd January):
"the vast majority have contacts over here".
I should like to know whether that is based on evidence from any study, or is it the Secretary of State's conjecture? If it is evidence, I shall listen to it. If it is conjecture, I beg leave to dissent from it. Many of the Germans who came over here in the 1930s and 1940s, to whom my parents and my wife's parents used to give hospitality, were without any contacts in this country. If that can happen to Germans, I believe that it can also happen to Somalians. I should want evidence before I was moved to doubt that. Can the Minister show me any?
On 11th January, in answer to my noble friend Lady Seear, the Minister said that they could,
"go back to their own country or find some other way of looking after themselves".—[Official Report,11/1/96; col. 276.]
The Minister will have to be a little more specific if he is to convince me that the argument on destitution is rubbish. As for going back to their own country, it is a little like the test of ducking witches. The guilty witch floated and lived and the innocent witch sank and was drowned. I always thought that that was a bit unfair. In much the same way, the genuine refugee may be able, if he came with savings withdrawn, to go elsewhere. But the economic migrant who has no money and whom the Government so much dread will not be able to leave this country. The Government cannot deport such people. The case of in re M stands in the way. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, admitted that there is no plan for deportation.
The Government could, in return for voluntary withdrawal of the asylum claim, finance returning people to their own countries. I have not heard of any government plan to make money available for that purpose. If I hear of any, I will think again. Until I do, I believe the majority of people concerned will be unable to leave this country. They must therefore find some way of living here, or else be left, as we fear, homeless and destitute on the streets, and probably constituting a health hazard in the process.
What else could happen to them if they are not to be destitute? They might be put in detention. I do not regard that as a desirable solution. It may yet turn out to be the least bad option if these regulations go ahead. But it is not in the interest of the taxpayer. The figures, as the noble Baroness gave me them on 20th December, are: £540 a week in a detention centre; or, if you are a little cheaper, £449 per week in a prison. But I do not advise the noble Baroness, given the present state of prisons, to put in a further 13,000 inmates at one time. I should hesitate to repeat the comments that prison governors might see fit to make on such a proposal.
Applicants are not allowed to work in the first six months; and after that it is difficult, especially if there are language difficulties in the way. Begging is an uncertain and undesirable option. I shall not be reassured if the Government say that they will not starve because they can beg. There is, of course, crime. But I
1320
am sure that it was not the Government's intention that they should make a living by crime. There is private charity, and great efforts are being put into that provision. But it will not help that many of the charitable organisations that have housed refugees, paid for out of housing benefit, are in danger of going bankrupt as a consequence of these regulations. That will have knock-on effects on the treatment of other sorts of homeless people in other contexts. There is the possibility that UNHCR might feel the need to open refugee camps in this country. But again, I think I may safely assume that that was not the Government's intention.
We still have left the local authorities, whose spending, unlike that of the Government, is capped. Their liability to rehouse refugees lasts, if the asylum Bill passes in its present form, only until the Bill becomes law. Therefore we should be left only with liabilities under Sections 17 and 20 of the Children Act. That is not an income/maintenance provision. Foster care for a child, which is a lot cheaper than residential care, can cost for a 16 year-old up to £6,750 a year. That cost is independent of what happens to the parents. So if that were the route, it would waste a vast amount of public money and at the same time create gross hardship. That seems to me to be the worst of both worlds.
Perhaps I have missed something. If so, I am sure the Minister will tell me what it is. But if I have not, it is my conclusion that I am not prepared to use starvation as an instrument of policy.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, first, I declare an interest. Until last June I was director of the Refugee Council and therefore for a number of years had a day-to-day involvement with some of these issues. I believe that Britain's treatment of refugees is a test of the sort of country we are and of the commitment we have to the human rights of some of the world's most vulnerable people.
Perhaps I may give just a few words of background. Over the past few years, the United Kingdom has taken a smaller proportion of asylum seekers than any other European country, save possibly France in the past couple of years. For a long time Germany took 60 per cent. of Europe's asylum seekers—took, not kept, them. For a long time Britain has not given asylum seekers the full level of income support but only 90 per cent. of it. There have been successive waves of legislation and changes in immigration rules in order to make things more difficult for asylum seekers. Now we have another proposal and a Bill that will presumably reach this House before too long.
Why are the Government doing all this? It seems that there is only one argument: "Let us make it pretty unpleasant so that people will not even want to arrive here". That is a distasteful approach by any standards. Many organisations which have day-to-day involvement with refugees—I refer not only to the Refugee Council but to Save the Children, which was mentioned, and many others—are desperately concerned about what

1321
will happen. They have made it very clear, and I speak from personal experience as well, that if an applicant is refused refugee status, that does not mean that there was no justice in the claim—although that seems to be the argument on which the Government are hanging this measure. It may well be that people who are refused refugee status are given exceptional leave to remain—an admission by the Government that it would not be appropriate for that individual to be sent back to the country from which he or she came. There may be third country refusals when the Government have not said to an individual, "You have no basis for your claim", but have simply said, "You spent some time in another country; that is where your claim should be determined". But in the meantime, the Government say, such people do not have any rights.
I do not argue that every asylum seeker has a claim for refugee status under the 1951 convention. All I argue is that surely we should as a country have a system of natural justice whereby we determine each asylum claim fairly and properly, and whereby we allow the asylum seeker to live tolerably decently while that process is going on.
It is perfectly clear that the Government have in their own hands the best remedy for the difficulties in which they find themselves; namely, to cut down the long delays in getting an asylum claim heard and decided, and to do so, not by truncating the process of deciding asylum claims, but by having enough staff to do the job properly. That approach would pay for itself very quickly. When there are 50,000 to 60,000 people waiting for their claim to be considered, it is a signal to those in other countries who do not have a soundly based claim to say, "Well, it takes so long I might as well have a year or two there". However, I contend that many people do have a soundly based claim. My evidence is based partly on statistics but partly on the fact that people come from countries with a history and record of oppression, turmoil, persecution and war—countries such as Zaire and Nigeria. People come from a large number of countries where conditions are such that it is no wonder they flee to safe countries—of which this country is merely one.
I am concerned that the Government seem to be saying, as a justification for these proposals, that not many people are awarded full refugee status anyway, so while the process works its way through it does not matter too much if some of them are denied support to sustain themselves. I argue, in contrast, that surely in a country that believes in human rights, every individual's claim is important and every individual's right to proceed with a claim in decent circumstances is important. After all, that is the basis of the UN Convention 1951.
The UNHCR has come out very clearly in this instance—and it is not given to public pronouncements because its method is to deal privately and discreetly with governments—against the Government's proposals. Perhaps I may quote from what it said:
"A country's recognition rate of refugees may more often reflect the narrowness or liberalness of that state's application of the refugee definition than the legitimacy or otherwise of individual claims".
1322
Perhaps I may make a comparison before and after the implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. In 1990 the number of people not allowed to stay on any basis at all was 17 per cent. In 1994 the number of refusals had gone up to 75 per cent. To a large extent the reason is not in determining refugee status, although there has been some difference in that, but largely in the other category of exceptional leave to remain, to which I have already referred. In 1990, 60 per cent. of applicants were given ELR, but in 1994 the number had fallen to 16 per cent. ELR is discretionary status, which the Government give, as I have said before, because they recognise that it is not appropriate to send an individual back, even if they technically deny refugee status. It is the difference in ELR, which is directly under the Government's control, which has led largely to the dramatic increase in the rate of refusals and which in turn seems to be why the Government are saying, "These people are not genuine". If the Government approve the answer, they can hardly claim objectivity for it.
Reference has already been made to the Social Security Advisory Committee. I do not want to take up the time of the House by quoting again what it has said, except to say that my understanding is that its comments on this proposal have been the most starkly negative on any proposal that has ever come before the SSAC. It said bluntly that the proposal should be withdrawn.
Noble Lords have already referred to the good reasons why not every asylum seeker may make a port application, although many make one in the country within a short period of arriving here. It is an understandable human reaction, even if they had full knowledge of the Government's proposals. But it is very likely that people will be in ignorance of those proposals and will inadvertently put themselves into the position of not being entitled to any benefit or other basis for support.
The Government's own figures have made the position very clear. In each year between 1992 and 1995 as regards in-country applications, a larger percentage were given refugee status than from port applications. So there is no support for the Government's view that people make in-country applications because they do not have as good a case as those making port applications. The available figures for each year deny the Government's contention. There is enormous concern that there will be great hardship caused by these measures to children, families, lone parents, pregnant women, people with disabilities, the elderly and those who have suffered torture.
Perhaps I may deal with two specific points before I conclude. The Government, through the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said some weeks ago that there was a parallel between not giving anyone income support if they have been refused an asylum claim and they are appealing against it and the normal refusals and appeals on social security grounds. I argue that there are a number of reasons why that parallel is not valid.
First, I understand that there is backdating on domestic social security cases but not for asylum seekers. I hope that the Minister will prove me wrong.

1323
There are far longer delays in going through the asylum determination process and the appeals process than in appeals to the normal social security tribunals. In any case, the appeal would be against the Home Office and not against the DSS. Secondly, a person already living in this country and making a normal social security appeal is far more likely to have friends, a supportive family or some personal resources, whereas the pattern for many asylum seekers is that they come to this country with virtually no belongings at all except perhaps the contents of a plastic bag.
I refer briefly to the Motion standing in my name which deals with one consequence only of these proposals; namely, the hardship affecting children or families who have children. I am very concerned that if the proposals are given effect many asylum-seeking children or the children of asylum seekers will suffer severe hardship. If the House were to pass my Motion and that in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, there would be no damage to the main thrust of the Government's proposals. I wish that there would be but there would not be. The Motions would merely be lessening some of the more appalling consequences of this measure.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this is obviously an emotional issue and anything to do with immigration in the present confused and unhappy state of many parts of the world is understandably emotional. But the Government have to respond not only to emotion but also to secure that the wellbeing of this country and its economy is fully supported. I ask your Lordships, before coming to any final judgment on the matter, to study the statement by the Secretary of State attached to the report. I do not wish to detain your Lordships for any undue length of time, but I shall quote from it two short passages. Paragraph 4 says:
"The Government recognises that genuine refugees do not come to the UK to obtain social security benefits but to escape persecution. Their rights to asylum will not be curtailed in any way by these regulations or the Bill. And those who make their true intentions clear when they arrive in this country, and seek asylum at the point of entry, will continue to have access to benefits while their claims are considered by the Home Office".
There then follows perhaps the most important passage of all, which states,
"However, well over 90 per cent. of those claiming asylum are eventually found not to be genuine refugees".
That is a finding of fact and those who wish to ease restrictions, as all the three previous speakers wish to do, have to face this.
We have a considerable number of people wishing to come to this country and claiming to be refugees. But it is found as a matter of fact that 90 per cent. of them are not genuine refugees. Obviously, there are many people who want to come to this country because it is a good country to live in and because, although I do not expect noble Lords opposite to accept it, it is a country with a good government. It is a country with a very fine system of social security and services for which I can claim having played a modest part because I was responsible
1324
for them for quite a number of years. Therefore, it is a country which attracts a lot of people who are in no sense refugees and are not necessarily coming from countries where there are refugee problems. Therefore, it is necessary for any government to operate carefully and secure that only genuine refugees are admitted as such.
When it comes to a point, which noble Lords opposite must face, that 90 per cent. of those who claim to be refugees are as a matter of fact not found to be genuine refugees, it simply is not good enough in the light of that just to say, "You must relax restrictions and you must not impose restrictions". The restrictions have to be imposed, or we shall be simply swamped by a large number of immigrants who come here because it is a good country to come to and because they want to enjoy our social services and our social security system, and who like to call themselves refugees in the hope that that will secure their entry into this country.
Therefore I ask your Lordships to think very carefully indeed about this matter before coming to any final decision or any final vote. It is very important for government—and it is government's job—to secure proper control of entry into this country. We cannot afford to be swamped with immigration. We cannot afford to have unlimited numbers coming into this country: nor is there any justification for it. We are not, after all, the only country to which refugees from those countries which are in an unhappy state have to go. There are many other countries; but it is significant that so large a proportion of those who claim to be coming here as refugees are not found to be coming as refugees but are in fact simply taking advantage of the situation and of the emotional side to it, all in order to try and "dig in" and establish themselves here.
Therefore, with great respect to noble Lords opposite who take a different view, and fully understanding the humanitarian and sensitive approach which they are showing, I beg of them to think very hard indeed as to whether it would be possible to relax in any degree whatever what the Government propose. My own view is that if controls of this sort are necessary, if the well-being of this country and its people is to be properly supported and maintained, it is necessary to do what the Government propose to do. I, for one, will support them.
4.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, widespread dismay and anger has been expressed by Churches, refugee organisations, immigration bodies and other significant groups about the Government's proposals to withdraw benefits from some categories of asylum seekers. Indeed, I do not remember an issue in recent times which has given rise to such a volume of briefing papers. There is, I believe, deep outrage in many quarters at these regulations. It is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has just made clear, that emotions be substantiated by facts. If my contribution this afternoon seems cerebral it is not because there is no passion in the Churches or in myself but because argument is also important.

1325
I was slightly dismayed to find that my own speech bore a striking resemblance by those uttered by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. As I reflected upon this it seemed to me that the reason for that is that the figures speak for themselves. Each of the speakers in this afternoon's debate has referred to figures and therefore I think we must look at those figures. If there is a certain element of repetition in my own contribution I ask forgiveness, but I do think that these points need to be made.
The Government invite us to believe that there is a small minority of asylum seekers who are genuine and that the remainder are bogus, economic migrants whose aim is to better their standard of life by gaining admission to this country. Withdrawing benefit will mean that such economic migrants will go elsewhere. To return once again to the figures, the 1995 figures at which I have been looking and for which I have accurate figures only for the months January to September, show that in every 100 determinations in that year four were granted refugee status and 19 were given exceptional leave to remain. That is a total of 23 out of each 100. In previous years the proportion has been similar: that is from a total of about 1,000 applications resolved.
This is not a small minority but a substantial proportion, 23 per cent., who are shown to be genuine applicants, either refugees or people meriting stay in this country, on the basis of their applications. What, then, about the 77 per cent. remainder? Are they all bogus? We are invited to say yes, and one of the arguments given is that they come from so-called safe countries. My memory is that when I had an exchange of views with the Minister on the 11th January on this matter he invited me to look at actual figures and to study such countries as India and Pakistan. I have done that and have discovered that in the period from January to September 1995 10 applicants from Pakistan were given refugee status and another 15 were given exceptional leave to remain, while from India 30 applicants were granted exceptional leave to remain.
These are small numbers, but they are enough to disprove the claim that these are safe countries, all of whose applicants can be regarded as bogus. And what of those whose applications for asylum status are rejected? This does not mean, as noble Lords opposite have already said, that they are bogus. Some of them may indeed be so and, human nature being what it is, people will always seek to abuse a system. It is to be expected that some will abuse the asylum system and that the checks have to be such that those abusers will be rejected. But there will be others whose claims are rejected not because they are bogus but because they are unable to satisfy the tight requirements of our own asylum procedures. They are genuine asylum seekers; they come from motives of fear and not of greed, but they will not know until they are here whether their claim will be accepted. That does not make them bogus.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has already referred to the statement from the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and I have noted precisely hat statement and have noted that this recognition rate may have as much to do with the state of our own
1326
refugee application system as it has to do with the legitimacy or otherwise of individual claims. I hope that we can move away from this language of "bogus". Again to quote the statement from the High Commission for Refugees:
"In our experience such simplistic terms are emotive, and undermine an appropriate perception and response to the problems of refugees."
The Government propose to withdraw benefit from all asylum seekers who make their claim in-country and not at the point of entry. I can add very little to what other noble Lords have already said, except perhaps to give actual figures. In 1994, of those granted refugee status 300 were port applicants and 530 were in-country applicants: that is both a larger absolute number and a larger proportion. The 1995 figures for the months I have already quoted, January to September, show that 285 successful port applicants were determined and 670 in-country applicants; an even greater imbalance. The greater number of those who are granted refugee status have sought it by means of an in-country application.
If this is the case and if it is indeed true, as these figures undoubtedly show, that in-country applicants are more likely to be granted refugee status, why is this one of the groups from whom benefit is being withdrawn? The statistics simply do not support the argument. The withdrawal of benefit from those who appeal seems to me to be a straightforward attempt to dissuade them from appealing. Once again, given that a significant number may succeed on appeal—indeed almost as many as on initial application—why is this group targeted for removal of benefit?
Of course it is the Government's responsibility to look with great rigour at our expenditure, and in particular at expenditure on these benefits, but the savings which are being made here on benefits are made at great cost. I believe that we need to reflect upon that cost. Let me give just one example. Oaklands Refugee Services, a Roman Catholic and Anglican project, which provides accommodation and related support to newly arrived asylum seekers, comments that the bulk of its income derives from housing benefit. Indeed, in that respect it is not unlike other projects to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made reference. It receives top-up funding from charitable trusts and business. But if benefit were stopped, Oaklands would be forced to refuse further referrals and, in due course, evict existing residents when their housing benefit ceased. Many of those people would end up sleeping rough on the streets, just at the time when they are most vulnerable.
It is widely agreed that the way to reduce the level of benefits is to shorten the length of time the asylum procedure takes. I referred earlier to the dismay and anger felt by many people and groups in relation to these proposals. They offend against our sense of moral responsibility to the many who genuinely seek asylum in our country. We want the regulations annulled.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friends Lady Hollis and Lord Dubs and the noble Earl,

1327
Lord Russell. In so doing I declare an interest. I am an asylum seeker. I was brought to this country as a child by parents seeking asylum.
I was born in Lithuania. The threat that caused my parents to leave and to seek asylum was the threat of occupation by Russia or Germany. They knew that being Jewish would lead to persecution by the Nazis. My father was a bit of an intellectual and indeed a religion school teacher. He knew that that was punishable by deportation to Siberia by the communists.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that the regulations would not stop those facing persecution from entering. But would an immigration officer have understood the position of my parents in 1937? I doubt it. Would Lithuania have been on a white list in 1937? Probably.
My father earned his living by selling yarn for a Manchester cotton-spinning mill. It was through that connection that he was able to bring his family to Manchester and to seek asylum. Applying for a visa would have been out of the question; nor could he have applied for a visa in a third country without putting all his family in danger. I strongly suspect that, were the proposed regulations in force at that time, we would not have been admitted. That may be a cheerful thought for those noble Lords with whom I have crossed swords; but to me the government regulations give rise to the feeling that, but for the grace of God, there go I.
We all have our childhood memories and mine are very much bound up with being an asylum seeker. One vivid memory is the pride that my family and friends took in British institutions and British ways. No destructive criticism was allowed of those British institutions and ways. We were proud to identify with a British sense of decency and fair play; we were proud of the Royal Family; we were extremely patriotic. We were grateful and anxious to put something back into the pot whenever we could. That attitude was not confined to my family. In conversations over the years with people in similar circumstances to mine, many have told me that that too was their experience. That is confirmed by the many interviews of this past generation which are in the National Sound Archives. So asylum seekers are not always scroungers; they bring benefits if we give them a chance.
Nevertheless, with the Bill we are faced with the prospect of people who have been or who are likely to be persecuted abroad being forced to sleep on the streets and beg for food purely because they have the temerity to seek asylum. The Minister said that if one asks for asylum at the port, one will be able to claim social benefit. My noble friend Lady Hollis responded to that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is giving the impression that we will turn people away at the port. That is not the case. It is not the case at all. The point is that applications for asylum at the port of entry will be accepted and the applicants will receive benefit; they will not be turned away.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hollis and others explained the difficulties of applying
1328
for asylum at the port of entry. The Minister says that the barriers are to stop bogus asylum seekers. In fact, the additional barriers will make it less likely that people with families will seek asylum. They will not want to punish their children by dragging them through the hardships and difficulties placed in their way by the Government. That would certainly have been a consideration with my parents. Young people who can rough it will have a go, but families will be excluded. I therefore particularly support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Dubs.
My criticisms are not only directed at the British Government but also at the European Union. Safe lists have been adopted by Europe since 1992 and the Commission has been strongly criticised for that by the UN Commissioner for Refugees.
I realise that this is very much a personal and emotional appeal. But human rights are an emotional and personal matter. Others far better qualified than I have spoken and will speak of the legal and moral reasons why your Lordships should support the Motion. I speak simply out of concern that this inhumane legislation contributes to the destruction of the very values which inspired my parents to seek asylum here in the first place.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, we in this country have a long tradition of humanity and compassion for asylum seekers. One of the best known examples is the Huguenots fleeing from religious persecution, many of whom settled in this country and brought considerable benefits to our community and our economy. A more recent example is the Uganda nations, who again were forced out of their country and many of whom have settled here successfully. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, gave his own example, to which I am sure your Lordships listened with considerable attention and sympathy.
Long may that tradition continue. Human nature being what it is, there will always be genuine refugees and Britain should always be a haven for them. On the other hand, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said a moment ago, the Government have a duty to guard against abuse of our hospitality. They must be an effective guardian of the public purse. When one looks at the figures, one can see that a serious problem exists.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security gave some figures in a debate in the other place on 23rd January. He said that last year people claiming asylum, including dependants, totalled over 57,000 and that that represented a tenfold increase over 10 years. That suggests that an extremely serious problem exists that needs to he dealt with. It is significant also that the increases over that period appear to he smaller than the increases in other European Union countries where the benefits are usually less generous than ours or, in some cases, not available at all.
For example, in France and Belgium there is no benefit available after 12 months; in Italy there is no benefit available for any period, whereas in France and Holland asylum seekers are usually accommodated in

1329
camps where benefit is mainly in kind rather than cash. The figures probably mean that this country is becoming a soft touch. Word gets around among vulnerable people that life is better in Britain than elsewhere, and, as with illegal immigration, there are those who try to persuade vulnerable people that they can work the system to their own advantage.
I suggest that in the light of the very great increase in applications in recent years no government can turn a blind eye and do nothing. At a time when the Government have made strenuous efforts to prevent domestic fraud against the social security system it would be neglect of a clear duty for them to do nothing about asylum fraud. Your Lordships will know that it is a bad thing for the genuine asylum seeker. A number of your Lordships have made clear in speeches this afternoon that delays occur in the processing of claims, which clearly are to the disadvantage of the genuine asylum seeker.
In his Motion the noble Earl, Lord Russell, used the interesting phrase "visible legal means of support"—but by whom? In a debate in another place on 23rd January the Secretary of State said that 70 per cent. of claims for asylum were made by people who claimed to be students, tourists, visitors or business people. If they are granted entry under those categories they have to satisfy the immigration authorities that they can support themselves while in this country. If later they change their minds and apply for asylum I do not see why the taxpayer should pick up the bill, unless the individual case involves special circumstances. Reference has been made to application at the port of entry. I believe this to be right. I do not see how the system can be effectively controlled and abuse prevented in any other circumstances, unless there are exceptional conditions.
Having accepted that, I seek three assurances from my noble friend the Minister when he comes to reply. The first concerns upheavals in the country from which the person has come. Let us say that someone is here legally as a student. Can he apply for asylum away from the port of entry if circumstances in his home country have changed to such an extent that his life will be endangered if he returns to that country? If so, will the application be dealt with speedily wherever the individual is living at the time? Secondly, while I accept that application at the port of entry should be the normal procedure, I ask the Minister to give an assurance that adequate facilities will be available at the port of entry, including interpreters for those who do not speak English. Thirdly, am I correct in thinking that those who claim asylum at the port of entry will have access to benefits while their claims are being determined? If my noble friend can give assurances on those three matters, I believe that the Government are amply justified in proceeding with this statutory instrument, and I shall have no difficulty in supporting them in the Lobby tonight.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, many years ago for the first time I witnessed the passing of a Bill through your Lordships' House in the course of one night. I refer to the so-called Ugandan Asians Bill. It
1330
was a most shameful occasion. A Conservative Peer, who sat almost exactly in the position from which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, has just spoken, said that a pledge had been given to these people that they would be let in if they were thrown out of their country and relieved of their civil rights. However, if one invited people to come and stay and they took up that offer later one would not be bound to it if it proved inconvenient because one's house was overfull at that time.
I thought then that it was a most unreasonable, uncharitable and dishonourable statement, but never in my wildest dreams did I think I would hear a Conservative Peer get to his feet and cite the Ugandan Asians as an example of a very successful form of immigration after such appalling behaviour in relation to that particular Bill. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that those who finally managed to get in are a very good example, but it is not to the credit of this House or the other House that they were not allowed in at the time we were first faced with that challenge.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to intervene. I happened to be one of the United Kingdom delegates in the General Assembly of 1972 when this issue arose. We were under instructions from the British Government to do everything we could to help in this particular situation. I well remember the visit of the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who went out precisely to negotiate for the safety of these people. It ended up with over 50,000 Asians being welcomed to this country. I am very glad to say that the vast majority of them have benefited from living in this country as a result of the action of the British Government of the day.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, negotiations for the safety of those people did take place, but there was a failure to honour the pledge that had been given by Mr. Macleod, which he acknowledged that he had given at the time—he wrote a very famous leader in the Spectator to support it—to let those people into this country in the way that we said we would without qualification. We let some in, and eventually we let in a great many, and we are all richer and better for it. That does not affect the fact that we behaved extraordinarily badly then.
Having embarked upon that, your Lordships may be slightly surprised to hear that I share a number of the presuppositions on the Government Benches. The only reason I add my voice to those of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—who are much more able to cope with the situation than I—is that I come from a slightly different background. I believe that we face a major problem with the prospects of immigration and population. I believe that we will need to have a population policy, which we do not have at the moment. I also believe that in future the number of people who want to emigrate to this country will increase enormously and will present us with a major problem. Therefore, I do not challenge the Government about what they say is their basic attitude toward refugees. I do challenge them on the competence with which they deal with the issue and what appears to

1331
be their inability to deal with appeals, or even first hearings, within a short time. That is shocking. I cannot defend them on that.
It is from that background, of thinking that we have to be fairly strong on the subject of immigration, that I take up another point that has been raised, in particular by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the problem of whether refugees, or anyone at all admitted to this country on any understanding whatsoever, will be allowed to become destitute or starve. A long time ago a very famous judgment was made—the Mansfield judgment—which stated that any slave who set foot on English soil immediately became a free man. I believe that it is equally important that any person admitted legally onto British soil should be protected from destitution and starvation. If they are not, we cannot regard Britain as a civilised country.
I heard the challenge made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I shall not repeat it. I too shall listen to what the Government have to say. If they can convince us that there will be no cases of destitution or starvation whatsoever—I mean whatsoever—I shall reconsider how I cast my vote. But if, as I suspect and as previous speakers have demonstrated, there may be a situation in which people can become destitute and starve on the streets of Britain, I shall certainly vote for this Motion.
Before I sit down, I should like to ask the Government what they are doing about helping the local authorities. I have heard from friends and colleagues of mine of various professions, including the clergy, in the south-east corner of England, where many people land up. They say that there will be very real problems. They do not know how they will cope if they find people destitute and starving on their streets. People will land up in such areas. It is very important, whatever happens as a result of this evening's vote, that the Government take special measures to make certain that the local authorities which have to deal with these problems are supported and helped.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, from what we have heard this afternoon, there is no doubt that the problem of asylum seekers is a very great one. I understand that there has been a tenfold increase in claims for asylum since 1988. I am certainly prepared to believe that the world is not an entirely happy place, even after the collapse of the Soviet Union and other positive events that have taken place in recent years. But I am not prepared to believe that the situation is 10 times worse than in 1988. Even Amnesty International—I do not always agree with everything that organisation says—states:
"The misuse of the asylum process by those merely seeking to circumvent UK immigration controls is a significant and difficult problem".
Only four out of 100 claims are deemed to he genuine refugees by the Home Office, and just 4 per cent. of appeals against refusal are upheld by independent adjudicators. Some noble Lords have criticised the criteria which have been set. But my understanding is that the appeals are held by independent adjudicators.
1332
I hope therefore that one cannot disagree with them too much. From some countries, such as Poland, Ghana and Romania, 98 per cent. are rejected.
The cost to the British taxpayer is enormous—over £200 million in benefits alone. That is money which, I should have thought, noble Lords all round the House, and in particular those sitting on the Opposition Benches, might feel would be better spent on genuine UK benefit claimants. I ask my noble friend the Minister why we are the only European country seemingly to have failed to tackle the problem so far. Between the beginning of 1994 and last November the number had nearly doubled. I understand that the figure for 1993 was 22,000 and last year it was over 50,000. Yet in western Europe as a whole numbers fell from over half a million in 1993 to 32,000 in 1994. Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Norway, Spain and Switzerland all have had large falls in numbers. We get some 40 per cent. of total European applications, excluding Germany.
All those countries have taken steps either by shortening their procedures for dealing with unfounded claims or returning claimants to third countries from whence they came and where they are not at risk. Other countries also seem to be far less generous in the benefits that they give. That is perhaps why the United Kingdom has gained a reputation, as my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree said, for being a soft touch. I am glad that my noble friend Lady Blatch is sitting next to the Minister. She will be aware of my not wholly uncritical remarks in the past about the operation of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. She will be aware that up to this time last year airlines and ferry companies had been fined a total of £75 million for bringing in illegal immigrants of one kind or another, many of whom, I suspect, will have been bogus asylum seekers. I do not know whether my noble friend has any figures on that. I hope that one advantage of these regulations will be that they will at least reduce from that point of view the burden on airlines and shipping companies.
On the point about claimants coming from other safe third countries, such as across the Channel from France, Holland or Germany, surely it would be simple to return the claimant to that country. The claimant can hardly claim to be at risk on the other side of the Channel and to take such action could not possibly be in breach of our international obligations. Presumably, the reason that bogus economic migrants want to come to Britain is because our benefits are so much more generous than they are in other European countries.
I welcome the changes that the Government have made in the transitional arrangements that have been announced. But surely the message that we in this country need to put across is that we will not be a soft touch in the future and only applicants who are genuine asylum seekers are welcome. Noble Lords on all sides of the House do not wish to see any genuine asylum seekers prevented from coming here. But those who are only economic migrants need not apply.

1333
I have listened carefully all through the debate. I have not heard a single word from noble Lords opposite who are critical of these regulations about how they would attempt to deal with the problem and how they would deal with the cost to the British taxpayer.
The noble Lord will have a chance at the end of the debate to make his point, but, if he wishes to make it now, I shall give way.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I merely wish to say that I dealt with that point at some length.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may also join in those remarks and say that I too dealt with that point.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am afraid that I did not hear anything from either the noble Lord or noble Baroness on that matter. No doubt when the noble Baroness comes to wind up, that point will be reinforced. However, I did not hear anything that would convince me that they wished to deal with the cost of bogus asylum seekers.
4.39 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I begin by acknowledging the need for the Government to do something to curb the very large number of asylum applications, 90 per cent. of which turn out to be judged invalid. They also have to do something to end the extraordinary delays in processing asylum applications and the appalling backlog of over 64,000 cases awaiting adjudication, with all the pain and uncertainty attached to that situation. I am bound to say that it stretches credulity to say that that backlog is due simply to unexpected increases in the number of applications. Frankly, it seems to me that an additional factor is that too little was done too late to invest in the necessary wherewithal to keep on top of the demand and to keep the system working smoothly.
Be that as it may, the Government are absolutely right to insist that we cannot go on as we are. I welcome also the transitional arrangements recently announced by the Government by which those who have already made their asylum claim will keep their benefits entitlement until their claim is adjudicated.
Having said all that, many of us in the Churches and voluntary organisations still feel that not all of the criticisms made by the Social Security Advisory Committee have been taken seriously, let alone answered. We have continuing anxieties that the proposed changes will deprive some genuine asylum seekers of the means to pay for food and shelter—and there are genuine asylum seekers. I think that we should concentrate a little more on them and their needs rather than on how to keep out those who are not genuine.
Moreover, we believe that the proposals are too inflexible to take account of foreseeable cases of acute hardship. Noble Lords will be aware that religious Leaders have made representations to the Government at the highest level about those concerns, and that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, together with Cardinal Hume, has had discussions with
1334
the Secretary of State and with the noble Lord the Minister. I know that they were glad to be reassured that the Government would keep their concerns under review, but I have to say that they remain uneasy that the present proposals may be so rigid as to cause substantial hardship in particular cases.
Perhaps I may highlight some of the problems as we see them. The Government have refused any period of grace whatever once somebody leaves the port. From that moment onwards, any person seeking asylum will not be entitled to benefits, irrespective of his or her financial circumstances and needs. It seems wrong to draw no distinction between someone who, for instance, applies for asylum after three years having completed their studies at university and someone who applies for asylum within days of arriving in the country.
It is true that people should declare their wish for asylum on arrival at the port, but the Government have been unable to refute some of the cogent reasons given by the Social Security Advisory Committee as to why so many asylum seekers do not immediately declare their intention at the port even if their claim is perfectly genuine. Some cannot get a visa to travel here by claiming to be a refugee, so they simply have to create a story and to stick with it. It is understandable that they stick with that story until they are in the country for fear of being deported if they change their story at the port before getting in. One can add to that the fact that they may have no idea of how to apply for asylum and desperately need help and advice to know what to do.
To that confusion add fear and sometimes acute language difficulties and one can readily see that it is inevitable that a continuing significant proportion of people with well-founded claims for asylum will not disclose them at the port and then, without any entitlement to benefit, will be at real risk of unwarranted hardship themselves and of imposing extra hardship on others who may feel obliged to look after them but who themselves have inadequate means. I am most unhappy about airy claims that all those people would probably be looked after by friends and relations. In some cases, they are deeply and rightly suspicious of people from their country who are over here. Others come from places from which there is not yet any critical mass of immigrants to this country offering networks of support. Moreover, imposing on friends and relatives can impose worse overcrowding and poverty on some of the poorest families in our society. Surely that is not a proper basis for deliberate policy-making.
Similar considerations will apply to some of those who lose their entitlement to benefit when the initial adjudication is made against their claim and who may have great difficulty in keeping body and soul together while they exercise their legal right to appeal. Therefore, the Motion tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is to be welcomed.
The Government have made the concession that those who apply for asylum in-country following a major upheaval in their home country will be entitled to benefits. That is to be welcomed. However, here again the Government have not responded to the probing questions of the Social Security Advisory Committee.

1335
The fact is that there are all sorts of reasons why a volatile situation may shift decisively against an individual family without there being any great overall upheaval. What happens if the overall situation in the country remains much the same but the army or the police back home have clearly started to take an unhealthy interest in someone's family and associates? The Government's proposals are too rigid to allow such a person to draw benefits while pursuing an asylum claim.
The same point is true of the proposals relating to sponsored immigrants. Let us take the case of an elderly lady who arrives here as an immigrant, sponsored by a younger relative. After a couple of years or so, the young relative unfortunately becomes mentally ill and is hospitalised or has kidney failure, or suffers a stroke, or is run over, or sees his business collapse—of course, these are exceptional cases, but they happen—and because the old lady has not yet been here for five years, she has no entitlement to benefit. How is she going to live? The Government have not given a satisfactory answer to that question.
We are talking typically about vulnerable people, such as old ladies, who will have absolutely no entitlement to a basic means of livelihood. The litmus test of any society is the way in which it treats the elderly and the vulnerable. That is what Church leaders mean when they speak about "insufficient flexibility" in the proposals to allow for hardship cases which are not only predictable but inevitable. Many people in the Churches and the voluntary organisations who acknowledge that major problems exist which any government would have to address nevertheless feel that the proposals are not a sound basis on which to proceed because they cannot cope with the many predictable cases of hardship. The proposals cry out for more understanding and more flexibility.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest in that I am the President of the Refugee Council. I was chairman for some five years, and in the past week I have been made president. I feel very privileged and honoured to have been put in that position. The speech that we have just heard encapsulates many of the concerns which have been expressed not just by the Refugee Council but by many bodies which are directly affected, day in and day out, by these problems.
No one in their right mind supports serious abuses of the position affecting bogus asylum seekers. I was going to say "genuinely" bogus. This, nevertheless, is one of the meanest, most unprincipled and unscrupulous pieces of legislation that I have ever come across in quite a long period in another place and here. I am ashamed of it. I am ashamed of it not because I suffered the same problems as my noble friend Lord Haskel directly, but my grandparents confronted major difficulties when they came to this country. I am ashamed of it because I should have hoped that the Secretary of State himself would not have sought to divorce himself from the experience of his own family, but he chose to do that
1336
deliberately. I am ashamed of it because it does not seem to me that Ministers, and many of those who support these draft regulations, have confronted the problem. I wonder how many have met refugees. I wonder how many have been to the ports of entry and have tried to discuss these issues with them afterwards. I wonder how many Ministers do that.
I am not prepared to acquit the Government of the charge of engaging in political motivation to try to secure an electoral benefit. I cannot omit the fact that it was a Conservative research director who said not very long ago:
"Immigration, an issue which we raised successfully in 1992 and again in the 1994 Euro-elections campaign, played particularly well in the tabloids and has more potential to hurt".
Is that irrelevant? Yes, the background to all this is emotive. It has been emotive and pejorative language which has been used by both Secretaries of State involved in this issue (Mr. Lilley and Mr. Howard) to milk votes, to stimulate popularity with the bigoted. If the Government had approached this matter in a reasonably anodyne way; if they had stated the problem, one could have understood that. But they played for applause, and the game has been given away.
This is a case of shameless opportunism, designed to whip up prejudice. The constant reference to asylum seekers as "bogus" illustrates what I mean. The constant use of the term "a soft touch" illustrates what I mean. I cannot believe, from my knowledge of the situation, that people coming from some of these countries in travail settle around a table and say, "How are we going to get to Britain where we can milk the social services system?". Life is not like that. They may not know it, but life is not like that.
I only hope that Conservative Party Members in another place and here are not confronted themselves at any time with that situation, although they might learn a great deal from it. I do not begin to believe that they understand the pressures which were referred to by the right reverend Prelate. I am a political realist. I do not expect great shows of compassion from the Secretary of State for the Home Department or Miss Widdecombe. That would be like expecting a large family from a eunuch.
What I want to do is to ask the Minister some personal questions. I have, as he knows, a high regard for him personally, though not for the case that he will present tonight. Is it not a fact—this has been said over and over again, and the Government must answer this point—that over and above the 4 per cent. who have been given refugee status, 15 per cent. of applicants receive exceptional leave to remain for humanitarian reasons? Were those 15 per cent. at one time regarded as bogus? The Minister shakes his head. Why not? Of course it makes a huge difference, does it not, to the statistics that we have heard over and over again that only 4 per cent. of the claimants are genuine.
Is it not a fact that, even within the Government's own thinking, since the regulations apply right across the board, some genuine asylum seekers may be caught if they apply in-country? Will the Minister reply to that question in due course? If that is right, is it not probable

1337
that children of destitute families may be rendered even more vulnerable by being taken into care and torn away from their families and parents? What responsibility do they have for their plight? Why should they be visited with these problems?
How are such people—including those who may ultimately, perhaps under this regime against all the odds, succeed on appeal—to be expected to survive as nearly 3,000 asylum seekers a month are to be denied benefit? That is a crucial point. We have not heard from the Minister in another place what is the real answer to that.
Why do the Government persist in their "soft touch" propaganda when it is clear that few asylum seekers believe that Britain's streets are paved with gold—as they find out to their bitter experience when they arrive? They do not receive the full rate of income support, as my noble friend Lady Hollis illustrated so vividly earlier. Is it not a fact that the Government's policy is designed deliberately to undermine rights of appeal which are critical to any society which bases itself on the rule of law?
How are these people expected to live, to survive financially, while waiting for an appeal which can take anything between 14 and 21 months? What is to happen to them during that period? How do the Government square their assertions with the fact that one out of 10 asylum seekers obtained refugee status in 1995 following appeals, having presumably been depicted in the interim by the authorities as "bogus"?
A number of noble Lords referred to the fact that there are ample statistics to suggest, contrary to what the Government have asserted, that in-country applicants are more likely to be proved to be genuine than port applicants. Why is it that the statistics illustrate clearly that they are much more likely to be accepted as genuine refugees? I return again to the point raised by the noble Prelate—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: The right reverend Prelate.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate, I am sorry. I always get that one wrong. I find it difficult to trip it off the tongue easily. He asked a number of pertinent questions about the views of the Social Security Advisory Committee. Why did the committee advise so strongly against the withdrawal of benefit and the rigid application of these rules? Why does the Minister think that the UNHCR has adopted such a strong line against what the Government are proposing? Is the UNHCR to be regarded as a discreditable institution? It is probable that it has rather more knowledge of what goes on than the Minister himself. I wish to put to the Minister one of the many questions that I could put about what the UNHCR has said. With regard to children it has said:
"If the effect of withdrawal of welfare support for the family impacts in a negative way on any child in that family, then the United Kingdom is likely to fall foul of the Children's Convention. inter alia, Article 22".
Will the Minister deal fully with that point because it comes from a very credible authority?
1338
I am ashamed of this Government, and much more so than on any issue that confronts us in respect of which I have major disagreements. They emerge from this discreditably. I support the Motions standing in the names of my noble friends and the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
5 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I too found the discussion on the regulations to some extent discreditable. Compassion is not felt only by those on one side of the House. Time and again the Government have shown compassion to those in this country who need and seek compassion and support. In considering the length of time that asylum seekers must wait for their claims to be dealt with, one has only to remember that the Government will he putting in £37 million to pay for 700 staff to deal with the mounting number of claims of asylum seekers, genuine or otherwise, when only last week they wished to give £33 million to hypothermia cases as a result of the cold weather. If one were in government, whom would one choose as the deserving case needing that source of money? When one is in government—perhaps noble Lords opposite will never know that experience—one must make decisions and have priorities. The first duty of a government is to their own citizens and that should be remembered during the course of the debate.
I wish to turn to a point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. Asylum seekers at the ports are automatically granted benefit. There is no question of them being treated as scroungers. They are identified as they arrive at the ports. If they come here as asylum seekers they are identified as such and they are supported by the benefit system. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will confirm that. I understand that the present figure is approximately 13,000.
Perhaps we may then consider the 70 per cent. who are discovered not to be genuine asylum seekers. Apparently, they come in as businessmen, tourists and students. They are not the poor Bulgarians with no interpreter who will end up sleeping on the streets. They are people who come here with a reasonable amount of money in their pockets. On entry they are asked whether they have money to support themselves or whether they will be claiming benefit and they state their case. I usually travel through airports and I have not come across immigration officers who maltreat people as they are going through those questions. I believe the remarks that have been made are derogatory to the immigration officers who serve this country loyally and efficiently and as best they can in the very difficult circumstances under which they must sometimes work.
I turn to the way in which Britain receives foreigners into this country. It might be thought that this is a xenophobic attack, as was perhaps suggested by one or two noble Lords. As was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree, the DSS is already trying to seek out those British subjects, or people living in Britain, who are defrauding the public purse of something like £1.4 billion as a result of false claims under the social security system. This regulation merely brings in a category of people who are being suspected of

1339
defrauding the benefit system. They are being treated no worse and no better than British subjects who regrettably, in many instances, are defrauding the benefit system and the public purse. Without that fraud millions of pounds would be available to be spent on more deserving cases—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I am hesitant to intervene. The point is that when, in the British system, a British citizen loses benefit it is because the initial case has been heard and there is a presumption that he or she is committing fraud. The problem under these regulations is that benefit is being withdrawn before the case is heard. That is the difference between the two systems, and that is what we are seeking to address.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the benefit is not being withdrawn. I understand that it is withdrawn between the rejection and the appeal. That is precisely the same as in British benefit cases—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I apologise for rising a second time. I wish only that the noble Baroness were right. Were she right that benefit is retained both at the port of entry and in the country until the determination had been made and the appeal heard there would be no dispute between us. I hope that in the light of that the noble Baroness will join us.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the noble Baroness knows perfectly well that I will not. The fact of the matter is that those who have stayed in the country came in originally on false pretences as students, tourists and businessmen. Where others came in through fear of persecution that is another matter. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Can she tell us any way in which these regulations discriminate between those who have come in under false pretences and those who have come in in genuine fear of persecution?
Baroness Elles: My Lords, those who have come in in genuine fear of persecution are automatically given benefit at the port of entry. In future, as a result of these regulations, those who do not will not receive the benefit.
One has only to look at the social security regulations to see the amount of non-contributory benefits that are being poured out on these people, with no justification. Perhaps I may refer to the United Nations' adoption of the declaration on human rights of aliens in 1985. The point is that any alien has the right to benefits in the country in which he or she is legally resident and in which he or she has contributed to the welfare system. The asylum seekers with whom we are dealing are not technically legally resident under the general definition of that term, nor have they contributed to welfare benefits. Of course, if they have contributed to welfare benefits they are entitled to benefit in the normal way. However, these particular asylum seekers have not done so.
1340
I wish to turn to the point that I was about to make when the noble Baroness intervened. It is the recognition of people who come into this country, who are treated as citizens of their country of origin, and who after a number of years make a claim to be naturalised. That speaks highly of the United Kingdom and its welcome to foreigners because among the European Union countries we have a high record of naturalised citizens. According to the 1993 figures, which are the latest available, more than 45,000 people have been made British citizens as a result of our naturalisation process. Most of them, perhaps I may say, come from Asia and Africa; they are not just from white dominions or whatever. They are citizens who have come from Asia and Africa. The only country in the European Union which has a higher figure is France which has 60,000. A vast number of those come from Morocco with their own cultural links.
I wish to insist on the fact that there is no question of discrimination on grounds of race or of not being a British citizen. It is a question of using the finances of this country for totally unjustified purposes. I am happy to say to those who dislike the Maastricht Treaty that provision under Title III to deal with asylum and immigration issues has given us an opportunity to discuss the issues right across the European Union. Many countries have suffered exactly the same problems as the United Kingdom. There may be proof that we have been too generous with our benefits as a result of not being strict on the identification and definition of asylum seekers because during the past three years other European countries have suddenly realised that there is a great influx and have introduced much stricter provisions.
At one recent Council meeting, I am happy to say that a definition of the term "refugee" was agreed unanimously by all member states, including the United Kingdom. The definition states that the refugee is someone who has a well-founded fear of persecution in his own country. The people who come through such controls as students, businessmen and tourists do not qualify under those grounds. The United Kingdom is perfectly justified in taking the proposed measures. I very much hope that the Government will play a full role under Title III and co-operate with other member states in the European Union to deal with what is undoubtedly a European problem and not just one that applies to the United Kingdom.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I differ somewhat from the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. I regret to say that the regulations before us are evil fruits stemming from a tree of prolonged bad policy. They, and their forerunners, have been universally condemned by those with experience; namely, the Churches, Jewish organisations, local government, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and charities and advice agencies working with asylum seekers and refugees. To cap it all—as if that was not enough—the Social Security Advisory Committee rejected the proposals. The Government seem to think that they know better than those in day-to-day contact with the practical

1341
problems. I know that some transitional relief has been provided. I welcome that very much, but of course it is quite inadequate, given the original intention to deprive most asylum seekers of benefit.
It is worth looking at the background to the proposals. Since about 1987, governments have successively reversed our traditions of welcome and hospitality to the persecuted. The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act, which has already been mentioned, attempted to reduce the number of asylum seekers reaching this country. Costly detention has been used, not just for people awaiting deportation, but for many asylum seekers pending their assessment. The Asylum and Immigration Act 1993 did very little to help things, and now we are faced with new regulations savagely cutting benefits and with a new Bill which is now in the other place.
Of course, a few economic migrants have reached our shores, despite the best efforts of many other governments to stop them coming here. That has caused Her Majesty's Government to mount a loud campaign crying "foul" and trying to pretend, both in Parliament and in the tabloid press, that,
"90% or more of those claiming asylum are bogus".
That statement, vociferated by the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary, and the Secretary of State for Social Security (supported in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter) is not even correct as it stands. In 1995, about 23 per cent. of applicants were either accepted as refugees, or given exceptional leave to remain on humanitarian grounds and because, to return home, would be dangerous for them. A further 4 per cent. received refugee status on appeal. In previous years the proportion of refugees and ELR was considerably higher.
I ask: why have the proportions changed? The answer, I believe, is to be found in instructions, whether formal or informal, given to those who deal with applicants. That is the culture of disbelief that was so properly mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The burden has been put on the applicant to prove that what he says is true. In fact, the burden is often quite an impossible one, because the relevant witnesses cannot be produced in this country. Virtually every sentence in applicants' statements is contested. That sometimes produces ludicrous results; for example, a man fleeing the brutal and corrupt dictatorship of Colonel Mobutu was told that he could not have crossed the Congo River by canoe because of the number of crocodiles! How else does the Home Office think that the river has been crossed for many generations? Are we to imagine a barrage of crocodiles, nose to nose and tail to tail, waiting to tip up the poor man in his canoe?
In another case, the Home Office considered it,
"unlikely that he did not know the name or locality of the prison where he had been held".
In that case, the applicant's solicitor had to point out that his client was unconscious on arrival and escaped with help, during the hours of darkness. Attitudes such as these are even more serious when genuine victims of torture are told that their scars and bruises could perhaps have resulted from other causes.
1342
I suggest to your Lordships that means and methods quite contrary to the spirit and intention of the 1951 convention (which Britain helped to draft) have been used to minimise acceptances. What then should Her Majesty's Government be doing. First, they should cut the numbers of asylum seekers detained in this country, often in unsuitable and unsatisfactory places and conditions. Voluntary organisations, housing associations and reporting conditions should be used to ensure that applicants do not disappear. Asylum seekers should be allowed to accept work, if and when they can get it, before the presently prescribed six-month period has expired. Both those measures would save money.
On the other hand, money should be spent on maintaining the existing welfare and supplementary benefits. That will avoid arbitrary and unjust action and protect many genuine asylum seekers, especially those who, for genuine reasons, do not always apply at the port of entry. These are national responsibilities which should not be shuffled off on to certain local authorities—indeed, a rather small number of the total of local authorities—as was wrongly being done in the case of unaccompanied children. The Government should be aware that, among asylum seekers, there are children, frail and elderly people as well as some victims of war and torture. Housing benefit should certainly not be removed.
We were promised in 1993—and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, mentioned this fact—that money would be spent on extra Home Office and Immigration Department staff to cut down on the processing time and the huge backlog of about 64,000 cases. Some progress may perhaps have been made; but, in my view, it is quite inadequate. The processing time needs to be cut dramatically and, as has been mentioned before, that will result in considerable savings on welfare benefits.
I accept that the savings and the extra costs may not balance exactly, but what I have recommended would produce a better system, much more in keeping with our traditions and our international responsibilities.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House what is the reason that a genuine asylum seeker does not give when he is seeking asylum at the port of entry? Why does he not say, "I am suffering; I am a victim of persecution and I am seeking asylum"? Why does such a person come into the country as a student, or something of that nature?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, there are many reasons. One of them is that people arrive in this country exhausted by travel, and in a state of shock and trauma.
5.18 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I share the general concerns felt both outside and within the House about the regulations that are before us today. I rise to support the Motions which have been proposed. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, talked of the prime responsibility of a government being towards their own citizens. As a citizen of this country, I feel that one of those responsibilities is to maintain the honourable tradition

1343
that we have had of behaving in a civilised and humane way towards those seeking sanctuary here in fear of persecution in their own lands. I believe that in putting forward these regulations the Government are failing in that duty of maintaining a tradition of civilised behaviour.
The general concerns have been mentioned. I rise to speak specifically about the concerns arising from the effects of these regulations on pregnant women and families with children. The importance of good nutrition in pregnancy is well known in terms of the outcome for the baby. When women are malnourished during pregnancy, as many asylum seekers have been in their own countries, the risk of their having babies with low birth weights who will therefore require expensive healthcare not only immediately after birth but possibly for the rest of their lives is greatly increased. I find it deeply shameful that we in this country would consider adding to the risk of malnutrition during pregnancy, and the effect on the subsequent baby, by removing financial support for women in this situation.
The Maternity Alliance in its submission to the Social Security Advisory Committee stated that, if pregnant asylum seekers with no financial means are denied access to social security benefits which would enable them to have a reasonable diet, it is inevitable that not only their health but also that of their babies will suffer in consequence. Those of us who have seen the demands put on neo-natal services by the babies of some refugees in this country, occasioned by their health status, are well aware of expense in this area. I suggest to your Lordships that it is deeply shortsighted of the Government not to consider giving adequate financial support to families before the birth of their children, but to accept the need for expensive healthcare after birth because of the failure of these policies.
The other issue I wish to raise is that of care of the children of these families. Although it is possible to change the social security regulations affecting the support for children of asylum seekers, Section 17 of the Children Act of 1989 maintains the duty on local authorities as regards the welfare of these children. Therefore if these children are destitute, as some of them will be, and if their parents cannot provide adequate support, the local authority will have to care for these children but will have no responsibility to care for the parents. There will be few local authorities who will face a disproportionate burden in this respect. We envisage local authorities providing expensive residential or foster care for children and facing the inhumane course of separating these children from their parents. I suggest that it is quite wrong to believe that we cannot support families who are in this situation.
The welfare of these children is dependent on, and intertwined with, the welfare of their parents. One cannot blame the parents and take action against them, and thereby penalise the children. The Government need seriously to consider the United Kingdom's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I believe that to penalise children for their parents' failure to apply for asylum at the port of entry
1344
is in fundamental conflict with the UK's obligations under the convention. I would he grateful if the Minister would address that point when he replies to the debate.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the speeches made by your Lordships who are so knowledgeable on asylum, immigration and social security matters. I apologise to your Lordships if I should be guilty of some repetition but I feel that some matters need to be emphasised again.
I speak as a taxpayer, and therefore on behalf of all other taxpayers in the United Kingdom. My reading of the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee—much of which I disagree with—is that, although it understands the Secretary of State's view that it is unreasonable to expect the United Kingdom taxpayer to support people whose reasons for coming to this country are purely economic, it does not recommend that the Government's proposals relating to asylum seekers, sponsored immigrants, non-contributory benefits and interim payments should be proceeded with.
I believe that the United Kingdom has a proud record of giving refuge to those fleeing genuine persecution, but our asylum procedures are increasingly being abused. For instance, as we have already heard, only 4 per cent. of those claiming asylum are deemed to be genuine refugees by the Home Office, and just 4 per cent. of appeals are upheld by independent adjudicators. Indeed, as many as 98 per cent. of claims from countries such as Poland, Ghana and Romania are rejected.
I am aware that there is a growing number of asylum claims by economic migrants who come to the United Kingdom simply to seek a better life rather than to flee persecution. Since 1988 claims for asylum in the United Kingdom have grown from under 4,000 to over 40,000 a year and the number for 1995 may well exceed some 50,000. The cost to the taxpayer is huge. The annual cost of those seeking asylum is now over £200 million in benefits alone, and if additional costs for health, education and social services of around £10,000 per asylum seeker per year are included, this amounts to a further £500 million. Some 700 staff now work on asylum cases compared with under 100 in the late 1980s. Some 25,000 asylum decisions were taken between June 1994 and June 1995, but even this does not keep pace with the number of applicants.
In February the Home Secretary announced that £37 million would be spent on extra asylum caseworkers and adjudicators over the next three years, which should enable the Immigration Department to process 37,000 applications a year from next year. This should help speed up the system, ultimately reducing costs to the taxpayer. I believe that it is essential to reduce this huge burden of cost to the taxpayer and, in so doing, it is necessary to discourage unfounded applications from those who are actually economic migrants and who live off our country, while ensuring that the United Kingdom remains a haven for those genuinely fleeing from persecution. I therefore support the proposed changes by the Government; namely, that benefits will be available

1345
only for people making an asylum claim at their port of entry, and entitlement to benefit will cease once the asylum claim is first rejected. There will be other changes as regards non-contributory benefits, sponsored immigrants and interim payments.
In this debate I wish only to refer to asylum seekers' applications on arrival and to rejected claims. As we have already heard, 70 per cent. of asylum claims come from people already in the United Kingdom. Typically, they enter this country as tourists, students or business people and undertake not to be a burden on public funds. The changes mean that those who claim asylum after they have entered the United Kingdom will no longer be able to claim benefits. That is reasonable. All foreign visitors to the United Kingdom are required to declare their reasons for coming to this country at their port of entry. Genuine refugees can be expected to declare that they are asylum seekers when they arrive in this country. Those who claim not to be asylum seekers at the port of entry but subsequently change their story will be allowed to pursue their claim for asylum but can scarcely be expected to be allowed benefits as well. The change will deter those who seek to make an asylum claim as a means of prolonging their stay at the expense of taxpayers. An exception will be made for people from countries where there has been a significant upheaval since their arrival in the United Kingdom. That was discussed earlier this afternoon.
I cannot agree with the Social Security Advisory Committee report as to why in-country claimants may not have applied for asylum at the port of entry. The report cites reasons of language difficulties, ignorance of procedures, the need to obtain legal advice or advice from friends and relatives in the United Kingdom and a deep rooted fear of officialdom. As for the latter reason, asylum seekers choose to come to the United Kingdom precisely because of our reputation for legality and fair play. Therefore the Government consider it unlikely that more than a handful of bona fide refugees are genuinely in fear of officials at UK ports. Perhaps more can be clone to ensure that potential asylum seekers have greater knowledge of the procedures before departing from their home countries. Many arrive with visas; and surely it would be possible to brief people on asylum procedures at the consulate concerned.
To cease benefit for people whose claims have been considered and rejected by the Home Office will also save the taxpayer money, but it does not withdraw the right of the asylum seeker to appeal. This change will be another deterrent for bogus asylum claimants, who make up the vast majority of appellants, and should then enable appeals from the small number of genuine cases to be expedited.
In conclusion, I believe that the potential asylum seekers of the future will be fairly dealt with and, by the introduction of the government proposals for asylum seekers, I believe that the processing of cases will be expedited more competently, leading to an eventual reduction of case officers and adjudicators, while bringing about a saving of millions of pounds to the taxpayer.
I strongly support the Government on their proposals and I do not support the Opposition Motion.
5.31 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, from the many points and worries that have been expressed this evening, it would seem that perhaps there has not been enough preparation or realisation of the consequences that the changes in the regulations will have on the lives of those seeking asylum in this country.
When passengers arrive in this country, those who do not hold a British passport are issued with a disembarkation form. Could they not at the same time be given a short printed explanation pamphlet giving details of how to proceed if they intend to become asylum seekers? Perhaps it could be printed in more languages than one.
When they arrive, they should he given help in understanding the printed explanation. It is essential that they understand the need to claim asylum on entry in order to remain entitled to urgent cases income support until a decision is made on their case. There will probably be language difficulties, and perhaps sign language will be needed in some cases. Can the Minister confirm that in these cases, and if language difficulties arise, everything will be done to ensure that the applicant understands what is needed? Can the Minister say what immediate assistance will be given in particular to unaccompanied children, the elderly and the frail, especially those who are the victims of war and torture, as it would seem that under the new regulations they will all be denied benefits? Would the Government consider a government funded hostel, at least for families and the people whom I have just mentioned? Would a hostel be practical or too expensive to run? It would at least give asylum seekers a shelter, and if no benefits are paid food should be provided.
Local authorities now have responsibility for children under the Children Act 1989. The Government have said that they will give the local authorities additional funding, but so far they have not said how they will allocate any funding, which will surely cause difficulties for those local authorities which need it. Can the Minister say what the rest of Europe does? Would this new legislation bring us into line with the rest of Europe; and should we not all offer equal treatment?
I apologise for asking so many questions, but I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of them. Meanwhile will the Government reconsider their decision on the question of asylum seekers?
5.34 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, as a relatively new Member of this House, I have been extraordinarily impressed by the sincerity, dedication and quality of the debate. I feel proud to be a Member of a House which can debate these astonishingly serious matters in the way that noble Lords have done this afternoon. In particular, I have been very impressed by the intense interest and concern that those engaged in the voluntary sector and the Churches have brought to bear.

1347
I turn, first, to what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said about the Statement by the Secretary of State for Social Security. I should like, too, to draw attention to the wording of the Statement. It states that the rights to asylum of genuine refugees,
"will not be curtailed in any way by these regulations or the Bill".
In the strictest and most narrowly legal sense, that may be true. But the report refers to genuine refugees, applying either in country or at the port of entry, who will not be able to be sustained during the appellate process. I find that, to say the least, somewhat misleading. If, as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees states, a person who seeks to appeal against the decision of an immigration officer cannot be physically or economically sustained during the period of that appeal, then his rights may be false for he cannot exercise them.
Secondly, in the Statement, the Secretary of State says that,
"those who … seek asylum at the point of entry will continue to have access to benefits while their claims are considered by the Home Office".
Again, it is strictly correct that while the claims are being considered by the Home Office, applicants will receive benefit. However, they will receive no benefit at the point at which their claim to the Home Office, having been disallowed and appealed against, is considered by the adjudicator. That period currently averages 116 days after the papers have been placed with the adjudicator by the Home Office. It means that the actual period is considerably longer. As other noble Lords have said, we are looking at periods which may vary from six months to five years.
The Statement continues:
"Well over 90 per cent. of those claiming asylum are eventually found not to be genuine refugees".
A number of noble Lords have drawn attention to that figure and have accepted it as correct. We have already heard during the course of the debate that in addition to the 4 per cent. originally granted asylum, some 19 per cent. are given extended leave to stay. Therefore the figure of 90 per cent. is strange if 19 per cent. are given extended leave to remain, unless we assume that immigration officials are giving people leave to remain who are not genuine refugees; and I do not assume that any noble Lord makes that claim.
However, as regards the 71 per cent. rejected—I do not refer to those given either extended leave to remain, an original grant of asylum, or even the further grant of asylum on appeal—one has to ask in the light of evidence put before noble Lords in the past few days whether some of those are not genuine refugees. The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture has sent a number of us an extremely harrowing list of cases which have been rejected on application for acceptance as a genuine asylum seeker. I shall not bore the House with more than a few details. There is the case of the Kenyan man who was beaten on his heels, sexually assaulted, saw his house go up in flames and his elder son and his father both burned in that attack.
1348
He was refused entry on the grounds that he was not a genuine asylum seeker. However, on the face of it, he would seem to have a good case.
There is the case of the Nigerian man believed to be involved in the effort to try to retain democracy in Nigeria against one of the most disagreeable dictators the world has seen for some time. He saw his father beaten to death before his eyes. He was himself repeatedly beaten with rifle butts. He finally managed to escape to this country but was refused recognition as a genuine refugee. Again, one has to ask: what more was he supposed to prove? Both those men and a third case which I shall mention briefly were shown by medical doctors in this country to have signs of extreme torture on their bodies. That is according to the Medical Foundation whose chairman is a distinguished Conservative Member of another place.
The third and last case which I shall mention—although I could give many more—falls directly into the group described by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. An Iranian woman was attacked because her brother happened to be a supporter of a previous regime in Iran, one which was regarded as a friendly state by this country. Her home was continually and repeatedly entered and destroyed in large part by security guards of the present Iranian state. She herself was, in most extreme terms, sexually assaulted. When she managed to escape and come to this country, she too was rejected as not a genuine asylum seeker.
I wish to read what was said about her case by the adjudicator to whom she appealed. She will now have to appeal with no financial support. The document from the Medical Foundation states:
"In granting her appeal and recognising her as a refugee with a genuine fear of persecution, the Adjudicator commented that the Home Office refusal letter was inaccurate, not … reflecting what [she] said".
The adjudicator said:
"I saw the acute distress of the appellant giving evidence to me … it is clear she still finds it almost impossible to talk about her treatment".
When the Iranian woman arrived in this country, she was speechless with sheer shame at what had happened to her. It would he inconceivable to imagine that she would be able to make a coherent case at the port of entry.
I wish to make one further point about the so-called bogus applicants for asylum in this country. It has been pointed out by other noble Lords in terms of time. Over a series of years we have seen the proportion of those seeking asylum who are accepted change dramatically, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, pointed out. It is difficult to conceive that somehow in 1989 there were far fewer bogus applicants than there are today. If so, at least some of us would wish to know what explanation and evidence are offered for it.
As a further example, currently 70 per cent. of those who apply to Canada for refugee status are accepted; and of the over 150,000 who apply to the United States, 50 per cent. are accepted. Both those facts appear to bear out the statement made by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees that the figures for refugees

1349
accepted as genuine as a proportion of the total has more to do with the culture and attitude of the country concerned in terms of its liberality or strictness in interpreting what makes a refugee.
Thirdly, I wish to touch on the position of those who are sponsored. We have already heard about that in the debate and I have no desire to prolong it. I wish to ask the Minister about the case of a student sponsored by his or her government and who is therefore here bona fide, and able to pay the necessary fees. If there is an upheaval in that person's home country, such as has occurred in recent years in Nigeria, will he or she be considered in the same way as those on the so-called "white list", or will he or she be bound by the terms of the regulations? Those regulations state quite straightforwardly that it is only in the event of the death of a sponsor that the position of those sponsored can be reconsidered. In the case of such students, that would be an extraordinarily harsh act of injustice.
I wish to refer to the problems dealt with by many of my right honourable friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. We would like to know exactly what position is being taken by the Government with regard to the circumstances of those who are likely to find themselves thrown back on the final resort of local authorities. Will the local authorities be bound by their present obligations under the Children Act?
Finally, as regards the issue raised on the immigration Act 1968, my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley referred to the actions of the party opposite. With great respect to him, I wish to dissociate myself from what he said. I believe that every now and then a matter comes up which is so painfully wrong that even those bound by loyalty to the Government of the day feel themselves obliged to stand out against the normal commitment of party loyalty. In the way in which it dealt with the position of the East African Asians, the immigration Act 1968 fell into that category.
I am not at liberty to tell the House what actions I took then, although I certainly acted. I am at liberty to say that on that occasion the actions of Mr. Iain Macleod were in the highest possible traditions of this place. He said: "I gave my word to these people and I will keep it". By "this place", I mean this country of ours, not just one particular House of Parliament. It was wrong of the Labour Government of that era to refuse to uphold and accept the commitment made by Mr. Macleod. It was right of Mr. Heath, the subsequent Prime Minister, to stand by that commitment in 1972 when the East African Asians came under the threat of being expelled and in some cases killed by the Government of Uganda.
However, two wrongs do not make a right in an instance where once again the House has to consider what one can only describe as a profoundly shameful proposal by the Government. In saying that, I am not moved by the colour of the Government on the issue. It is simply wrong. That has been said eloquently on both Front Benches of the Opposition parties and also by many Cross-Benchers and some Members of the party opposite. I beg them to consider their position carefully
1350
and ask themselves whether on this occasion conscience and humanity should take first place over any other consideration.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying that I hope my noble friends will not take a lesson in loyalty from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and that they will in fact retain a greater sense of loyalty than she is trying to encourage them to show.
These regulations form an important element of the Government's overall policy on asylum seekers. The policy has three aims. The first is to ensure that the United Kingdom remains a safe haven for those genuinely fleeing persecution. The reason genuine refugees come to the United Kingdom is to share our freedoms, not our benefits. Their rights to asylum will not be altered in any way. That is why, unusually, I intervened during the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. I was extremely concerned that he seemed to have misunderstood what was happening and assumed that we should actually turn people away at the port of entry if they claimed that they were asylum seekers. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have no intention of doing that. Those people who claim asylum at the port of entry will be allowed in, their asylum claim will be considered and, while it is being considered, up to the point of decision by Home Office officials, they will be eligible for benefit. Therefore it is simply not true, as I fear the noble Lord was suggesting in his personal example, that he and his family might in the new circumstances have been returned to persecution having been turned back at the port of entry. I hope that the noble Lord can accept my assurance that that will certainly not happen.
On this point about the port of entry, the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree asked whether interpreters are available. A very considerable and impressive range of interpreters is available at the major ports of entry. On the rare occasions when an interpreter is not available, the applicant will be given temporary admission until an interpreter can be found. That would in no way affect his or her status as a port applicant, although he or she would obviously be in the country before the application was actually made. It would not affect status at all. I hope that the noble Lady and my noble friend will he reassured on that point. As I have just underlined, we are ensuring that anyone who arrives as a refugee claiming asylum at the port of entry will have access to benefits while the Home Office determines that claim.
Our second objective is to deal more speedily with genuine claimants so that they can get on with their lives. In response to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, I absolutely agree that we have to try to do better when it comes to processing asylum applications. Indeed, we are trying to. However, one of the problems is that, as we put resources in, the numbers increase. We arc almost in a Catch-22 situation. The Home Office has already increased the number of caseworkers seven-fold, from 100 to 700, since 1988. An extra £37 million is being transferred from my

1351
budget to the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department to expand its asylum work further over the next three years; and the Home Office is planning a major initiative to computerise the handling of asylum cases. Above all, the Asylum and Immigration Bill currently before Parliament will help to streamline the handling of cases.
However, these objectives cannot be met if the system continues to be clogged up by vast numbers of unfounded claims. Therefore, our third objective is to remove from the benefits system the incentive for unfounded applicants—the great majority of them, as my noble friend Lord Vivian mentioned, economic migrants—so that they can no longer be on benefit and claim asylum in the United Kingdom.
The rising tide of asylum seekers represents a major problem which no responsible government can ignore. We are not the only government to have to tackle this problem. I shall come to that in a moment. Last year, the total number of people claiming asylum in the United Kingdom exceeded 57,000, including dependants. The figure for the previous year was 42,000. That is a ten-fold increase over 10 years. A decade ago, in 1984, 1985 and 1986, for example, the United Kingdom received 4,000, 6,000 and 6,000 applications. Over the past three years the figures were 32,000, 28,000 and 42,000; as I said, applications rose to 57,000 in the year just ended. That is a very considerable increase.
As my noble friends Lord Brabazon of Tara and Lady Elles pointed out, the situation in Europe, which mirrored ours, has now taken a considerable downturn as a result of steps taken by European countries. Belgium, for example, found that applications rose to 26,900. Following steps taken in 1993, its applications are now down, at 14,300. I mentioned Italy, which managed to bring down its applications from 31,000 in 1991 to 1,800 in 1994.
It is interesting to note that the UK's share of all those coming to Europe and claiming asylum a decade ago was roughly 4 per cent. over a three-year period, give or take a per cent. or two. The figures were: 4.3 per cent., 3.8 per cent. and 2.9 per cent. In the past three years they were 4.7 per cent. in 1992, 5.1 per cent. in 1993 and 13.2 per cent. in 1994. We have not collected the full annual statistics from the rest of Europe; however, it is perfectly clear to me, using a calculator, that the likelihood is that the percentages for 1995 will go well into the twenties.
If one excludes Germany from this calculation—Germany dominates the tables because of its proximity to the refugee influx from Eastern Europe over many years—the position for the rest of Europe is even more graphic: from about 6 per cent. in the three years a decade ago, we have seen the position move from 12.7 per cent. in 1992, to 12.3 per cent. in 1993 and 22 per cent. last year; and my calculator tells me that if the trends in the half-year figures continue, we shall certainly be in the region of 40-odd per cent.
1352
UK claims have risen by something like 45 per cent.—and that as a share of Europe's asylum seekers. We have therefore seen our share increase quite dramatically. Indeed, over a decade it has trebled. That point underlines the problem that we have to try to do something about it.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said that figures were important. Indeed they are. And these figures are very, very important indeed. Amnesty International recognises that. It states:
"The truth of the matter is that, since 1992, immigration controls and asylum procedures—particularly those applied at the border—have been tightened far more in some European countries than in the UK".
It adds that this,
"no doubt works to make the UK a more attractive destination for would-be asylum-seekers than some other European countries".
So the tightening up by our friends and neighbours in Europe has helped to make our problem the greater. People see that if they cannot go to some of those countries, they can perhaps come to the United Kingdom.
We do have a serious problem. It is not helped by the remarks that we heard in this debate. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made some points about Bosnian refugees. I can tell the noble Earl that in 1994 there were 1,385 applications from the former Yugoslavia. Of those, 140 were granted refugee status—80 at the port and 60 in the country—and 1,365 were granted exceptional leave to remain. Of that number, 765 were granted permission at the port—where the noble Baroness would have one believe that everyone is so traumatised that they cannot think about asking for asylum—and 595 in-country. In addition, we agreed to take 500 Bosnians under the quota scheme of the UNHCR. I hope that the noble Earl will appreciate that we have played a very big part in trying to help people who are fleeing some of the serious problems in the former Yugoslavia.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the statistics, can he say how many asylum claims there are now in the pipeline? I suggest that between 50,000 and 60,000 asylum claims are waiting to be considered and that that is the biggest incentive for people to come here and not the argument that we are getting soft.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, of course the backlog has increased, because no matter how hard I try to explain that we have put resources into dealing with the problem, even more come in. In the real world that is very difficult to tackle. The noble Lord need not worry because I have not finished with the statistics: there are a lot more to come.
The plain fact is that our benefit system offers a greater incentive to economic migrants than applies in other countries. Under current arrangements an asylum seeker in the United Kingdom has open-ended access to benefit and is generally accommodated in the community. How much more attractive that is to an economic migrant than, say, Germany or Holland where they are accommodated in a camp and benefits are mainly in kind; or in Belgium or France where benefit stops after a year. After six months in Britain an asylum

1353
seeker can take work. In Denmark, France, The Netherlands and Spain asylum seekers are not allowed to work. So, as the rest of Europe has tightened up their procedures, we have seen our system becoming clogged up with a large number of false asylum claims. The burden on the system continues to grow as more economic migrants are drawn to the UK in preference to other European countries. By removing the incentive for economic migration, as we are doing in these regulations, we shall be able to ease the asylum process for genuine refugees.
Noble Lords should be clear that the overwhelming majority—I used the following figures on the last occasion and no one is countering them, with perhaps a slight exception as regards the two leading figures in the parties opposite—of claims are unfounded. Your Lordships will recall that I tried to simplify the figures away from thousands by simply saying that in 1994, for every 100 asylum seekers who came to this country, seven were found to be genuine refugees, 17 were granted permission to remain in the UK on humanitarian grounds (exceptional leave to remain) and 76 received an outright refusal. We are spending £200 million a year, which is rising rapidly, and over 90 per cent. of that goes to people who do not meet the criteria set out in the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister argue that all the cases that I indicated from the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture were bogus cases? They were all refused.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not going to argue in detail about individual cases because I do not know the facts. I know the facts about some cases which received high profile treatment, but the facts are often not as reported. There is an appeal system. If the noble Baroness does not mind, I shall give my speech in the round.
The appeal system is not going to be removed and neither is the right for people to come here and seek asylum. One would have thought occasionally this afternoon that these regulations were actually going to stop people coming here and seeking asylum. They do not do that. They are tackling what we believe—but which quite clearly the Opposition do not believe—is an abuse of our benefit system.
I was going to try to be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who asked me a question about exceptional leave to remain on humanitarian grounds. Where the conditions in a particular country are so difficult, Ministers have agreed that it would be unreasonable to expect individuals to return to that country for the time being. Those are the kinds of circumstances in which exceptional leave to remain is given. Countries which currently fall into that category are, for example, China, Liberia and Somalia.
I tried to work out in my mind what the difference was. I believe it is that if in a particular country a person is likely to be in danger, not individually but simply because there are a lot of bullets flying around, not necessarily with the individual's name on them, that
1354
begins to lead people to believe that we should give exceptional leave to remain. A refugee is where a bullet may have his name on it.
We allow people to stay in this country on exceptional leave to remain in 17 cases out of 100. I return to the figure that I want to leave in your Lordships' minds for the rest of my speech. Three-quarters of them—76 cases out of 100—are actually found after the whole procedure has finished, including appeals and cases where the adjudicator decides that the original decision was correct, either not to warrant exceptional leave to remain or not to be genuine asylum seekers.
A great deal has been made of the time when people apply. That is one of the key changes we are making. Currently people can apply at the port of entry and when they are already in the country, having got in by saying that they were coming to visit, to be educated, to conduct business or whatever. Something has been made of the fact that they arrive and within a few days they decide to apply for asylum. That is not the case. In the first nine months of 1995, 63 per cent. of all visitors claimed asylum a month or more after arrival. The figures are these: those who applied within a month of arrival, 45 per cent.; between one and two months, 10 per cent; between two and four months, 15 per cent; between four and six months, 20 per cent.; and over six months after arrival, 10 per cent. Therefore, noble Lords can see that more than half of the asylum seekers actually apply at least a month after arrival in this country.
Continuing with the distinction between at-port and in-country applications, under these regulations anyone who arrives here and claims to be a refugee at the point of entry will be entitled to benefit while the Home Office assesses their claim. Seventy per cent. of claims are made by people who have entered this country claiming to be visitors, students or businessmen or who have entered illegally, only later to claim asylum. The bulk of these people have in fact convinced entry clearance officers in their home country and immigration officers at the UK ports that they intend to remain in this country for only a limited time and that they have sufficient funds to support and accommodate themselves while they are here. It is my belief that it is entirely reasonable to say to people that if they want to seek asylum in this country they ought to do it when they reach our shores.
I am told by noble Lords that that is an entirely unreasonable expectation and that people are too scared or disoriented, or lack knowledge of our procedures, and are traumatised, which is one of the words used by the noble Baroness on more than one occasion. The statistics do not bear that out. The noble Baroness tried to pluck your Lordships' heartstrings as regards children. The interesting fact about unaccompanied children is that the vast majority claim at the port. In 1994, 357 claimed at the port, 59 claimed in-country. In 1993, 245 claimed at the port and 30 claimed in-country. In 1992, 185 claimed at the port and only five claimed in-country. I do not believe that these statistics bear out the assertion of people being traumatised.

1355
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, in arguing this matter mentioned Zaïre. I took the trouble to look at the figures for that country. The whole principle of the debate on which the argument by the Opposition is based is that people are too frightened or traumatised to apply at the port of entry. If they believe that we are that kind of country, I do not know why they come to Great Britain. However, that question was not answered. As regards Zaïre, in 1904, of the 775 people who applied, 360 applied at the port and 415 applied in-country. That is pretty close to a balanced position. In the previous year, 635 people applied; 340 at the port and 295 in-country. The year before that, out of the 880 who applied in total 440 applied at the port and 435 applied in country.
I could go through, as I did on the day of the Statement, one or two other countries which draw out exactly the same point. However, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, kindly led me to Zaire as a country where people would be so traumatised and so distraught that they certainly would never think of applying for asylum on entry. The statistics simply do not bear out the noble Earl at all. I do not believe that if someone has identified the United Kingdom as a safe haven and if they have successfully misrepresented themselves to an entry clearance officer in their home country and they have found their way to this country, they suddenly lose the capacity to make the asylum claim which is actually what brought them here in the first place.
I believe, and I am sorry to say it to all noble Lords who have argued this case, that this stretches credulity a little too far. I am told also there is no evidence that in-country applicants are any less likely to be genuine than those who claim on arrival. The implication is that these regulations are based on the belief that in-country applicants are somehow more bogus. That has never been my case. I have never claimed that an in-country claim is less likely to be genuine. Rather it is my contention that the availability of benefit for in-country applicants, who actually form the majority of the applicants, provides an incentive for economic migrants to represent themselves as asylum seekers.
What we are saying is simply that those who wish to claim asylum in this country should do so on arrival. In saying this—this was a point my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree made, together with the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford—we do accept that there may be occasions when someone is trapped in this country by an upheaval in his home country. In these circumstances it will be possible for an in-country applicant to claim benefit on the same basis as a port application.
The great majority of asylum seekers appeal against the refusal of refugee status. Fewer than 4 per cent. of appeals are actually upheld, but the mere fact of having lodged an appeal allows the asylum seeker to retain entitlement to benefit until his case is decided. So in fact our generosity clogs up the system and causes the very delays that every noble Lord who has spoken has actually highlighted as a real problem in this situation. There is a clear incentive for a claimant to string out his appeal.
1356
Our purpose in these regulations is to remove this incentive in order to free up the appeal system. It can only be to the advantage of a genuine refugee and asylum seeker that the appeal system be relieved of this enormous burden of people who simply appeal because it keeps them here. And of course a British citizen who appeals against a domestic benefit decision receives no benefit during the course of the appeal. I just do not believe it is right that we, that is the British taxpayer, should be supporting this vast number of people who turn out to be without-foundation claimants, encouraging them almost to go through the appeals procedure so that they can keep on drawing benefits. The noble Earl's Motion, standing in his own name, would in fact reintroduce this very incentive for people to submit unfounded appeals.
I am asked what happens to the roughly three-quarters out of every hundred of those who come in who, at the end of the Home Office's consideration, are found not to be justified, having no exceptional leave to remain, and with no refugee status. How do they fend for themselves? I am going to turn that question round, because a little later three-quarters of them end up being refused totally and absolutely and then do not receive any benefit: no housing benefit, no council tax benefit. What do they do? Are the streets full of those people sleeping out at night? Of course not. This is a completely, if I may use the word, bogus argument because if there had been any justification noble Lords would have been complaining for years that the current situation, which would stop benefits after the end of the appeal system, was in fact uncaring, traumatising and all the other words we hear. Frankly, all the proposals before us are doing is actually bringing forward the time when the bogus asylum seeker will be deprived of benefits under our system.
If I may, I will now turn to a number of points raised by your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and in fact also the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who has his own Motion down on this very point, referred to the safeguarding and protection of the children of in-country applicants. The welfare of those children is already safeguarded by the Children Act 1989, which provides that where children are in need local authorities have an obligation to protect them. This obligation extends to children of an asylum seeker, and these regulations in no way change the operation of the Children Act.
I am dismayed that people, in their haste to condemn these regulations, have chosen to overlook the safeguards we have provided. First, we have made it clear that existing claimants who are awaiting the outcome of an asylum decision or appeal will retain their right to benefit. Secondly, the children of asylum seekers will continue to have rights under the Children Act. Thirdly, we have recognised that local authorities may face additional costs in meeting their obligations under that Act and the homelessness legislation; and we have made it clear that we will discuss with them these matters and we will assist them with these costs once they have been identified.

1357
I should like to say the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that, regarding the UNHCR's point about our being in breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, we do not believe that is the case. We are fully satisfied that there is nothing in these regulations that places the United Kingdom in breach of that convention.
We have had a great many arguments for and against the Resolutions and the Prayers, but I do not believe any of them have actually properly addressed the points that I have put over in advancing the case before the House this evening supporting these arguments. The blunt fact of the matter is that the facts speak for themselves: the increase in the numbers coming here as compared to Europe and the three-quarters of them that are found not to be genuine refugees. Indeed, the Social Security Select Committee in the other House said this:
"The committee shares the widespread view that the growth in the numbers of unfounded asylum claims and their cost to the taxpayer is a serious problem that the Government is right to tackle".
Even Amnesty International towards the end of its report concludes:
"It is not disputed that the Government faces serious difficulties in dealing with large numbers of asylum applications, many of which are not well founded".
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, even went a little way along that line too. She said that maybe a high proportion are economic migrants. A high proportion are clearly economic migrants and the figures show it beyond peradventure. We are saying that we have a responsibility towards the United Kingdom taxpayers. We have also a responsibility towards the genuine asylum seekers. What I am left not knowing is: would the two parties opposite actually allow people in and to claim and then pay them benefits endlessly without question? I am puzzled about that because anybody who reads or listens, as I have done, to the attack on the Government's policy is unfortunately led to the conclusion that if I have got it so wrong then they must be going to open up the system and pay a lot more benefits. I believe I have proved that there is an abuse of our system. It is an abuse we can stop, and it is an abuse that, once stopped, will actually help both the United Kingdom taxpayer and the genuine refugees. These regulations I think ought to be commended.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Sock it to 'em!
6.19 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I should love to but I have only 30 seconds. First, I should like to thank all noble Lords who took part. Whatever our views on this subject I think we would all agree that we have heard some deeply moving speeches which will remain in the memory and which may indeed remain to trouble us in the memory when we see what we fear will happen may come true.
Where we all agree is that this country, and we, have no obligation to support and finance economic migrants. We do not dispute that for a moment. All of us, I hope, and most of us, I believe, think that we should finance, help and support true asylum seekers. If that is the
1358
position, we all accept that we need to distinguish between the two. The question therefore before us is: how do we know which is which?
The Government, in the shape of the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, following an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that the way to distinguish between those two is that those who apply at the port of entry are true asylum seekers and obtain benefit status; but those who apply in-country are not true and therefore do not receive benefit. That is the distinction on which the Government are operating and on which these regulations are based; that is, that those who apply at port of entry receive benefit and those who apply subsequently do not. That is the way to distinguish between the real and the bogus asylum seeker.
However, as the Government know, that is not true. One is more likely to be granted asylum status or exceptional leave to remain not if one applies at the port of entry, but if one applies in-country. Therefore one is more likely to be a genuine asylum seeker if one applies in-country rather than at the port of entry. That is why we should take seriously the words of the Social Security Advisory Committee, which certainly ring true to me: that if I were in the position of a refugee seeking asylum, I would seek first the safety of a country; then I would seek the advice of an organisation to help me, and then I would apply for leave to remain. That is the safer way to proceed, as evidenced by the fact that on the Government's figures they accept that argument both for asylum seekers and for those granted exceptional leave to remain.
If it is invalid to distinguish between genuine applicants at port of entry and in-country on the basis of whether or not we allow them benefit, then how do we distinguish between economic migrants and the true asylum seekers? There is only one safe and just way to do that. The distinction is not made on the basis of where one applies; for instance, whether one buys a train ticket at the office or on the train. That is irrelevant. The only fair, right and just way to distinguish between the economic migrant and the asylum seeker is on the basis of a determination by the Home Office.
The answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, as to how we cut the costs is simple. If we wish to cut the cost falling on the DSS then we require the Home Office to speed up the process of determination. The bill has mounted not because we are being swamped by immigrants, but because between 60,000 and 70,000 people are still waiting to have their initial determination processed. We are saying today that we are refusing asylum seekers social security money because our system is not speedy enough to offer them justice. That is what we are saying. We will refuse them money because we cannot offer them justice, and we will do so on the arbitrary distinction of where they apply—whether they apply at port of entry or in-country—even though we know that those who apply in-country, on the Government's figures, are likely to have a stronger case. That is not decent; that is not just; that is not fair; that is not humane. It will linger in our conscience for many years to come.

1359
I regret that convention does not allow me to seek the opinion of the House on a statutory instrument. Therefore, though I believe the Government's case to be profoundly and morally wrong, I have no alternative but to beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Asylum Seekers: Means of Support
6.25 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government, following the implementation of the Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996 No. 30), to ensure that asylum seekers pursuing appeals have visible legal means of support pending the conclusion of their appeals.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I promised the Minister not to take more than two minutes. When I listened to him I was reminded of a remark by Sydney Smith: "I wish I were as sure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything".
The Minister relied heavily on the idea of the bogus asylum seeker. But these regulations make no attempt whatever to distinguish between the bogus and the genuine. They sweep them all up together and penalise the lot. They put the Minister in the position of Sherlock Holmes's Inspector Athelney Jones, who, wishing to find a murderer in the house, arrested the whole household. Holmes finally remarked, "I see, Inspector, you have one genuine fish in your large haul".
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, challenged us in regard to treatment of bogus claims. That is a matter for individual examination, and improving individual examination is the only way to do it. Anything done by the regulations in relation to bogus claims is entirely wide of the question. The regulations are not relevant to that argument.
The Minister said that the right of appeal remained intact. So, in a formal sense, it does. But if one cannot live, if one cannot have an address, if one cannot eat and one cannot have papers served upon one, one's right of appeal is rendered nugatory.
The Minister wanted to withdraw an incentive to put forward unfounded appeals. But that argument applies against the whole of our criminal justice system. The argument does too much. I offered the Minister a sporting challenge to show what will happen to the people who are refused benefit. He most unsportingly ducked it. The Minister made a point in relation to the people whose appeals fail. But those people may legally be deported; they are not in the position of those people who can neither go nor stay. The Minister said that they come to enjoy our freedoms, not our benefits. I believe that our right to benefit is one of our freedoms. I beg to move.
6.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 126; Not-Contents, 175.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Addington, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Airedale, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Avebury, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bancroft, L.

Longford, E.

Barnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Berkeley, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blease, L.

McNair, L.

Borrie, L.

McNally, L.

Brentford, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Bridges, L.

Mar, C.

Broadbridge, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L.

Mayhew, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Meston, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nathan, L.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Diamond, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Palmer, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Dubs, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rea, L.

Ezra, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkender, B.

Richard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Freyberg, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Geraint, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Glenamara, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

St. John of Bletso, L.

Gregson, L.

Sandwich, E.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Hamwee, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Serota, B.

Haskel, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hayman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Healey, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Thurso, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tope, L.

Hollis of Heigharn, B.

Tordoff, L.

Howell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Varley, L.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington. L.

Walpole, L.

Hylton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton. L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Wigoder, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead. L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jenkins of Putney. L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winston. L.

1361

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Abinger, L.

Harrowby, E.

Addison, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Ailsa, M.

Henley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Holderness, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hooper, B.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Hothfield, L.

Barber, L.

Howe, E.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Inglewood, L.

Belstead, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blaker, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Boardman, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kingsland, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Leigh, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Lindsay, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Liverpool, E.

Butterworth, L.

Long, V.

Cadman, L.

Lucas, L

Caithness, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Croy, L

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McConnell, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Chelmsford, V.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Drumadoon, L

Clanwilliam, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Marlesford, L.

Colwyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Courtown, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cox, B.

Mersey, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Middleton, L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Crathome, L

Milverton, L.

Cross, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mottistone, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mountevans, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Munster, E.

Derwent, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Devonport, V.

Newall, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northesk, E.

Downshire, M.

O'Cathain, B.

Dundonald, E.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Onslow, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Orkney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elles, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Eme, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Ferrers, E.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gainford, L.

Phillimore, L

Gainsborough, E

Pike, B.

Geddes, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rawlings, B.

Goschen, V.

Reay, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rennell, L

Greenway, L.

Renton, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Romney, E.

Giimston of Westbury, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Haig, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Selborne, E.

Hardwicke, E.

Shannon, E.

Harlech, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sherfield, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

1362

Stockton, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ullswater, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Vivian, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Wakeham, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Waverley, V.

Sudeley, L.

Westbury, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wharton, B.

Tebbit, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Teynham, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wolfson, L.

Torrington, V.

Wynford, L.

Trefgame, L.

Young, B.

Trumpington, B.

Zouche of Haryngworth. L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Asylum Seekers: Hardship Payments
6.37 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to move to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government, following the implementation of the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996/30), to ensure that a person who submits a claim for asylum after entry into the United Kingdom, who has dependent children living with him or her and lacks the means to support those children, is eligible for a discretionary hardship payment sufficient to care for and maintain those children.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. To judge by the Minister's argument in the debate, the Government feel that every asylum seeker ought to claim asylum at the port of entry. We know that not all of them will do so, despite the new proposals that the Government adopt. Therefore, families with children will inevitably suffer hardship. My Motion seeks to address that point. I do not believe that to use the Children Act and to place the responsibility on local authorities is satisfactory. I believe that throughout the House there is a sense of unease at what may happen to children. For that reason, I have today put down this Motion, which I hope will command wide support. I beg to move.
6.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 126; Not-Contents, 169.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Blease, L.

Addington, L.

Borrie, L.

Airedale, L.

Brentford, V.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Bridges, L.

Attlee, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Avebury, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Bancroft, L.

Carter, L.

Barnett, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Berkeley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Birk, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

1363

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L

Mackie of Benshie, L.

David, B.

McNally, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McNair, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Desai, L.

Mar, C.

Diamond, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dubs, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Meston, L.

Ezra, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkender, B.

Mishcon, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Monkswell, L.

Freyberg, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Gallacher, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Geraint, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Nathan, L.

Glenamara, L.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Gregson, L.

Palmer, L.

Grey, E.

Peston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rea, L.

Haskel, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hayman, B.

Richard, L.

Healey, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rochester, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Howell, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hughes, L.

Sandwich, E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Seear, B.

Hylton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Scrota, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Shepherd, L.

Jeger, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L

Thurso, V.

Judd, L.

Tope, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Varley, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Walpole, L.

Listowel, E.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Lockwood, B.

Whaddon, L.

Longford, E.

White, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wigoder, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Winston, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Abinger, L.

Butterworth, L.

Addison, V.

Cadman, L.

Ailsa, M.

Caithness, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Carnock, L.

Barber, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Chesham, L.[Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Clanwilliam. E.

Blaker, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Blatch, B.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Boardman, L.

Colwyn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Courtown, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cox, B.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Bridgman, V.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Brigstocke, B.

Crathome, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cross, V.

1364

Cumberlege, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mancroft, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Marlesford, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Derwent, L.

Merriale, L.

Devonport, V.

Mersey, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Middleton, L.

Downshire, M.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dundonald, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Mottistone, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elles, B.

Munster. E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Erne, E.

Newall, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northesk, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Gainford, L.

Onslow, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Orkney, E.

Geddes, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gisborough, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Goschen, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pender, L.

Greenway, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Phillimore, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Pike, B.

Haig, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rawlings, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Reay, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Rennell, L.

Harlech, L.

Romney, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Harmsworth, L

Saint Oswald, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harrowby, E.

Selbome, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Henley, L.

Sheffield, L.

Holderness, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Stockton, E.

Hooper, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hothfield, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sudeley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Swinfen, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Tebbit, L.

Kimball, L.

Teynham, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kingsland, L.

Torrington, V.

Lauderdale. E.

Trefgame, L.

Lawrence, L.

Trumpington, B.

Leigh, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Lindsay, E

Ullswater, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Vivian, L.

Liverpool, E.

Wakeham, L.

Long, V.

Waverley, V.

Lucas, L.

Westbury, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wharton. B.

Lyell, L.

Whitelaw, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wilberforce, L.

McConnell, L.

Wolfson, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wynford, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Young. B.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Chemical Weapons Bill
6.48 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I

1365
have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Chemical Weapons Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I beg to move that the Chemical Weapons Bill be now read a second time. The Bill will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention which seeks to rid the world of chemical weapons. United Kingdom ratification will help to bring forward the date on which the convention will enter into effect. This is a measure which I am confident is supported by all political parties and by all noble Lords.
Chemical weapons are not weapons of the past. They are weapons of mass destruction and they still pose an awful threat. Nerve agents many times more deadly than the chemicals used in the First World War are held by some countries and are sought by others to add to their arsenals. It is a threat that we must seek to eliminate. The Chemical Weapons Convention offers the promise to prohibit chemical weapons globally and to stop proliferation. This legislation would enable the United Kingdom to become one of the founding state parties to the convention.
The convention, which the United Kingdom signed on 13th January 1993, is the fruit of some 20 years of difficult negotiation. It is the first treaty to provide for a verifiable worldwide ban on an entire class of weapons of mass destruction. The United Kingdom, which no longer possesses any offensive chemical weapons, has played an active and major part in support of the treaty throughout the negotiations. This is a good treaty and is one we support fully; 160 states have signed the convention and I hope that others will sign in due course.
The convention prohibits the acquisition, development, production, stockpiling, retention, transfer and use of chemical weapons and requires their destruction. It bans military preparations for the use of chemical weapons and assisting others to do those things. A key element of the convention is that it requires all existing stocks of chemical weapons to be destroyed together with the facilities used to produce them. Each country must forbid its citizens from undertaking any activity which is prohibited by the convention. The convention rightly addresses not just actual chemical munitions and prepared agents, but also the chemicals used in their manufacture.
To check that states are complying with the terms of the convention, and to provide mutual assurance that there is no longer a threat from chemical weapons, the Chemical Weapons Convention provides a powerful verification regime. It is unprecedented in its extent. Its effective operation will provide assurance that the threat from chemical weapons has been removed.
The verification regime contains three key elements: declarations, inspections and trade controls. Declarations are required by each country periodically in relation to companies and others using chemicals of concern. Requirements are graded according to the threat the chemicals pose. Chemicals listed in the three
1366
schedules to the convention must be declared and absolute limits are imposed on the production and stocking of some of them. Sites producing a fourth category of chemicals known as "discrete organic chemicals" must also be declared if their production level rises above threshold levels. Unfortunately, many of the chemicals which might be used for chemical weapons also have common industrial applications. The requirement to make declarations on activities in chemicals of concern is a significant deterrent to potential proliferators.
Inspections will be undertaken by an international inspectorate based in the Hague. There will be two main types of inspection: routine inspections will check accuracy of the declarations; and "challenge inspections" which will be undertaken at short notice, 12 hours, at any site where there are grounds for suspecting it is in breach of the convention. Challenge inspections can be requested by any state party.
Trade controls will be imposed progressively. Initially, trade in the most toxic chemicals—those in Schedule 1—will be controlled, and Schedule 2 chemicals will be controlled after three years. Existing trade controls cover many of the trade control requirements of the convention. Others can be implemented using existing legislation and there is no need for them to be implemented through the Chemical Weapons Bill.
Clearly, the declaration and destruction of existing stocks of chemical weapons and of chemical weapons production facilities must be verified. In addition, the convention provides for controls on chemicals which can be used for chemical weapons purposes and on their precursor chemicals in order to prevent the reintroduction of chemical weapons.
A new international body, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, will be set up when the convention enters into force to undertake its implementation. In particular, its Technical Secretariat will provide the inspectors responsible for carrying out the verification activities which I have described.
The convention will come into force six months after 65 signatory countries have ratified it. So far, 47 have done so; 28 of those ratified during the course of 1995. We estimate that the convention is likely to enter into force towards the end of this year. As yet the key signatories of the United States and the Russian Federation have not ratified. I need hardly say that it is vitally important that they do so as between them they hold some 90 per cent. of the world stockpile of chemical weapons. I am pleased to be able to inform your Lordships that both are committed to destroying their stockpiles and intend to become full members of the convention. The UK will play its part in encouraging them to ratify the convention quickly.
In the meantime, a preparatory commission is working in the Hague to develop the many detailed arrangements for implementation so that the time before entry into force is not lost. We are playing an active part in that work.

1367
Each state party to the convention is required to establish a "national authority" to act as the focal point for the operation of the convention in that state. In the UK, the national authority will be the Department of Trade and Industry.
In preparing the legislation now before the House, the Government have undertaken extensive consultation with industry, academia, and research bodies. I am pleased to say that industry has been involved through all the stages of implementing the convention and during its negotiation. Further, industry supports the convention.
My department issued a discussion document last January. A Bill was subsequently issued in draft in July for consultation. The purpose of that consultation was to explain to those affected, not just those in the chemicals industry, the requirements of the convention and to help them to prepare for its implementation; secondly, to seek industry's views on points in relation to declaration procedures; and thirdly, to seek views on our planned approach to implementation in the United Kingdom.
The key messages in response to the consultation were that unavoidable burdens must be minimised; that industry and others need help in dealing with declarations and inspections; that strict measures are needed to preserve commercial confidentiality; and that the operation of the DTI national authority must be seen to be effective.
We have sought to address the concerns expressed during that consultation. In some cases this has resulted in provisions in the Bill. In other cases, concerns have been addressed in other ways. For example, commercial confidentiality is protected through strict rules laid down in the convention for the handling of sensitive information by national authorities and the international organisation. We shall insist that the rules are strictly maintained. The DTI has a good record of protecting commercial secrets, but to address concerns about protection of commercial proprietary information the Bill makes provision for giving statutory protection to information collected as a result of the Act or the convention.
A second example is that the Bill provides that the DTI national authority will issue an annual report about its activities and the operation of the Act. This will help to make its work more transparent and enhance proper parliamentary scrutiny. Thirdly, my department is committed to making the declarations process as easy as possible and will provide assistance to sites being inspected.
Perhaps I may make it clear that the process of consultation will continue once the convention is in operation. The national authority will need advice from a wide range of sources on a broad spectrum of issues in order to maintain the effectiveness of its operations. This advice will best be obtained in some areas through formal committees and in others through less formal bilateral contacts.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to the provisions of the Bill. I must start by making it clear that this is not a convention about governments only. Article VII of the
1368
convention requires us to forbid both individuals and legal entities to undertake any activity prohibited to a state party and we are required to enforce that through penal sanctions. I therefore make no apology for the inclusion in this Bill of the new powers and regulations necessary to enable the Government to honour the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention.
Although Notes on Clauses were made available in the Library before Christmas, perhaps I may briefly outline those clauses. Clauses 1 to 3 prohibit chemical weapons. Clauses 4 to 10 set out procedures for the identification, and, if necessary, the seizure and destruction of chemical weapons. Clauses 11 to 18 set out procedures for the destruction or alteration of any facility which may be identified as a chemical weapons production facility.
Clauses 19 and 20 provide for the very toxic chemicals contained in Schedule 1 to the convention to be controlled through the issue of licences.
Clause 21 enables the Secretary of State to require information where he suspects an offence under the Act has been, or is being, committed.
The convention requires the UK to make declarations to the international organisation in the Hague of its activities in certain chemicals. Clauses 22 and 23 enable the Secretary of State to obtain the necessary information.
Clauses 24 to 28 make the provisions needed for inspections under the terms of the convention to be successfully carried out.
Clauses 29 to 31 contain provisions relating to offences, such as powers to enable investigation where an offence is suspected, a power for a court to order forfeit an object connected with an offence, and restrictions on the initiation of prosecutions.
Clause 32 provides statutory protection for information provided under the Act or the convention.
Clause 33 requires the Secretary of State to issue an annual report to Parliament on the operation of the Act.
Clauses 34 to 39 contain various provisions, such as that service personnel committing any of the most serious offences be tried in a civil court rather than by court martial, the power to amend the Act consequent upon any amendment to the convention, and that the Bill binds the Crown, subject to certain qualifications.
I hope that I have signalled sufficiently clearly the Bill's ambit. I do not propose to elaborate further. As I said at the outset, it would seem to me that all rational beings would warmly support not merely the convention but its implementation in the UK through this legislation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
7.1 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear exposition of the Bill. On behalf of the Official Opposition, I must say immediately that we welcome this important piece of legislation. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Convention on the

1369
Prohibition, Development, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons upon which the Bill is based is vital for global security.
Of course, my interests are industry and economics. I have no expertise in foreign affairs or armaments. But we all know only too well that the possibility or alleged use of chemical weapons by nation states or terrorist groups is never far from the surface of our concern. The Gulf War, Iraq's treatment of the Kurds last year, terrorist attacks in Tokyo and recent reports from Bosnia are all evidence of that.
It is vitally important for the UK to uphold the convention to which we are a signatory. It is also highly desirable—I think I understood the Minister to be saying this—for the UK to be among the first 65 ratifying signatories to the treaty for reasons which the House well knows and which were outlined partly in what the Minister said and in other documents.
As your Lordships will recall, the UK signed the convention on 13th January 1993—fully three years ago—following the public commitment of Her Majesty's Government at the London G7 economic summit which had occurred some 18 months previously. Our commitment involves the UK being an original party to the treaty.
If I have it right, the convention will enter into force once 180 days have elapsed following 65 signatory states ratifying the convention and depositing their instruments of ratification with the UN Secretary-General. Again, I am not sure whether I missed what the Minister said, but my advice is that 47 of the original signatory states have deposited their ratifications. They include many EU member states—France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands—together, I am very happy to say, with Commonwealth states such as Australia, Canada and South Africa.
The Minister mentioned the USA and Russia and their progress towards ratification, which is of course of enormous importance. There has been some uncertainty in those countries, but I believe I am right—I understood the Minister was confirming this—that the presidents of both those countries are now pushing hard for ratification. In that connection, I read some stories in a Sunday newspaper to the effect that the USA is finding some technical difficulties in disposing of its existing stockpile. I hope that that is not some kind of signal that something will go wrong with the ratification of the convention in that country. We would normally expect the USA to take a considerable lead in a matter such as this.
To revert to the UK, I believe that we would all agree that there would be disadvantages, even damage, caused to us if we were not among the ratifying signatories by the time the convention comes into force. I am sure that that is what the Minister is saying. My initial remark was that the Official Opposition are determined to see that our role is to help rather than hinder that.
I believe that I am correct in saying that, were one not to do so, one would suffer some adverse trade consequences. We should he obliged to remain outside the decision-making structures of the convention. The
1370
nationals of a country that did not ratify would not be employable as inspectors or for any of the 450 jobs which the treaty will create.
Again, to go over some of the technical ground, there will be a body called the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons which is to be based at the Hague and which already has a provisional technical secretariat. As I understand it—I hope the Minister will confirm this—an offshoot of the preparatory commission for the convention has the important tasks of watching progress towards ratification and hiring and training a large international corps of inspectors to be ready by the time the treaty comes into force.
Again, my advice is that the chief executive of that provisional secretariat is British, as are other key officials. Assuming that I am right, I must say that I am very pleased to hear that, because it is a reflection of the UK's important role during the long and arduous negotiations on the convention. To repeat, it would therefore be unthinkable for us not to be among the first 65 ratifying signatories. Again, to repeat almost ad nauseam, I interpret the Minister as saying that he feels a sense of urgency now and that this will go ahead with no delay.
The matter looked as if it were in abeyance at one time. That concerned me, because I believe it was presaged in a much earlier Queen's Speech. Your Lordships' House will now act with dispatch, but I should emphasise that despite the urgency of the timetable there is time to consider the Bill properly, thoroughly and constructively. I hope to make some contribution. I have in mind one or two possible improvements that we could deal with in Committee. When the Bill was dealt with in another place, similar improvement occurred.
I pointed out my ignorance of these matters when I started. I should now like to pay a particular tribute to those who advised me, notably the Royal Society of Chemistry, which has played a most helpful role in providing invaluable background briefing not just to me but to other noble Lords for our debate. I relied heavily also on Dr. Julian Perry-Robinson who is a distinguished academic of Sussex University. Without that kind of advice from a distinguished body such as the RSC many of your Lordships who lack the right scientific credentials and an understanding of the convention would he unable to deal with these matters. It is a pleasure to pay tribute to such a non-partisan professional body as the RSC. Oddly enough, at least three of its past presidents are Members of your Lordships' House but I do not see any of them in their seats at the moment.
It is important for the scientific community to assist Parliament when it is considering scientific subjects. I have to point out at the other extreme that, vital though this is to chemical firms within the chemical industry—I believe they have been in touch with the Minister—not one chemical firm has felt it worth while to get in touch with me, although they are one of our country's major industries. I also say with regret that we know that chemistry is one of the few subjects in our

1371
universities which still remain world class, but I have heard nothing of this subject from the CVCP. I suppose the heads of our universities these days are too busy running them as businesses to remember that they are supposed to be academic institutions.
The Government considered seriously at least one important amendment tabled in the other place, namely the provision of an annual report to Parliament. I was delighted that the Government responded to that initiative, which was pressed for by the Royal Society of Chemistry. However, I shall press again a matter with which the Government disagreed in the other place. It is the need for an advisory structure stronger than the Minister has outlined. I listened to him tonight and I shall listen to him again in Committee. However, for the sake of transparency, and agreeing that we must identify a national authority—in this case that will be the DTI, which will be the lead agency for the enabling legislation and all the associated matters—the DTI will need an advisory group of a formal kind.
I do not believe that that suggestion is controversial and I do not believe that a formal advisory group will give rise to controversy. It would be of practical help, and I am sorry that the Bill is totally silent on that point. The Ministry of Defence has an advisory mechanism in connection with chemical work at Porton Down. I believe that we can build on that and therefore we would not be breaking new ground. I shall press that matter and the issue of transparency when we sit in Committee.
Another matter to which the Minister referred is the licensing arrangements. I always have difficulty with the correct use of grammar there, but I believe that it is correct to say that another matter "is" the licensing arrangements. These are extensive. That does not fit grammatically either but I shall reflect on it when Hansard is printed. The Bill goes further than the convention in its adoption to the licensing system in the sense that the convention does not ban academic research involving the use of toxic chemicals, as in Schedule 1 to the Bill. It positively permits it under Article II(9)(a). That is one part of the convention that most impinges on industry and the academic community.
However, the Bill does ban research, subject to certain strict conditions which are set out in Clauses 19 and 20 which create the extensive system of licensing. Perhaps I may say immediately that I agree that, if we err at all, we should err on the safe side. We are concerned with chemistry, and the chemical industry and the nature of the chemical compounds that are used. We have a serious balancing problem to safeguard academic research in chemistry, which in this country is world class, but not to make it possible for potential criminals to assemble lethal or potentially lethal mixtures.
Perhaps I may draw to your Lordships' attention a most interesting and important article in last Sunday's Mail on Sunday, although I am sure it has been noted already. The article mentions my name, which is unusual. I was concerned about what was reported, in
1372
particular because it appears to throw into serious doubt the effectiveness of the chemical industry's own code of conduct which is designed to minimise the risks of such chemicals getting into the wrong hands. I do not wish to labour the point, but it appears that two different companies provided the Mail on Sunday&—which was posing either as an individual or as a bio-research centre—with thiodygycol and thionyl chloride. The point is that those chemicals are useable or involved in the manufacture of mustard gas. It appears that in supplying those chemicals the firms concerned breached the code of conduct and showed no sign of being suspicious about anyone wanting them. I raise that matter partly to congratulate the Mail on Sunday on what it did in exposing the problem and to ask the Minister whether he can comment upon that. If such an incident can take place, it is a serious problem.
Having said that, we must not go to the other extreme whereby those who have wholly legitimate research purposes will not be able to obtain chemicals, albeit in small quantities, which are vital for their work not only in chemistry but in related subjects such as biology and medicine. Perhaps I may refer to a great deal of the research which is chemical in nature on the neuro-chemical transmission process; that is, brain research and so forth. It is vital that we rid the world of chemical weapons, but we do not want to rid the world of the science of chemistry.
There is a great deal to be said on the issue of licensing and of the enormous powers granted to the Secretary of State as regards varying and revoking licences. However, at this late hour I believe that they are matters to be raised in Committee. I shall not press them on your Lordships tonight.
I wish to raise two further matters. First, the Minister said that he had engaged in widespread consulting, and I am sure that he must have done so. However, I wonder whether there has been enough publicity on what the Bill is all about and whether the potential has been sufficiently publicised. My guess, which relates to my point on the CVCP, is that, if we were to take a random sample of chemistry departments and ask them what they thought about the Bill, the majority would say, "What Bill?". If we were to say, "There is a problem that you might have", I guess that they would ask, "What problem'?". When proceeding with legislation that cannot he a satisfactory state of affairs.
In turning to my final point I know that I am in a minority. Noble Lords are aware of my obsession with the question of delegated legislation and all of that. There is an enormous amount of delegated legislation in the Bill. Your Lordships' Select Committee looked at the Bill and, even though Clause 36 is a Henry VIII clause, and seems to me to be a pretty extreme one, it said that it was willing to live with it. I am beginning to think that I am becoming an obsessive in my concern about such things. I would never criticise your Lordships' committee, but I am doubtful about that clause. I am particularly doubtful about whether the so-called negative procedure for dealing with such

1373
matters will do in this case, although I agree that it is entirely precedented. My view, and I quote the Royal Society of Chemistry, is that:
"The guiding principle which should apply is that Parliament should have the right, and the maximum possible opportunity, to consider and debate any proposed changes to this Act, before they are implemented".
I have spoken longer than the Minister, for which I apologise, and I do not wish to delay your Lordships further. I merely repeat my point that, although I shall raise three or four serious issues in Committee, my main objective is precisely that of the Minister—to get the Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible and for the United Kingdom to be a ratifying country as rapidly as possible.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, this is a good Bill and my noble friends would wish me to welcome it and to express the hope that we shall soon be ratifying the convention. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, there was a strange delay in bringing it forward. It is three years since we signed the treaty and during that period we on these Benches asked the Government to explain the delay. We were not reassured when we were told that there was a shortage of parliamentary time. We found that very hard to believe. Nevertheless, in retrospect it is clear that thorough, successful consultation was carried out and we are in time to ratify the convention before the expiry date.
I followed carefully what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about improving the Bill in Committee. I believe that my noble friends are of the same thinking. The noble Lord mentioned the fact that the Government yielded in Committee in another place on the question of an annual report. Personally, I should like to go further: I should like to see the Government agree to statutorily lay down a minimum content for that annual report; otherwise, it may lose much of its value. There is also more than one view on the question of an advisory committee. We shall listen carefully to what the Government say on that point.
It is certainly a little odd to note that, apparently, there will be only seven servants in the ministry concerned with monitoring and verifying the convention. Of course, seven is a magical number, but it seems very few for the huge task and responsibility which the Government will face. Surprisingly—and, I think, on the whole unfortunately—the legislation is presented as a DTI Bill. That is not in any way to disparage the able Ministers of that department who have presented it in both Houses. It seems to me that it should have been a Foreign Office Bill. I believe that we have become a little introspective about the subject. We seem interested only in perfecting the system of control in this country.
However, there are much wider and more difficult questions arising from the Bill and the convention. It would have been good to have had the Government's view on them. We are told that so many countries have ratified, so many have signed and that so many will ratify. But, what will happen in a few years time? There will he three groups of nations. The first group will have ratified and will have the administration, as we have,
1374
to ensure control. That group will in fact contain those countries which would not dream of using chemical weapons, with or without a convention.
The second group of countries will be those which will have ratified but which will not have the strength and integrity of administration to ensure control. For example, one thinks of the Soviet Union and many other countries. The third group of countries will be those which will have resisted international pressure to ratify. I should like to have heard the Government explain what measures they propose to ensure that the non-signers, the non-ratifiers, are sufficiently pressurised to make the convention universal. That is a very key point. How do the Government propose to deal with the situation?
Countries which sign the convention are, of course, renouncing their ability to deter an attack by chemical weapons through holding such weapons themselves. I have heard it argued that the reason why Hitler did not use chemical weapons in World War II was the fear of retaliation by such weapons. Well, the Government—and, indeed, both Opposition parties—agree that we should not hold chemical weapons in order to deter attack by such weapons. That is something which requires thinking about. It contrasts, for example, with the attitude of the Government and of the Opposition parties on nuclear weapons.
We are agreed that we should hold nuclear weapons in order to deter nuclear attack by other countries. There is a strange inconsistency in that respect. It cannot be argued that chemical weapons are crueller or more destructive than nuclear weapons; indeed, they arc not. Nuclear weapons are infinitely more destructive. They are crueller and more destructive of property than chemical weapons. It cannot be argued that chemical weapons are easier to detect and prevent than nuclear weapons. On the contrary, nuclear weapons are very much easier, or much less difficult, to detect and control internationally than is the case with chemical weapons. Why then do all of us on both sides of the House say, "Yes, we should hold nuclear weapons to deter nuclear attack; but, no, we should not hold chemical weapons to deter chemical attack"?
It is possible that the Government think that nuclear weapons can be used to deter chemical attacks. If so, they have never said so; and, indeed, conspicuously did not say so at the time of the Gulf War when it would certainly have been relevant. That is certainly not the policy of my noble friends.
I suppose that, logically, the only answer is that we should work urgently for the international suppression of all weapons of mass destruction, accepting as inevitable that that will take a long time; that it will involve every country in a marked loss of sovereignty; and that it will, from time to time, expose governments who are peace-loving and scrupulous to threats from governments who are neither. For all I know, that may he the Government's policy; or, indeed, they may have no policy.
Therefore, as I said, I should have liked the Foreign Office to handle the matter. In that way we could have been shown the broader thinking of the Government on such important and difficult questions. In the meantime,

1375
we welcome the convention which, among its many merits, has the advantage of helping progress in eliminating biological weapons. In that field, as in the field of chemical weapons, Britain has played a distinguished leading part. I believe that we should pay tribute here to our old colleague Lord Mulley who played a distinguished part in securing the biological weapons convention. If we can control and verify chemical weapons, that will help enormously those who are now struggling to do the same for biological weapons.
I do not wish to cover or repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said on points which I believe will be more appropriately dealt with in Committee. Similarly, I do not ask the noble and learned Lord to answer the very big and difficult and controversial questions that I have raised. Nevertheless, the Government must face up to the matter. They must decide what they will do about the non-signers, the non-ratifiers.
Are the Government content that well behaved, civilised governments should be exposed to threat from those who refuse to ratify and either maintain a chemical weapons capability, or at least maintain the capability to build a chemical weapons capacity? That is a very important question. I roughly sketched out what might be a logical answer, but I rather regret that, in handling the Bill, those wider considerations have not been taken into account.
7.28 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I too welcome the Bill warmly. Its immediate purpose is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the convention in time to be an original state party and also to play a full part from the outset in the proposed organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons, which will provide the international inspectors and supervise the working of the convention. But, in the longer term, it will also provide a permanent legislative framework to enable this country to uphold the convention and ensure that everyone co-operates so that it is fully implemented by the United Kingdom in perpetuity.
The Churches have long encouraged the negotiation of a chemical weapons convention. It is now almost 20 years since a deputation from the British Council of Churches visited the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to discuss ways of promoting the UK Draft Convention of 1976. That draft convention was only one of the initiatives taken by the United Kingdom over the years towards the goal of a world-wide, verifiable treaty ban on chemical weapons.
That goal had to be in the interest of a country which no longer possessed chemical weapons but felt under threat from those possessed by others. Our national interest coincided happily with the wider interest of the international community. So the eventual CWC took shape, painstakingly crafted and negotiated, and in 1993 the United Kingdom was one of the original signatories. Now this Bill opens the way to ratification. We are happy with its approach. In particular we applaud the
1376
readiness of the Government to improve the content of the Bill in the light of consultation over successive drafts. It has got better at every stage.
There remains, however, one major area of concern which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Will the Government accept that an advisory committee should be added? Without this addition the Bill will be incomplete because it leaves the national authority for the CWC too isolated from key constituencies of support and expertise in science and in industry. An advisory committee is needed with the force of law; it is not enough for Ministers to say that naturally they will seek advice in various quarters which should remain unspecified in the Bill. The Bill should ensure that Parliament receives annual reports from the advisory committee, as well as from the national authority.
An advisory committee, I submit, would be a safeguard against the Act being used to interfere with legitimate chemical activity unrelated to the CWC—if that is a risk. Equally it would be a safeguard against the national authority proving insufficiently active and vigilant in its proper, preventive role—if that indeed is a risk. Both eventualities may be remote; let us hope so. But it is wise to take precautions and this is the simplest way available. The statutory existence of an advisory committee would be likely to hold the national authority to a steady course. It would help to ensure that the national authority continued to do its job; no more, no less. It would enhance the parliamentary accountability and transparency of the whole process of CWC implementation in the United Kingdom. It would also help to keep intact that broad unity of purpose in support of the convention which has been such an impressive feature of our public life.
Over many years British people in science, industry—and, I think, in the universities—and not least the Churches, have encouraged successive Ministers and officials first to secure a good convention and then to apply it. It belongs to us all. For let us remember that it is the United Kingdom that will come under the full set of international legal obligations when the convention comes into force; and the United Kingdom, not just the United Kingdom Government, is, we believe, ready to take on that solemn commitment and to implement the convention wholeheartedly. I believe that it is an advisory committee, representative of that wide-ranging spectrum of support, which can best express this permanent commitment and channel British experience and expertise into lasting, practical involvement, so that we can carry forward this great enterprise and, as a nation, make the convention work.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing absolutely with everything that everyone has said. Perhaps that is going a trifle too far; I agreed with most things that everyone has said. That is an unusual occurrence for me. I believe that the Government have performed well on this issue. They have experienced difficulties and they have not overcome all of them. Noble Lords who have followed this matter throughout are aware of points that need

1377
further exploration. However, having said that, this is an area where we can offer the Government praise. It is quite nice to be able to do that.
Lord Peston: And unusual!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it may be unusual but it is a greater pleasure for that. There are, however, certain aspects of the Bill which worry one, although it gives me pleasure to reflect on what has been achieved. It occurred to me—I think, reasonably—that the methodology which has achieved success here might conceivably be adapted to deal with other matters, particularly as regards the means of mass destruction. The example of what has been done in the area that we are discussing ought to be followed in the nuclear field. That has never happened. All other kinds of methodologies have been tried but we have never achieved a convention, and the ratification of a convention, in the nuclear field. I hope the methodology that has been used in the area we are discussing will at least be considered as regards the nuclear field. I believe that everyone would agree that the dangers inherent in the nuclear field are even greater than those which we face in the area we are discussing.
With that in mind, I had the intention of putting down a provision which all your Lordships would recognise as a probing amendment in order to sound out the Government as to whether they thought that lessons could he learnt from their experience in this area which might be adapted and used in the other area I have mentioned. One cannot properly propose such a course of action at Second Reading; it is a matter for the Committee stage. I devised an amendment for that purpose. Of course such an amendment would not be pressed to a Division; I would not even vote for it myself in such a context. However, such an amendment is often used in order to explore the Government's thinking on a matter. Indeed I believe that an amendment of this kind is one of the most useful tools of the Committee stage.
However, I committed a grave error in letting the Public Bill Office know of my intention before the event. I was a little surprised to receive a note from the clerk who was concerned with the matter which stated that he could not accept the amendments because they were not relevant. My first amendment sought to amend the Title of the Bill—for the purpose of the probing discussion—so that it became the "Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Bill". I envisaged withdrawing the amendment after the exploratory discussion had taken place and that would have been the end of the matter as we should have had the necessary discussion.
However, the clerk—quite properly from his point of view—said that the amendment was not relevant to the Bill as this is a Chemical Weapons Bill. However, the Bill also concerns one of the means of mass of destruction. Therefore it is relevant to compare what is achieved in this Bill with what has been done in other fields and ask ourselves whether we can learn any lessons from the Bill. One can follow such a course ideally in the way I have described; indeed, one cannot do it in any other way. If the Government were to say
1378
at this point that they had no objection to such a discussion, nor to informing us about one or two points which might be to our advantage, the technical objection which, quite correctly, has been raised could not, I believe, be raised now. I believe that, if I had tabled the probing amendment instead of bothering the clerk about it, it would have been dealt with without any problems.
I hope that, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, replies to the debate, he will say that he does not mind being probed on this question in the form of an amendment, in the full knowledge that, after the discussion has taken place, the amendment will certainly be withdrawn. What else could I do with it except withdraw it? Under the circumstances that I have outlined, the clerks may agree that there is no objection to putting down this probing amendment.
7.40 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, this Second Reading tonight finds me in a rather nostalgic mood. Some 70 years ago, not yet having obtained my majority, I sat on the steps of the Throne listening to my father discussing the dangers of chemical warfare on a Motion arising from an accident in a chemical factory in Germany. The Leader of the House in those days, the great grandfather of the noble Viscount who leads our House today, as I remember, took my father to task for alarming the public mind. But my father was unashamed about that because he relied on a model of the gassing of a square mile of central London that I had built him while still a schoolboy. It was a lovely model. I knew nothing of Reynolds numbers or the numeracy of turbulent phenomena. I should love to describe to noble Lords how I made the model and how it worked, but time is late and your Lordships' time very valuable. We have another debate to follow, so I forbear to do so.
My father's attitude was very much that of Lord Fisher, the first Sea Lord before World War I: hit first, hit hard and keep on hitting. It is only the fear of retaliation which keeps the peace. That was a point of view well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. However, it was also expressed in the post-nuclear age by Robert Oppenheimer, the chief executive of Los Alamos, who said that the United States and the Soviet Union were like two scorpions in a bottle, each anxious to sting but each terrified of being stung.
The construction of chemical weapons was a blot on the chemical industry; and the chemical industry is only too anxious to remove that blot by promising full co-operation in the execution of this Bill. Compared with mechanical engineering, the chemical industry is—if I may so call it—a hit sneaky. You cannot take a motor bicycle to pieces and reconstruct it as a sewing machine or a typewriter. But that is what chemical operators are continuously doing, for everything which goes on in the way of a chemical reaction is a disassembly of a selection of some of the 92 elements that exist, and it is reassembly in another form.
That is why inspection of what goes on must he an essential part of chemical weapons control. As I said, the chemical industry will co-operate in the necessary

1379
inspection, subject to one condition only. There must be confidentiality of peaceful processes under development by competitors for the future.
In praising the willingness of the chemical industry to co-operate, I must also acknowledge, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, the help of the Royal Society of Chemistry, of which I have the honour to be a fellow, and in particular its executive officer for parliamentary affairs, Mr. Stephen Benn, who has been most helpful in providing us with our various briefs.
Broadly, I think that the convention is right. We must patrol ubiquitously for toxic chemicals. We must also patrol for the precursors of those chemicals. What about the precursors of those precursors? I think that that would be going a little too far—we should be trying to inspect everything under the sun. Owing to the volatility of chemical variability, when it comes to tracing compounds back to their ultimate sources—they are usually hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen—we might, without very great care, find ourselves having to patrol people for the production of water.
A point of principle is this. Who will help run the convention? The question of an advisory council has been raised by the right reverend Prelate and others. All I can say to that is no, no, no. I know how advisory councils work; I have been on them. What we want is a Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament with a scientific adviser in attendance to sort out any points that are unclear, technically as regards chemistry. I could easily recommend the secretary of the science policy advisory committee at Sussex University, who has drafted many of the documents which have reached your Lordships.
In scrutinising the Bill, I considered its Long Title and early clauses. A Bill proceeds from the general to the particular. The most general aspect of a Bill is its Long Title. We postpone the title of the Bill in Committee so that we can raise matters that are not strictly speaking covered by the Long Title before settling what the title should be. As regards one or two items in the early sections of the Long Title, I should like to propose counter examples to the parliamentary draftsman. Prior to proposing them as amendments in Committee, I should like to ask him where we stand on the different counterparts. Otherwise I believe that we may end up looking for precursors to precursors in a rather frustrated spirit.
I could take time by giving examples of some questions that arose in my mind. However, I simply ask the noble and learned Lord to give me facilities for talking to the parliamentary draftsman, possibly with my own scientific adviser.
I wish the Bill success. I support it in all its particulars. Such criticisms that I have arc purely friendly criticisms.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the noble Earl by saying how much we welcome his reminiscences. It has been a salutary reminder to your Lordships of the time the issue has
1380
been under discussion. I am pleased that I now have the opportunity to introduce to your Lordships' House this Bill which allows there to be a proper control in the United Kingdom within the wider context of the convention to which I have already made reference. The noble Earl's expertise in these matters is always welcome in your Lordships' debate.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was a little unkind in suggesting that this matter might have been more appropriately handled by the Foreign Office. Certainly as regards the wider issue of the convention, and what was originally to be contained in it, I can see some force in that argument. But after a long period of gestation—some 20 years—it is important for Parliament to introduce into the law of the United Kingdom provisions which will enable us to ratify that convention. It is a critically important convention, being the first treaty to provide for a verifiable world-wide ban of an entire class of weapons of mass destruction. It is very important. I very much hope that we shall move swiftly towards a world-wide ratification of it. But clearly in such matters, where sovereign states are involved, they cannot be compelled to ratify. However, one hopes that at the very least with the United States and Russia concluding their ratification, hopefully in the relatively near future, others will be shamed into joining in. There are obvious states where there will be difficulty in securing ratification and compliance, as the noble Lord will appreciate. However, if nothing else, it is worth recalling the evidence of the Chemical Industries Association which I understand was provided to this House and to another place. It stated:
"If the United Kingdom failed to be one of the 65 signatory states, this would have a serious effect on the trade relations of many United Kingdom companies that trade in chemicals".
So even if that is nothing more than a practical argument, I hope that some states will realise why they should comply.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, put to me for confirmation a number of points on the facts and timings. His understanding of the position and the figures entirely coincides with mine. He asked whether we needed more publicity for the Bill. I should be delighted to give it as much publicity as possible, but we are alive to the point that he made. We are considering what further publicity will be appropriate when the Bill passes into law, as I hope it will.
One matter with which both he and the right reverend Prelate were concerned, as was the noble Earl, is whether there should be not only an advisory committee but whether it needed to be established on a statutory basis with the express provisions within the Bill. Our view is that the national authority will need advice from many sources. It is doubtless a matter to which we shall return in Committee, but we think it is mistaken to believe that the authority will obtain all the advice it needs from a single committee, however expert that committee might be. We will need advice on the implementation of the convention in the United Kingdom, how the burden which the regulations place on business and academia might be minimised and how compliance monitoring arrangements of the national authority can he made more effective. For those areas

1381
of advice we intend to establish an advisory committee. We hope that a single committee will be able to provide the advice that the national authority will need on those subjects. However, it is a new regime and we must be able to modify the arrangements in the light of experience.
I mention one particular matter for your Lordships to consider before we return to the Bill at Committee, if we do so. There are difficult questions about commercial confidentiality. Information coming from commercial research might not readily reach the type of advisory committee that some have in mind. One would not wish to be in a position where those who held that information were not prepared, for fear of disclosure, to bring the national authority along with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked a number of questions relating to what he understood might be technical problems in the United States. My understanding of the position is that the destruction of existing chemical weapons is complex, expensive and dangerous. It is no surprise that a country such as the United States, with an enormous stockpile, may face technical difficulties. But we believe that there is no reason to doubt the ability of the United States to fulfil its obligations under the convention.
The noble Lord was also concerned that there might be an effect on research, the point having been raised in briefing that he received. We have already announced that we plan to introduce a system which will considerably reduce the burden of licensing for small users of the Schedule I chemicals. I stress that those chemicals are the most toxic and include the most potent chemical weapons agents. I do not believe that it would he right to have no controls at all on the chemicals. We propose to issue an open general licence which will enable research using the chemicals and in quantities of up to five grammes a year. Possession and use of the chemical within the limits will be subject only to registration with the national authority. I trust that that will reduce the burden on small users to what we believe would be the bare minimum.
Finally, I was asked a number of questions by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on the article that appeared in the Mail on Sunday and perhaps I may comment on it. 'The Bill is intended to implement a convention which addresses the problem of chemical warfare. That is war between states. It is not intended to deal with terrorism. Measures to counter terrorism are the responsibility of the Home Secretary. However, some of the measures in the Bill—though aimed at implementing the convention—would also help those agencies involved in anti-terrorism. The chemicals procured by the Mail on Sunday are dangerous chemicals, readily enough acknowledged, and as such are scheduled chemicals under the Chemical Weapons Convention. However, those chemicals are also in regular industrial use. Declaration of them is required under the two schedules and the quantities are indicated in the schedules when they have to he declared.
The controls result from the consensus reached during international negotiation of the treaty where it was decided not to have more onerous controls. We have
1382
signed the treaty and we believe that our task is now to implement its provisions. The Bill does not provide for full-scale licensing of all scheduled chemicals; it would be out of proportion to the threat from chemical weapons in this country which we see as low. However, the prohibition on chemical weapons is not limited by quantities. Any person who was to hold the chemicals other than for a permitted purpose would be committing an offence under the Bill and would be liable on conviction to a sentence of up to life imprisonment. So while the position may be rather different at present, once the Bill is implemented a severe regime would he in place.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble and learned Lord. I hope that I understood him, in which case his remarks are reassuring. Is he saying that we would no longer rely on the code of conduct? That is what the Mail on Sunday was seeking to expose. Would there now be a genuine legal basis to prevent what happened occurring again? Would criminal penalties be involved if anything like that happened again?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, in trying to get through quickly, I may have unnecessarily shortened my comments on the requirement with regard to the declaration and the quantities that can be held. I can expand on it at a later time, if it would be helpful. I was seeking to emphasise what seems to me to be important. It is that anyone who holds the chemicals for other than a permitted purpose would be committing an offence under the Bill. The penalty to which they would be subject is the most severe: namely, life imprisonment.
I would rather not name the chemicals because the Mail on Sunday responsibly declined to mention one of them. The chemicals are subject to strict trade controls. Trading Schedule 1 chemicals with non-state parties will be banned from the date the convention enters into force and after three years in the case of Schedule 2 chemicals. All the most toxic chemicals (those in Schedule 1) are subject to licensing.
A series of questions was raised with me by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. I have to deal with an important Bill relating to chemical weapons, but it is not appropriate for me to comment on whether the type of amendment that he wishes to put down is appropriate. That is not my remit. However, I welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and other noble Lords the unanimous indication of support for this important Bill. I therefore commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
7.59 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

1383
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord McColl of Dulwich) in the Chair.]
Clause 30 [One former spouse with no existing right to occupy]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 19, line 14, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
(" .—(I) This section applies if—

(a) one cohabitant, former cohabitant, or former spouse is entitled to occupy a dwelling house by virtue of a beneficial estate or interest or contract, or by virtue of any enactment giving him the right to remain in occupation;

(b) the cohabitant, former cohabitant or former spouse is not so entitled; and

(c) the dwelling house—

(i) in the case of the cohabitants or former cohabitants, is the home in which they live together as husband and wife or a home in which they at any time so lived together or intended so to live together, or

(ii) in the case of former spouses, was at any time their matrimonial home or was at any time intended by them to be their matrimonial home.

(2) The cohabitant, former cohabitant or former spouse not so entitled may apply to the court for an order under this section against the other cohabitant, former cohabitant or former spouse ("the respondent").").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to this amendment, I shall also speak to this group of amendments standing in my name. We now enter on Part III of the Bill, which incorporates the former Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill approved by this House last Session, having been given the most exhaustively careful scrutiny by a committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. At Second Reading I studied the noble and learned Lord's speech with great care. I regret that he is unable to be present today. That is yet another reason why it is inappropriate to have a Division at the Committee stage of this Bill. I should not wish this matter to be resolved without the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, if, by waiting until Report, we can have it resolved that way.
There are a string of small changes in this Part—changes introduced since the Bill went through this House last Session—and one large symbolic statement. The effect of these amendments is to cut out two clauses that were inserted to separate the status of cohabitants from that of married people, and in general to restore the Bill to its previous state. I have in front of me the noble and learned Lord's summary of the changes, so I hope that I shall not mislead the House. They are a little technical.
Where there is a cohabitant who does not have a clear legal title to occupy the House, the order to occupy can be renewed only for a period not exceeding six months. There will need to be a certain number of probing, Committee-type exchanges here. I need to understand exactly why it has appeared necessary to the Government to make this change. I need to know exactly what is the ground of the discrimination against the cohabitant—whether it is. as suggested by the
1384
wording of Clause 36, a moral one, or whether it is a legal one concerning a doubt about the person's status as occupant of the house.
I also have a smaller question, which I hope may be practically addressed. Why can such an order be renewed only once? Let us suppose, for example, that the victim of domestic violence also happens to be disabled, as sometimes happens. Let us suppose that the accommodation is purpose-built. One wonders whether in such circumstances there might be a case for allowing the woman to remain permanently in occupation, as she would have the right to do if she were a spouse. I still need to understand the precise thinking which justifies this distinction. Only then will I be able to address the question as to how far I am, or am not, convinced by it.
The next change that has been introduced relates to where there is a test of balance of harm for the victim of domestic violence to occupy the property. What was previously a duty on the judge to follow the balance of harm test has now been changed into a discretion, allowing the judge to weigh the balance of harm test against a number of other matters, including the financial interests of the party and the interests of the children.
I admit that I speak as a layman and not a lawyer in these matters; but, prima facie, either that change was right, both for spouses and cohabitants, or it was right for neither. Again, I do not understand the basis of the Government's thinking in making the distinction. I shall want to hear an answer to that question before deciding, at a later stage of the Bill, what I want to do in regard to the amendments.
The other technical change is that cohabitants have been deprived of the right to use an accelerated procedure under the Married Women's Property Act. Again, I admit that I speak as a layman, but I have not heard any technical description of the accelerated procedure or of the advantages or disadvantages of using it. Again, I want to understand in a way in which at present I do not, why that procedure should be available to spouses and not to cohabitants.
The change that causes me the most anxiety is the new Clause 36 that has been inserted into the Bill. It states:
"In deciding whether and (if so) how to exercise its power to make an occupation order, or its power under section 35, the court is to have regard to the fact that the parties have not given each other the commitment involved in marriage".
First, that strikes me as a mistaken sense of priorities. However deep an attachment people may have to the principle of lawful matrimony, it is the first duty of the state to ensure the preservation of the Queen's peace. I feel a certain anxiety about the idea that anybody's morals, however bad, should make them less entitled to the protection of the Queen's peace than are other people. After all, even in the old days when there were public executions, people in the custody of the state on the way to execution used to be accorded the protection of the Queen's peace. In 1612 there was an extraordinary case in Spain when a heretic who was being taken to be burnt was set upon by the crowd and suffered 500 stab wounds—hut was rescued by the officers of the state before being burnt. It is a macabre

1385
story, but I understand the interest of the state in doing that. The monopoly of the right to violence is one of the defining marks of the state. I cannot help feeling that in suggesting that there is a group of people with a lesser right to protection from violence, the state is in danger of abdicating that position.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, whose absence I much regret and whose return to our debates I very much look forward to—I understand that the noble Lord has not been well and I hope that he is making a good and happy recovery—argued at Second Reading that we should make this distinction because marriage is a public status. But with respect, cohabiting is a public status, equal with marriage.
Yesterday, we approved the jobseeker's regulations. We approved a reference on page 8 of those regulations to benefits going to, "a married or unmarried couple". In social security law that is perfectly normal. It is a public status, recognised through shared finances, shared bank account, joint responsibility for the housekeeping, jointly visiting the children's school to see the teacher, and all the things that married people do together. It is now a recognised status.
The British Academy is generally regarded as a respectable institution. When, over Christmas, it sent out invitations to the presidential reception, it invited fellows to say whether they intended to bring "their spouse or partner". What is respectable enough to be recognised by the British Academy is respectable enough to be recognised by the law of the land. Cohabitation is a public status. Many of us have friends, close relatives and others whom we know extremely well who are cohabitants. For those of us in that position, to have them set aside like this and given a sort of lower status, entitled to less protection, appears offensive.
I perfectly understand, and respect, the view of the those who think that only those who are married in the sight of God are married. It is a perfectly proper view. Those who think that believe that those who, like me—and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, as we discovered on Thursday—were not married in church, are living in sin. Although it is perfectly proper for them to hold that view, as a matter of normal social courtesy they do not normally impinge it upon me or the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. It seems to me that in handling co-habitants we ought to do it in just the same way as those who believe only in religious marriage treat those who have undertaken a civil marriage. When I look at the actual words of the clause, they have not given each other the commitment involved in marriage.
Thinking of some co-habitant couples I know extremely well, I believe these words to be false. What I mean about the commitment involved in marriage is that determined—indeed, I might almost say, bloody-minded—determination to keep the relationship going in the face of every obstacle, every quarrel and every confusion; that one is simply not going to let go. Its political equivalent is something I observed—to take a small example—in the television appearance of Mr. Stephen Dorrell on the night of the Dudley by-election. It was one of the most impressive television
1386
performances by a politician that I have ever seen. He simply stuck to his last and was not letting go. That is what I understand by the commitment involved in marriage.
In my observation, co-habitants give just as much or as little as people who have been through the marriage ceremony. Indeed, what really amuses me, looking at my friends who decided to co-habit about 30 years ago, is that some of them believed that they were striking a blow for a new type of society. But in fact I have observed that they have become married couples, with their ups and downs, highs and lows, dull points and lively points, their strengths and weaknesses, exactly like any of the rest of us. It is because they live exactly like any of the rest of us that I believe that they deserve legal protection exactly as any of the rest of us. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I support the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in opposing the Question that Clauses 31 and 33 stand part of the Bill. I need not rehearse the circumstances of how Part III was introduced into the Bill. The Committee may well recall that the legislation fell during the last Session in its final consideration in another place as the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill. It fell two working days before it was due to become the law of the land. Its fall was swift and sudden. It fell because it was claimed that it was a consolidating measure but that claim proved to be false. That claim was maintained throughout the. Bill's passage through this House under the Jellicoe fast-track procedure. That claim was maintained throughout its passage in the other place under the fast-track procedure. It was maintained right up to the point where the Bill was about to become law; yet that claim proved inaccurate.
It seems to me a pity that the unfortunate and ill-fated Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill should have been presented to the House in such a manner. It cannot but reflect badly on the respective fast-track procedures and on the way in which they are used. I wonder whether it is not now an appropriate time for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to give some assurance to the Committee that the Jellicoe procedure will be used with a little more circumspection in relation to future Bills of the kind just mentioned.
Clauses 31 and 33 of the Bill, as we have heard, make provision for a new type of order in the family court which is to be known as an occupation order. It subsumes the orders currently made by the court which are commonly known as ouster orders and exclusion orders. I am aware that occupation orders may do other things. They can enforce the applicant's right to remain in the home or to enter the home. They can regulate the occupation of the home. However, the most important power will be to oust or exclude a party from the home.
I venture to suggest that if there is domestic tension or strife, it is that order which will continue to he most commonly sought after by applicants and, I might add, most commonly granted. Orders specifying which rooms a party may or may not use are not, I am told,

1387
very common and tend to be impractical. So it is with exclusion and ouster orders that we are mostly concerned.
In the case of Summers (1986) and additionally in the case of Tuck v. Nicholls (1988) the court made it clear that it viewed an ouster order as a "draconian" measure. That seems to me to be plain common sense. I suspect that it would be viewed as common sense by the vast majority of voters and citizens in the land. To throw a man or woman out of their own home by means of a court order must surely be a draconian action unless it involves a clear case of violence.
If there is to be any substantial change in the law in order to make such an order less than draconian, then clearly we need to be concerned. Part III of the Bill reproduces parts of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983 and the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 which specifically include co-habitants. Part III of the Bill, and these clauses, mark a change. The changes remove the requirement for the court to have regard to the conduct of the parties before making an order and instead there is an entirely new "balance of harm" test which will dictate when an order should or should not be made.
The test is this: an applicant must be suffering significant harm. That is defined in Clause 57 as,
"ill-treatment or the impairment of health".
"Health" means "physical or mental health". The court may make an order unless the respondent is likely to suffer as much or more harm than the applicant when the order is made. Of course, the test applies equally to any child of the family.
At first sight that does not sound too bad does it? I remind the Committee of the case of Richard's (1984). The effect of that case was to arrest a tendency to grant injunctions on ever more flimsy grounds. Many courts would throw a man out of the home on the ground that one party said, "I refuse to live with that man". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, occupying the office of Lord Chancellor, sought to ensure that a degree of blameworthy behaviour had to be proved against the man before he could be ousted from his own home. There the law now stands.
Enter Part III of the Family Law Bill 1996. Proof of such conduct will once again be unnecessary. The very words "conduct of the parties" are excised and in so doing we shall have taken a retrograde step. But that is not all. The Bill goes even further than that in defining "harm" so widely as to include impairment of health, including mental health, which goes well beyond what is considered sufficient in existing law to oust or exclude a party from the home. It is not even clear that the harm needs to be caused mainly or directly by the respondent. The harm suffered by the applicant may he attributable to other causes, for example, physical or mental disease, and the respondent's mere presence may do no more than to add to that harm, sufficient for it to become significant. No blame of any kind need be attached to the respondent; his mere presence may he sufficient.
1388
If it is asserted that a child is being considered, one can readily see that it will be even easier to make out a case against a respondent. Indeed the definition of harm is even extended in the case of a child to include the impairment of development—a very different thing from domestic violence. What are we to say—that a child's low marks at school are a reason for ousting one of its parents from the matrimonial home? How can that be? one may ask. Yet low marks at school may well represent evidence of impairment of development. A child psychologist would not be asserting anything radical by giving evidence to that effect in a court of law. It would not be difficult in practice to secure a medical opinion that the presence of one party in the home is damaging the health of the other. Nor would it be difficult for one party to assert that the presence of the other is had for the children. All that party need assert is that the presence of the other merely contributes to their ill health or any upset to the children. The harm test nowhere requires that the harm is mainly or directly caused by the respondent.
This is plainly a recipe for rapid and irrational domestic chaos and family break-up. It is also astonishingly unjust. Even apart from the intrinsic injustice of this clause, it is not difficult to see how easily such a provision could be abused by an unscrupulous party, a party interested in gaining most for themselves. One party will readily perceive that they can obtain de facto custody of the children by the simple expedient of ousting the other party. Once applications for custody are made, the court will be reluctant to overturn any situation of de facto custody, for fear of further upsetting the settled life of the children. In fact this can happen under the existing law, but it will be very much easier to achieve under the provisions of these clauses.
The harm test, at the very least, should go. If conduct is restored then the harm test adds nothing and can be removed. Part III would then begin to look very much more like the consolidating measure that it is claimed to be. Part III, and particularly these clauses, arc not chiefly about domestic violence. In my reading of this part of the Bill I was unable to find even the word "violence" anywhere in it. Perhaps I have overlooked it and, if so, I should be very grateful if the noble and learned Lord would point it out. If not, then does he not agree with me that this lack is astonishing, in view of the fact that it is meant to make provision for domestic violence?
I trust that the noble and learned Lord will agree also that this part of the Bill is, in its current form, very far from satisfactory and requires substantial review and amendment. I hope that he will also be able to recognise and welcome efforts on the part of noble Lords to amend and restore this part of the Bill to a form where it can truly be said to be a consolidating measure, and not the radical departure from existing law which it clearly is in its present form.
I am aware that the noble and learned Lord has made some changes to this part of the Bill since it first appeared as the family homes Bill but, so far as I can see, they have not altered it very much except that for spouses the court has to make an order if the harm test

1389
is satisfied. This appears to prejudice spouses and to benefit cohabitants. Is that what the noble and learned Lord intended, may I ask? I urge upon the Committee the need to reconsider this part of the Bill at Report stage, but for the present I support the noble Lord in opposing the Question that Clauses 31 and 33 stand part of the Bill.
Baroness David: I should like to support the amendments moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I was a member of the special committee dealing with the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, as were three other people who are here tonight—a small assembly at this time of night—the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and myself, who were four members of that committee. I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord cannot deny that we entirely agree that these clauses, as they were before being changed in the other place, were accepted by the Committee. There was no question about their acceptance: I do not think there was any debate about that.
We made changes in the Bill as it came from the Law Commission. Various clauses and an extra schedule were added, but the Bill as it came from the Law Commission was basically accepted, with a few changes. The Committee was very much agreed that it was not changed at Committee or Report stages. There was intensive discussion. We had, as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said, 83 amendments discussed at various stages of the Bill. It was very thoroughly gone into and accepted. I find it very hard to believe that the noble and learned Lord could really have liked these changes which he accepted.
If we accept the changes now it will show that we are rather an ancient Chamber. A number of questions were raised at earlier stages in the Committee, but what is the message going out from this Chamber? I would say that the message we are sending, if we accept these changes, would be unrealistic. I must be one of the oldest Members of your Lordships' Chamber but I think I can accept that life is very different from what it used to be. There are a great many people in stable relationships—partners, or whatever they are called. I do not like the word, but that is apparently how they are currently referred to. The idea that cohabitees cannot be treated in the same way as married couples is ridiculous.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will go back to what he apparently believed in for a considerable period during the long days of that Committee and indeed the Report stage and Third Reading. I hope he will think again about these amendments. It would be a very much better message from this Chamber if we go back to the Bill which we approved before it went to the Commons and which the other House misguidedly changed. They did not even get the Bill through: there was no advantage whatsoever in the changes that were made. I should also like to say that I support the amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Irvine, Amendments Nos. 184A to
1390
184C. I make a plea to the noble and learned Lord that we should get this Bill put back as it was when it left this Chamber.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: I too would like to support this series of amendments. In doing so, I must admit that for personal reasons I was not able to be involved in the previous Bill when it went through this Chamber and so I am coming to this current Bill with a fresh mind, conscious of the controversy which surrounded the withdrawal of the previous Bill.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I cannot see why Clause 36—the clause that requires the court to take account of the fact that the parties involved in cohabiting have not given each other the commitment involved in marriage—has been inserted into this Bill. The Bill concerns the breakdown of marriage. If a commitment in marriage has been given and then broken, that is surely equally bad, if not worse, than if a commitment had not been given in the first place.
Like my noble friend Lady David, I believe that we are now operating in a society with different values. However, though the values may be different, it does not follow that in all cases they are less valid. In circumstances where two people are cohabiting in good faith, and in particular where the woman may have made the same kind of sacrifice as a married woman—for instance, where children are involved she may have given up her job, thus losing her financial independence—I do not see why those two people should be treated any differently from the two parties in a marriage where the marriage has broken down. It follows therefore that I do not accept the proposals in the Bill whereby cohabitees and partners in marriage should be treated differently.
Much has been said in regard to the "harm" factor. Again, when we are looking at the breakdown of a relationship, we must look at the extent of the harm that is done, whether it is in marriage or in cohabitation. In his summary of the Bill the noble and learned Lord said that, even if the court made an order, that order would be confined to a maximum of one year whereas, under marriage, the order may be extended. But if an order is being made, it is far too rigid to say at the outset that that order will he for one year only. The same flexibility should apply in cohabitation as in marriage.
I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will think again about the changes he has made in the Bill and look more favourably on the kind of Bill that he was advocating at the end of last year.
Lord Meston: The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, covered ground which was covered extensively in the course of the consideration of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill during the last Session. So far as the improvements to the existing law are preserved by this Bill, the Committee may have every confidence in them. I simply wish to point out that it is a travesty to suggest that the mere presence in the home of one party to the dissatisfaction of the other party would be a sufficient basis for what is colloquialk known as an "ouster" order. Such an order is now, and

1391
will remain under the new law, a drastic order to be regarded as a matter of last resort by the court. It is inconceivable that the courts will regard it otherwise. Certainly the courts will be astute to look for the sort of unscrupulous misuse of the powers provided by the new law which the noble Lord suggested may arise.
In relation to the remaining alterations to the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill which are brought about in this Bill, I do not wish to repeat the points already made. I have one regret in particular; that is, that the procedures of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 for determining property disputes between cohabitants have not been preserved in this Bill. It was commented by Dr. Eekelaar of Oxford University, in an article in Family Law this month, that,
"It is hard to see how maintaining procedures which benefit only lawyers, even those of the Chancery Bar, help the institution of marriage, but political compromise seldom produces rational results".
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: On Second Reading I ventured to deprecate attempts to amend too violently Part III of the Bill on the ground that it has virtually come through a Jellicoe Committee whose conclusions should be generally accepted. Nevertheless, for reasons that will become clear in a moment, I support the changes proposed by my noble and learned friend.
I turn to the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I have long felt that what history gained, the law lost. It was an astute insight of his at Second Reading—and he repeated it today—that, looking at the law as a whole, cohabitation has now become a status. "Status", in its legal sense, means a condition of belonging to a class of society to which the law ascribes particular rights and duties; capacitors and incapacitors, the capacitors and incapacitors being the more important because, of course, there are many classes of society which enjoy particular rights—for example, the tenant of an agricultural holding. But, in the legal sense, status goes far beyond that. One looks to see that there is a substantial body differentiating that class of society.
The noble Earl was quite right in saying that, as the social security law has developed, though not that alone, cohabitation should now be recognised as a status. English law is not peculiar in that regard. There are a number of systems of law which differentiate between concubinage differentiated from marriage on the one hand and from the denizens of the red light district on the other. Concubinage is a status in those systems, and I am prepared to concede that cohabitation may now become a status under our legal system.
But where I believe the noble Earl has been uncharacteristically ungenerous is in his criticism of those Members in another place who demurred at some aspects of what is now substantially Part III of the Bill. Their fear was that the Bill in its former form would virtually conflate the status of marriage with the status of concubinage. Several of the speeches this evening have gone a very long way down that road. In the end, we have to decide whether we value marriage as a special status or whether we are willing to see it conflated with concubinage, cohabitation or call it what
1392
you will. It is because those changes that my noble and learned friends have made seem to me to differentiate the status of marriage from the status of concubinage that I believe they are to be supported.
The Lord Chancellor: I appreciate that Part III of the Bill is in its essential characteristics very like the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill in the last Session, in which a number of your Lordships played a most important part in the Jellicoe Committee.
I begin by directing my attention to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. He suggested that the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill had been presented as a consolidation measure and put through a procedure which was appropriate for that purpose. Your Lordships know well that the procedure for consolidation is the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. There was no question of that Bill going through any such procedure. It was well appreciated that substantial changes were to be made to the pre-existing law. Your Lordships have only to read my Second Reading speech—for what it is worth—when I introduced the Bill to this House to appreciate that point. If the noble Lord had sat through the discussions in Committee he would have appreciated that even more fully. I believe it is remarkable for it to be claimed that the previous Bill was presented to Parliament as a consolidation Bill. That is not so. Anyone who cares to read the proceedings and the substantial volume of evidence that was received when the Bill was in the Jellicoe Committee will appreciate that.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Hear, hear!
The Lord Chancellor: I am particularly grateful for the support that the noble Viscount has just given. He gave us the great benefit of his expertise as a judge in the detailed consideration of the amendments that were made in the course of our consideration of the procedures that were required in this connection.
The Bill in its previous form was based largely on advice from the Law Commission, but quite substantial changes were made from that. The Bill as proposed by the Law Commission received the support of the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place following a number of hearings. That committee asked that it be introduced into Parliament as quickly as possible. I was not able to do it as quickly as that committee wished. I thought that I had not done too badly. It just shows that one cannot he certain that one has been successful until Royal Assent.
The Committee will know that towards the end of the proceedings in another place on that Bill representations were made to me on the lines described by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale; namely, that the person reading the Bill might be apt to think that the status of marriage and the status of cohabitation were being too closely assimilated. Of course, both the previous Bill and the present one distinguish between these two. But apart altogether from the changes that I have made, there are very substantial distinctions. In particular, if one party is married to another, those parties will have the rights of occupation by virtue of

1393
marriage in the matrimonial home even if they had no other title to occupy that home. That is a right not conferred on cohabitants. That substantial distinction has always been present in this Bill in its various forms and it existed in the law prior to the introduction of this Bill.
It is also important to look at the Bill as previously drafted. To use the references in the present Bill, Clause 31(6)(d) requires the court, in considering what to do in relation to orders of this kind, to consider the nature of the parties' relationship. The clause that I have put in in response to representations made to me, namely Clause 36, simply recognises and emphasises the particular nature of the parties' relationship when they are married. I think that that matter is already implied in paragraph (d) of Clause 31(6). The changes that I had made are intended to make clear, and to get as much consensus on the terms of the Bill as possible, that there are distinctions between those who are married and their rights and those who are not.
I share the regret expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman is not able to be here. He sat very patiently through earlier proceedings in this Committee in the hope that he would be present when this stage was reached. Unfortunately, the detail in which your Lordships considered the earlier provisions meant that we overtook the arrangements for his holiday before we reached this stage in the Bill. As a result of our earlier dletailed consideration, we are therefore without the help of his presence this evening. I am sure we all hope that he will enjoy his well-earned holiday, among other things because of the distinguished way in which he chaired the committee on the previous version of this Bill. Similarly, I much regret that the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, is, by virtue of his health, unable to be with us tonight. I am sure we all hope that he will soon be fully restored to health and will be able to join us at later stages of the Bill.
The amendments to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has spoken affect provisions that I have put in to deal with representations that have been made to me. One's understanding of the parliamentary process is that, while one has one's own views, it is wise to do what one can to accommodate the views of others, in so far as that is consistent with the principles for which one is looking, in order to attain the maximum consensus on the finished product. So far as I am concerned that is what I sought to do in relation to this matter. Therefore, I have no difficulty in accepting that I have moved forward, as it were—perhaps not very far but a little distance—from the position that I personally had reached at the end of our proceedings on the previous Bill.
I do not believe—I may be wrong—that the amendments introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would tie in or be supported by a good number of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. I do not feel that these amendments are related to a substantial part of the contribution that he made. I shall direct myself, at least for the moment, to the amendments which were introduced.
1394
The first amendment, Amendment No. 184. is a restriction in the case of cohabitants who have no entitlement to occupy the property to the overall length of time that they can receive the benefit of an occupation order. There are two distinctions there. It concerns not only a cohabitant but a cohabitant who has no other entitlement to occupy the property. A cohabitant who has an entitlement to occupy the property is not affected by this measure. So it concerns a cohabitant who has no entitlement to occupy the property. I have inserted a limit to the overall length of time. The limit in the Bill is six months, renewable only once. The amendment would allow indefinite renewals at the discretion of the court, which is the position for non-entitled spouses. I believe that an occupation order in favour of a person who is not entitled to occupy the property should essentially be to provide short-term protection for the victim while that person seeks alternative accommodation.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will be able to confirm or correct me, but my understanding of the matter is that the practice is to make those orders on the basis of a three-month period. They are intended as short-term measures to deal with an emergency. Looking at the practice in the light of the concerns expressed, I felt that it would be sufficient to provide a year in order to give the short-term protection for the victim while that victim seeks alternative accommodation to which these provisions are directed.
It is important to recognise that during that time a person who is entitled to occupy the property may be prevented from doing so. So one has to think about the other person who has a right by virtue of something other than these rights; in other words, something in the nature of a contractual or property right in the property. That person may be prevented during that time from occupying the property. In the case of marriage, which has involved the commitment of marriage, I believe that there may be instances in which the court feels that it is just to make a longer order in favour of the non-entitled spouse. But those cases must be left to the discretion of the court.
The second change that I have made in these clauses was to the operation of the balance of harm test. There was specific opposition to the suggestion that the court should be under a duty to grant an occupation order with a restriction or exclusion provision in favour of an unentitled cohabitant. In placing the court under a duty to ask itself the question set out in Clauses 31 and 33 of the Bill, I believe that we have ensured that the question of harm to the parties and to relevant children will he fully considered by the court. However, I have accepted that in this particular situation it would be wrong to fetter the court's discretion to act in the way in which it sees fit having regard to all the circumstances of the case. Therefore, we simply give the court in this situation a discretion to act in the way that it sees fit in the light of all the circumstances.
Finally, notice has been given of the wish that Clause 36 should not stand part of the Bill. The noble Earl dealt with that matter and it might be as well for me to deal with it now. That clause instructs the court. when making an occupation order in favour of the

1395
cohabitant, to have regard to the fact that the parties have not given each other the commitment involved in marriage—I take that to mean the commitment to one another that they are married. They have not done so. They may have given plenty of other commitments but not that particular one because they are, in fact, not committed to marriage.
As I have already outlined, I believe that cohabitation and marriage are different—as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale pointed out—and it is right that the court should consider that when making orders. After all, all I am doing in this clause is to make express what in any event is required because, in the Bill that was approved, the nature of the relationship is something that the court has to consider. I simply point out, in order to make it clear to those who felt that it was not so clear as it might be, that that is the situation and the court has to have regard to that.
However, the specific effect in each individual case is something which I feel is best left to the discretion of the court as each case comes before it. There is no suggestion of the precise consequence of examining this matter that would be involved for the court. All that it has to do is take that into account. What would be the precise effect of taking it into account in any particular case is a matter on which the court itself will make up its mind.
I believe that it is important that we should do our best to secure a Bill which is as acceptable as we can make it to everyone who has taken a sufficient interest in it, subject to the principles that I seek to achieve. Therefore, I hope that the Committee, though I quite understand the concerns expressed about them, may feel, in the interests of securing a Bill which will have so far as I can judge almost universal acceptance, that these changes may be allowed to stay in the Bill.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that very full and careful reply. Before I leave the amendments, perhaps he will forgive me for raising just one point on which I should like to hear a little more. I have not heard—I may have missed the explanation, and, if so, I am sorry—why he decided that he should not use the expedited procedure under the Married Women's Property Act for cohabitants. I should be very grateful to hear that before we leave the matter.
The Lord Chancellor: The reason that I did not mention the point is that I do not feel that it is expressly covered in these amendments. In any case, the answer is simply that the way in which it was expressed in the Bill suggested perhaps an unnecessary equivalence with married women. It uses the Title of the Bill. It is a purely procedural matter. One way of doing it is to express the procedure, which is the procedure of the Married Women's Property Act, without in fact using the name of the Act to describe procedure that would be open in appropriate cases to people who might not be married. It is purely a procedural provision. It is certainly possible to reach that result in a number of other ways without, as it were, by reference incorporating provisions from an Act of Parliament. In
1396
other words, the court itself has plenty of powers to regulate its procedure without the necessity of that express provision.
Originally, I thought that it was a good idea. But, having looked at the matter, I concluded that it was not necessary to do it that way. The consequence of doing it that way was that some, at least, who read the Bill took the meaning from it that I have just suggested. That was an unnecessary confusion. I believe that I have been able to remove that confusion. In due course, the procedures which, in any case, are subject to change, might well be appropriate procedures for those cases and may well be introduced as soon as we can do it.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord and indeed for the whole of that very careful reply. I entirely agree with what he said about the Jellicoe procedures. I was not able to be a Member of that Committee. I have read the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence which indicated that very careful consideration indeed had been given to that Bill.
With regard to the ouster orders, the noble and learned Lord made a very serious case. Anything that I say this evening is, of course, provisional, because I must read very carefully in Hansard what the noble and learned Lord said. But if I understood him correctly, he said that the discrimination between the married person and the cohabitee was not on any moral ground but because there was a difficulty in establishing any title to the house in those particular cases and that he was allowing marriage to create a presumption which was not being given to cohabitees simply because the situation was clear. If that is a fair paraphrase of what the noble and learned Lord said, although I would not necessarily have written the Bill that way myself, I can understand why he did it and I take that argument seriously.
The question of the Married Women's Property Act and Clause 36 raises the issue of equivalence. Here I think that there is a deeper disagreement between us. I entirely understand that it is proper for anyone in a ministerial position to give way to representations that are made—after all, I am asking the noble and learned Lord to do that, so I can hardly say that it is improper that he should do so—but I ask him to bear in mind that on this matter he is receiving pressure from both sides and therefore has a certain degree of discretion about to which side he gives way, on which points, in which ways and on what principles.
Of course, I accept what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said and that marriage and cohabitation are not the same thing. I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his recognition that cohabitation is becoming, or has become, a status in law. However, if one is to distinguish between them, a further question arises of whether the distinction should he made in matters concerning the Queen's peace and protection from physical violence. I might have a good deal less objection to a distinction being made in, for example, testamentary dispositions. My argument in this case is that the duty of protecting people's physical safety is a

1397
higher duty than that of having recognition of any particular form of legal status. In fact, it is a matter of priorities.
We shall have to discuss this matter further—probably outside the Chamber as well as within it. Meanwhile, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor very warmly for the care that he has taken and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [One cohabitant or former cohabitant with no existing right to occupy]:
9 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 184A:
Page 22, leave out line 24.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 184A, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 184B and 184C which also stand in my name. All have a common purpose, which is to protect the victims of violence.
Before explaining the purpose of the amendments, I desire to make a number of observations of a more general character. This is a time, even as late at night as this, for some straight talking. An important issue is at stake in relation to these domestic violence provisions which transcends the particular provisions. It is how to secure that appropriate Law Commission Bills are put through our Jellicoe procedure, a fast-track procedure, with all-party agreement and with all the salutary co-operation—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that the noble Lord will cast a benevolent eye on the schedules that we discussed last week which were based on Law Commission Bills.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: Law Commission Bills naturally find their proper place in legislation which is brought before your Lordships' House and the other place. However, I have to say that the noble and learned Lord's propositions, which may have had a great deal of merit, did not find a natural place in this Bill.
My point is this: an important issue is at stake when we are seeking to use our fast-track procedure, the Jellicoe procedure, with all-party agreement and with all the salutary co-operation that that involves between the parties. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will confirm that that co-operation extends to smoothing the passage of such Bills through the other place which is perhaps a rather more political place, perhaps I should say a rather more "partisan" place, than this House. That co-operation is put at risk for the future when the Government allow an agreement between the parties, reflecting not a party agreement but the actual agreement of the overwhelming majority of all the relevant parties in both Houses, to be blown off course by an irrational reaction on the part of a tiny unrepresentative minority of the governing party in the other place. In this case, it was a tiny and unrepresentative minority which was trying to claim a spurious moral high ground for party political reasons.
1398
If that kind of unrepresentative minority is yielded to, I have to say that that is the way to imperil the making of agreements which will allow such Bills to go through the Jellicoe procedure in the future. Assuaging uninformed minorities does not facilitate all-party agreements which alone can be the foundation for utilising the Jellicoe procedure in the future.
My three amendments are designed to restore the full force of the previous Bill, before concessions were made to appease the uninformed minority in the other place. I can only suppose that the attitude of that uninformed minority was based upon what a tabloid newspaper, the Daily Mail, claimed about the Bill and not on what the noble and learned Lord's Bill provided. That minority obviously thought, because that is what they said, that the Bill for the first time would afford legal protection to mistresses and somehow, as a result, undermine the institution of marriage. Quite how a freedom to be violent to one's partner upholds the institution of marriage remains unexplained.
Anyway, that uninformed minority was 20 years out of date. The Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976, as the noble and learned Lord is well aware, gave protection both to spouses and to unmarried partners against domestic violence. That protection was underpinned by a power in the court to make an ouster order against the violent party.
In fact, that power is used very rarely by the judges up and down the country, but the existence of the power, and the threat of its use, is a potent weapon in the hands of the courts to calm the domestic scene, to make it plain that our courts will not tolerate domestic hooliganism. That hooliganism damages victims, inflicts misery on children, and, if unpunished, feeds in the perpetrators an appetite for further violence.
Before I move the amendment, it may be of interest to the Committee to know how the law at present works in practice. A partner complains of molestation and the court is asked to consider the complaint. The usual upshot of the first court hearing before the district judge in the county court will be an adjournment of the application on the basis that each party will give undertakings not to molest the other in the future, usually without an admission of any previous molestation.
In the great majority of cases that is the end of the matter, but in a small number of cases the parties come before the court again, breaches of undertaking arc alleged and, once established, the court will impose an injunction against violence. If that is disobeyed, then the court will either make an ouster order if co-habitation is continuing or, if the violent partner has already left, the court could commit to prison. In practice, the court will usually suspend the order on condition of future good behaviour. It is only when all those remedies have been tried and failed that the violent partner is at risk of imprisonment.
I take a minute or two to say that so as to make what is my point, which is to call attention to the fact that great latitude is already given to the persistent aggressor. From these Benches we see no reason why those aggressors should be indulged further.

1399
Amendments Nos. 184A and 184B are designed to restore the Bill to its original form, with which the noble and learned Lord previously agreed, in one very important respect: to restore the balance of harm test in all cases. Under Clause 28(7) the test for making an ouster order in favour of a partner with a right of occupation against a partner without any such right—for example, against a partner with no legal interest in the property—is to make the order if the order will protect the applicant or a child from significant harm, but not to make that order if as great or greater harm will be caused to the other partner or a child from the making of the order. That is what called the balance of harm test, to which the noble and learned Lord has already referred. What it requires is for the court to make a detailed appraisal of the consequences of making or abstaining from making the order.
Neither the Law Commission nor this place in its previous deliberations suggested that there was anything wrong with the balance of harm test or that it should not equally be applicable in cases where the victim of violence had no strict legal right to occupy the property.
The new provisions in Clause 31(8) draw a distinction between orders made in favour of those with an entitlement to occupy and orders made in favour of those with no such entitlement. Thus, the balance-of-harm test, if satisfied, must result in orders in favour of those with rights in the property. But even if the balance-of-harm test is satisfied in favour of those without any legal rights in the property, the matter is purely within the discretion of the court.
Under the Law Commission's proposals, if the court were of the view that the balance-of-harm test was satisfied, the court had to make an order in favour of the non-entitled applicant—that is, if more harm would be caused to that applicant or any child than would he caused by not making the order.
Despite what the noble and learned Lord said in his response to the previous amendment, the plain fact is that the test for non-entitled applicants is being deliberately changed to their disadvantage. The courts will be bound to give effect to the different test in their case and to hold that they have a discretion to withhold protection from a non-entitled partner, even though the balance-of-harm test is satisfied.
That severely weakens protection for the abused because it consigns those already vulnerable, because they lack property rights, to a second-class protection. It cannot be said—and I ask the noble and learned Lord to declare whether he says—that the two different tests will make no difference in practice. If that is what is to be said, why make the difference? The purpose of Amendments Nos. 184A and 184B is to give a quality of court protection for all victims of domestic violence.
Amendment No. 184C deals with a related but distinct subject. It is aimed at restoring the provisions in the previous Bill which here too have been altered as a sop to the objectors but in a way that I say opens up the dangerous gap in the protection that the court may confer on victims of domestic violence. The previous provisions gave the flexibility of renewing protection for
1400
as long as was necessary—I repeat, as long as was necessary. Of course the court would need to be satisfied that the continuance of its ouster order was necessary to protect the victim and any children. Typically, the court might make an ouster order for, say, three months. The reasoning would be that in a domestic crisis parties need time to reflect on and to take steps to deal with their situation. If for good reason the three months were not enough, under the old provisions—the provisions which first appealed to the noble and learned Lord—the court had the flexibility to continue its protection as long as it was needed.
Ouster orders in favour of non-owners may be for six months only with the possibility of one further extension of six months but no further extension whatever the circumstances. It may be that in many cases 12 months would be adequate; but I say that in this sensitive jurisdiction, where the facts of every case vary so infinitely, it is unhelpful to tie the court's hands to arbitrary time limits. The judges should be trusted.
I have no doubt that cases will arise in which acute difficulty will be found in rehousing the abused party or where the couple may be elderly, ill or even terminally ill. If alternative accommodation does not become available to the abused partner within the 12 months under the Bill in its present form, the court is literally powerless to prevent that individual being turned out on the street.
I dare say that there can be sops to the uninformed which may not much matter in practice, but I have to say that this one does matter: it is repugnant to justice. Those who are in favour of the changes as regards the previous provisions—as the noble and learned Lord recommended them and, indeed, believed in them—which are brought about, so we are told, to strengthen the family, have a duty to explain how that object can conceivably be arrived at by insisting on this gap in the court's protective powers. I suggest that that gap would leave the abused, and the uniquely vulnerable, homeless. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: While I agree with everything just said by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, about the benefit of the proposed amendments, I would question his description of the Jellicoe procedure as providing a fast track. The perception of those of us who served on the Committee on the previous Bill must be that it was a rather slower track than might have been afforded by the normal procedures of this Chamber. It enabled the predecessor to Part III of the Bill to have detailed consideration, the Bill itself being the product of a Law Commission report which, in turn, was the result of detailed consultation. The impression that one gained was that the Jellicoe procedure in this Bill, as with previous Bills, was in fact to enable the fast track to operate not in this Chamber but in another place.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I may begin with the notion of a "fast track". It is apt to be misleading, especially to those who have not engaged in the procedure for themselves. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, far from being a fast track, it is a track on which a much more detailed examination of the

1401
technicalities of the proposal are possible than would be the case under the normal procedures which apply in this Chamber.
As regards the other place, my understanding—and I speak subject to correction by those who know more about another place than I do from personal experience, as I never had the privilege of such experience—is that the procedure was by a Second Reading Committee. The amount of discussion that one can have there depends on the nature of the subject matter. Moreover, so far as concerns the Standing Committee procedure, that also permitted the discussion of a number of matters. The ultimate procedures were the same. It is a question of whether matters are dealt with on the Floor of the House on Second Reading or otherwise; but it is not necessarily the case that one procedure produces a result more quickly than the other. Indeed, the Bill that we considered last Session failed ultimately to reach the statute book. Therefore it would perhaps be inadequate to describe it as a fast track procedure to the statute book.
I believe that there are some problems as regards the amendments as currently drafted. For example, the proposed subsection outlined in Amendment No. 184B refers to subsection (4) and not subsection (5) of the clause. That means that it would apply only where the applicant was not in occupation. I do not think that that can be the intention. I shall speak about the principle of these matters. First of all, the changes that I made apply only to non-entitled cohabitants; they do not apply to non-entitled spouses, for the obvious reason that the situation is different.
I should make it plain that, under this Bill as now drafted, the court must, before deciding whether to make an exclusion or restriction provision, consider the balance of harm that will be caused to the parties and to any relevant children. It is only in relation to that matter that this point arises. I believe that the intention is to replace these questions with a balance of harm test similar to the one in Clause 30, which places the court under a duty to make such a provision if it is satisfied that the significant harm to the applicant or relevant child if the order is not made will be as great or greater than the significant harm to the respondent or relevant child if the order is made. I should point out that I believe the amendment has, as I said, a question in it as regards whether it applies only if the cohabitant was not in occupation. That is something that the noble Lord may wish to consider.
I believe that, in placing on the court a duty to ask itself the question set out in Clause 31 of the Bill, we have ensured that the question of harm to the parties and to relevant children will be fully considered by the court. The change I have made is to accept that it would be wrong in the particular circumstances of a non-entitled cohabitant, against a person who has rights in the house, to fetter the court's discretion to act in the way it sees fit having had regard to all the circumstances of the case. I am not saying that that would always result in precisely the same result as if the court had a duty to do that—an obligation on a court would he different. However, I am saying that, in the special circumstances to which these provisions apply, it is right that the court
1402
should have a discretion. I accepted representations made to me by those who are elected representatives of constituents in the other place who had considered these matters and raised them with me. I believe that the balance that we have in this provision, and in the circumstances to which it applies, is right.
Amendment No. 184C—the last one to which the noble Lord spoke—seeks to change the period for which an occupation order can be made in favour of a non-entitled cohabitant or ex-cohabitant under Clause 31. Clause 31 as currently drafted provides that an occupation order can be made for a maximum period of six months and that this period can be renewed once. As I have already discussed, this contrasts with a situation for an ex-spouse, where the order may be renewed for an indefinite number of times at the discretion of the court. Instead of treating non-entitled cohabitants in the same way as non-entitled ex-spouses, they are treated in the same way as applicants who have a right to occupy the property by virtue of a beneficial estate or interest, or by virtue of matrimonial home rights. I believe—this was the situation under the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill—that an occupation order for an entitled occupant can serve a different purpose than for a non-entitled occupant. With the former it might be the case that the occupation of the home requires regulation in the longer term. Therefore I believe that the length of orders is best left to the discretion of the court.
In the case of the second group, the primary purpose—I think the authorities demonstrate this—is to provide the applicant with a short-term protection and accommodation while suitable alternative accommodation is sought. That is on the basis that the applicant is without any other rights in the home and that the other party is the person who has the rights. It must be remembered that it is a serious step to remove someone who would otherwise be entitled to occupy the home for the benefit of someone who would not he so entitled. I therefore think it appropriate that such an order should be finite and subject to review in the way this clause presently proposes. I think it is right that as a Bill goes through Parliament representations are considered, and in so far as those representations may make improvements on the balance and presentation of the Bill, they should be accepted. It is on this basis that I invite the Committee to go along with the Bill as it is now drafted.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am bound to say that the noble and learned Lord's observations about the fast track procedure were, I respectfully suggest, of a debating nature and not substantial. In using the expression "fast track" I was not seeking to diminish the quality of the Jellicoe procedures; far from it. The Jellicoe procedures involve the taking of expert evidence and the consideration of it, and can be regarded, therefore, in many senses as superior to the procedures which in the ordinary way of debate we follow on the Floor of the House.
First, "fast track" is used in the sense that it is a different track—a track which is a means of avoiding the allocation of what is scarce prime time for business

1403
on the Floor of the House. By means of this salutary Jellicoe procedure, we can get legislation through which we might not have been able to do otherwise.
Secondly, the procedure is appropriate for legislation which is free of the party political disputation that attends Bills taken on the Floor. Therefore I did not use "fast track" in the sense of any inferior legislative procedure. I used it in the sense of a beneficial and different procedure by which urgent, important legislation could be got through for which otherwise time would not be found.
The Lord Chancellor: I entirely accept what the noble Lord has just said. However, not everyone is as well informed about our procedures as the noble Lord. I think it is important that it is understood that although between us we speak of it as a fast track, it is in fact a different track from the normal but a track which permits very detailed consideration of these matters, as the noble Lord said. I believe I am right in saying that the phrase was used earlier in our debates (although not by the noble Lord) in a way which at least gave me the impression that it was considered as some speedy procedure under which full consideration was not available.
I know that the noble Lord understands full well what the procedure is, having sat through one such procedure himself at quite considerable length.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I simply had the fear that it might be misunderstood both in your Lordships' House and elsewhere that by using the expression "fast track" I was in some sense suggesting that the Jellicoe procedures were speedy and therefore inferior to the procedures that apply on the Floor of the House.
I used the word "fast" in the sense that the procedures secured a more prompt passage of a Bill than would otherwise be the case, because it was a law reform Bill. As experience commonly shows, time is not found available in a complicated and burdened legislative programme for what is regarded as pure law reform.
On the questions of detail which the noble and learned Lord raised in relation to my amendments, I shall certainly read? Hansard with care and consider what he says. We may have to revisit the matter on Report. My anxiety is that we have received no signal whatever that the noble and learned Lord was at all willing to meet us on the points that we make. I hope that that is not so.
I have difficulty in accepting that the noble and learned Lord really thinks that the alterations to the provisions in the previous Bill, now incorporated into this one, are improvements. If he thought that the new provisions which he has brought forward are right, why did he not propose them in the first place? I have difficulty in accepting the proposition that he is persuaded by the arguments of the sources from which the initiative for the changes emanated. However, I have a clear appreciation that the noble and learned Lord is constrained to say certain things, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
1404
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 184B and 184C not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Neither spouse entitled to occupy]:
[Amendment No. 185 not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Neither cohabitant or former cohabitant entitled to occupy]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 24, line 13, after ("parties;") insert—
("( ) the likely effect of any order, or of any decision by the court not to exercise its powers under subsection (3), on the health, safety or well-being of the parties and of any relevant child;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Meaning of "cohabitants", "relevant child" and "associated persons"]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 34, line 43, leave out ("(I)(f") and insert ("(3)(f)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57 [Interpretation of Part III]:
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. I 87A:
Page 35, line 26, leave out ("in relation to a child").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to draw attention to what I hope is a sensible question in relation to the drafting part of the Bill on which I desire the assistance of the noble and learned Lord. My basic objective is to ensure that victims are protected against all aspects of domestic harassment.
A distinction is drawn in the interpretation clause between the harm which must be established as having been suffered by an adult partner and that suffered by a child. Perhaps Members of the Committee would turn to page 35, lines 19 to 24. In the cases of both an adult and a child "harm" means "ill-treatment". However, a few lines further down the page, "ill-treatment" does not mean the same for both. In the case of a child "ill-treatment" means,
"forms of ill-treatment which are not physical",
but not so in the case of an adult. The issue that I desire to put before the Committee, and on which I invite the assistance of the noble and learned Lord, is that it appears that non-physical ill-treatment does not qualify as "harm" in the case of adults.
If I am right in that interpretation, surely the Bill has to be wrong. Why should a partner be entitled to switch off the central heating, leave on the lights all night, send hate mail or, as in one case about which I was told, keep revving up the motor car in the driveway all night to rob his partner of sleep. Another fairly typical type of harassment, sadly, is stalking one's partner, or making nuisance, or abusive phone calls to the partner's place of work.
If I am right in my reading of this interpretation clause—and I shall be happy to be told that I am wrong—I find it hard to understand why it is that non-physical ill-treatment is automatically excluded from the court's protection for adults but not for children. That exclusion does not foster good family relations or good family life. On the contrary, if I am right about it, it will be seen as signalling a parliamentary lack of concern for the plight of those who are subjected to any of the many forms of mental torture that human beings, sadly, from time to time devise for one another. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The effect of this amendment is to define "ill-treatment" in Part III of the Bill in relation to adults. Currently a definition is given only in respect of children. It was suggested by the noble Lord that a possible construction of the clause as drafted would be to exclude ill-treatment that was not physical from the definition in relation to adults, and in that respect would afford less protection than the current law.
I do not accept that that is the case. We made the decision to define "ill-treatment" in relation to children specifically because of the question of sexual abuse. I wanted to put beyond doubt the fact that sexual abuse was ill-treatment. Sexual abuse is widely understood in relation to children. It can include any form of sexual contact. That is of course not the case with adults. It could also include non-physical abuse at times; for example, adults exposing themselves to children could be abuse. The decision not to define "ill-treatment" generally was made because there are many things that could constitute ill-treatment. To attempt to define them could result in an unnecessary and unwarranted fetter on the court's discretion. What will be ill-treatment will vary from case to case, but it is not my intention that some form of physical ill-treatment should be a pre-requisite. I hope that approach commends itself to the noble Lord.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I shall read with care the brief answer which the noble and learned Lord has given. It appears to me, leaving aside the words "includes sexual abuse" in the definition of ill-treatment in relation to a child, that the Bill, on its proper construction, includes, other than sexual abuse, forms of ill-treatment which are not physical. If that is expressly ill-treatment for a child, but not for an adult, it appears to me that forms of ill-treatment which are not physical would be held by a court not to qualify as ill-treatment in relation to an adult.
If that is not the noble and learned Lord's intention, for the life of me I cannot see why he is unwilling to yield on that point. At the very lowest he must regard that as an ambiguity because of the contrast in treatment of adults and children, and make it plain. I invite him to reflect on that. Meanwhile, in the spirit of this Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
1406
Clause 58 [Rules, regulations and orders]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 188:
Page 36, line 36, after ("under") insert ("section 4(5) and").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendment No. 189, the two being linked. We are concerned with parliamentary control of subordinate legislation. Clause 58(3) proposes that all statutory instruments, rules and regulations under this Bill shall be subject to the negative procedure only. I am very glad that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has put his name to this amendment because I very much_prefer marching shoulder to shoulder with him rather than be at horns locked.
We propose that orders made under Clause 4(5) shall be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, in. its first report of this year, accepted the negative procedure as appropriate generally, but signalled an exception in its significant way to orders under Clause 4(5). Rather than take the Committee right through Clause 4, and the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee having put the matter so succinctly, I shall read what it says:
"Clause 4(3)(b) imposes a time limit on applications for a divorce or separation order. The time limit is six months from the earliest time when an application for a divorce order could have been made by reference to the statement on marital breakdown. Clause 4(5) allows the Lord Chancellor to amend Clause 4(3)(b) by varying the time limit, and Clause 58 provides for this to be done by negative procedure. Clearly this is a Henry VIII provision and"—
This is in bold type—
"the Committee will wish to consider whether this provision is so important to the scheme of the Bill that affirmative resolution procedure is required."
That is what the Scrutiny Committee had to say.
The reason for the time limit, as I understand from the debates we had on Clause 4, is, on the one hand, that there should be enough time for the parties thoroughly to consider their position, including, we think, time for reconciliation. On the other hand, stale statements, possibly quite outdated, should not he left hanging over the proceedings to the detriment of the parties and their children. When we debated this matter, different periods were suggested and argued over. I am not going to read the whole debate. What it amounts to is that the Bill proposed six months, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, proposed 12 months and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, proposed 18 months.
I think my noble and learned friend, reviewing these three contentions, thought that probably there was much to be said for 12 months, and he said he would consider an amendment on those lines to he brought forward by him on Report. It is a matter of considerable importance and your Lordships may well think that it should be on the face of the Bill that Clause 4(5) gives a Henry VIII power to alter that figure in the light of experience. In my submission, if it is not to be'primary legislation, it should clearly he under the affirmative procedure. Your Lordships know well the advantages of that affirmative over negative procedure: principally that the Minister comes forward himself and lets Parliament know what are his reasons for making the order. There is also the

1407
serious question in another place that negative orders are often not reached, and I imagine that would be worse under the Jopling proposals which are now in force. I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor went a long way to meet that view.
In relation to the three periods which are to go on the face of the Bill, my noble and learned friend said that it was suggested that that should be done by an instrument in a slightly different form from the one that he proposed. I take it that the one which my noble and learned friend proposed is the form in the Bill; in other words, the negative procedure. By "a slightly different form" I hope that he meant the affirmative procedure. At any rate, being perennially optimistic, it is in that spirit that I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I want to say only that I am happy to support Amendment No. 188. I share the pleasure of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that on this occasion we are on the same side. The point he made about the difficulty of reaching negative instruments in another place is a serious one, especially if it is only my party which wishes to challenge them.
The Lord Chancellor: It gives me considerable pleasure on this occasion to find myself marching also in the same direction as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I tried to hint at that in the passage he summarised; I make it express now. I agree with his amendment in principle and shall bring forward an amendment on Report to give effect to it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: There is nothing to be said to that except to offer an expression of profound gratitude. I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 189 not moved.]
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 189A:
Page 37, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) Part I of this Act, other than section 8 and paragraph (b) of section 2(1), shall come into force on 1st January 1997.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 189A seeks to probe a little further as to why my noble and learned friend feels that the substantive changes to the law of divorce should be deferred until the completion of the pilot projects and also as to when he considers the pilot projects will be completed. Its effect would be to provide that, with the exception of the information-providing sessions, the substantive reform of the divorce law—that is to say, the statement of marital breakdown, the year for reflection and consideration and the completion of the arrangements for the future before the making of the divorce order—shall be brought into effect before completion of the pilot projects.
At Second Reading, I asked my noble and learned friend a question in these terms:
1408
"I wonder whether my noble and learned friend has decided, and can tell the House, when he anticipates that the provisions for no-fault divorce and the year for reflection which are central to the Bill will be brought into force. Will it be one year, two years or three years?"—[Official Report, 30/11/95; col. 724.]
My noble and learned friend kindly replied to me by letter on 19th December, as follows,
"You referred to the pilot study which I plan to set up to monitor and test the new proposals before full implementation. I consider this necessary because some aspects of the proposals are untried in this country, such as the information sessions, and a number of options are possible for delivery of mediation services. The pilot study will also enable the Legal Aid Board to develop and test standards of quality assurance and monitoring of these. We are still at a very early stage of planning for all aspects of the pilot study. It is therefore not possible at this stage for me to give you any indication of when I would envisage the new proposals coming into force".
I turn to the debate initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, on 22nd January of this year. That debate related specifically to the information sessions. On that day, at col. 832, the noble and learned Lord asked my noble and learned friend whether the operation of the Bill was to be postponed until the pilot schemes had operated and the results were known. At col. 837 my noble and learned friend replied:
"My present view is that the Bill, with its new provisions, should not come into force until the pilots are concluded. Obviously I am open to persuasion as the Bill proceeds, but the information session is so fundamental to the whole idea that it is wise to have it in place, with the proper regulations, before the grounds of divorce set out in the Bill become effective law."
Later, at col. 839, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, expressed relief to hear that at that moment it was not my noble and learned friend's view that the Bill should be brought into full force before the completion of the pilot schemes. He asked my noble and learned friend how long that was likely to be. In the same column, the reply of my noble and learned friend was:
"I believe that something in the order of two years is reasonable for testing out the information-giving methods which we wish to use.
My noble and learned friend did not reply as to the completion of the pilot project on the provision of mediation services. Perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend whether he now has any better advice as to when he expects to complete the full pilot project process. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, drew attention to the fact that,
"As a lawyer—and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will understand my thinking—I am always reluctant to legislate by having a statute in limbo for too long a period of time."
In the best of all possible worlds one would wish to have the information-providing service and the full mediation provisions in the Bill before it was implemented. But in this case we are dealing with the replacement of what is, we are all agreed, bad law with what is, we are all agreed, better law. In those circumstances, I should have thought that there was a strong case for bringing the substantive changes into effect sooner rather than later, not letting them hang in limbo. I believe that the completion of the pilot project would be more easily and satisfactorily effected if the new law were in force, especially in regard to mediation. It might be very

1409
difficult to do justice to the mediation services in the pilot project in the context of the existing quickie divorces. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, produces an argument which at first is extremely seductive. He says that good law is to replace bad law and therefore it should be introduced as soon as possible. That argument must have force. On the other hand, I do not believe we always realise how much work is involved in the introduction of a major Bill. I refer to the amount of reorganisation, redeployment, testing and consideration of cases which must take place. I and my noble and honourable friends spend a great deal of time calling for the Government to take a little longer over the implementation of projects. In the light of that, I believe that I should be guilty of inconsistency if I supported this amendment, though I see its attractions.
The noble and learned Lord knows that, though I am sympathetic to many of the basic principles of the Bill, I have anxieties about the process of mediation, which will be engaged in very sensitive areas and will need to he done very carefully. The fact that he has provided these pilot studies goes a long way to alleviate that anxiety. I am very glad that he has done it and rather hope that he will not change it.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Let me first apologise to the Committee because I was not in my place at the outset of these debates. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, said, that I was in two minds about this matter in the earlier debate. On the one hand, I was relieved to hear that it was not proposed to implement the provisions of the Bill until the pilot schemes had been completed. On the other hand, I expressed some hesitation about the idea of a statute operating in limbo. I must say that I am persuaded by the argument just enunciated by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. This is an important matter and it is important to get it right before it is let loose on the public.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, a few moments ago that it might, in a sense, be easier to carry out one of the pilot schemes if there were a substantive law in place on which it could bite. But it seems to me that, on balance, that might be a dangerous way of doing it. To have a substantive law in place and try to make it work before it has been possible to see the results of the scheme and assess them on the whole might endanger the whole scheme and bring the law into disrepute. So, for what it is worth, I take the view that, on balance, it would be better not to implement the substantive law until the pilot schemes have been assessed.
The Lord Chancellor: This is an important question. I am certainly entirely in favour of bringing this legislation, assuming that it reaches the statute book, into force as soon as reasonably possible. But it is important to make the necessary preparations. My experience in relation to the Children Act confirms that that is a good viewpoint. The Children Act was on the statute book for something like two years before it was
1410
implemented. That period was not spent in idleness, as those noble Lords who work in this field know. We did a lot of work. Various departments—the Department of Health, my department and the Judicial Studies Board, as well as local authorities and so on—had to engage in detailed preparation. The Act was all the better for that detailed preparation in its ultimate working.
I regard it as vitally important that the information session should be in place and working. The interval between getting the information and starting the divorce process is an integral part of what I should like to see. I want to be as sure as I can that the arrangements for information sessions are as good as we can make them before I have brought into effect the substantive provisions.
The mediation provisions are somewhat different in the sense that, as my noble friend said, it is much easier to envisage mediation against the background of the new law than against the background of the present law. That is an important point. On the other hand, I want to be sure that mediation provisions are reasonably well in place. On the best view that I can take at the moment of what is likely to happen, the kind of estimate that I gave in answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, is the best that I can give. My noble friend can be assured that I would wish to bring the statute into operation as soon as is reasonably possible. But I believe that at least the information sessions and a good deal of the arrangements in relation to mediation should be in position before that happens, for the reasons that I sought to explain.
Lord Coleraine: I understand that my noble and learned friend intends his reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, to apply to the whole project and not just to the information-providing session. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for the clarity with which he has answered my amendment and to other noble Lords who have spoken. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 60 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I wanted to ask my noble and learned friend to say a word about the relationship of this Bill to Scotland. As I read it, the Bill applies to Scotland only in a very minor respect. In effect, therefore, unless Scottish law is altered to bring it into line with this Bill, there will be great differences in the jurisdictions. That sort of difference of matrimonial jurisdiction can be highly inconvenient, particularly when there is only a border separating the two legal systems. It leads immediately to forum shopping—in other words, to trying to acquire the best jurisdiction and the best form of suit for one's case. That is particularly a danger with this Bill because Clause 16(2)(6) allows one party, who will almost always he the party seeking the divorce, to acquire a jurisdiction for the purpose of this Bill by one year's habitual residence in England or Wales before the statement is filed. Therefore, nothing is easier than forum shopping under this Bill in relation to Scotland.

1411
The 1969 Bill was not extended to Scotland because the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. William Ross, who later became a Member of your Lordships' House, would not have it at any price. He was in a minority in his Cabinet in being far from enamoured of the permissive society. That is why the Bill was not extended to Scotland. The 1969 Act was in effect extended subsequently, during the 1970s, by a Private Member's Bill, so it is now the law in Scotland as it is in England—and a highly unsatisfactory law it is, as the White Paper has shown.
Apart from that background, with which I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend could deal, I wonder whether he can specifically answer whether a system of quickie divorce obtains in Scotland. In this country it was the creation of the Lord Chancellor's Department and if that system obtains in Scotland, I imagine that it is by rules of court. If I am wrong, perhaps my noble and learned friend, with his vast knowledge, will correct me.
Apart from the question of the quickie divorce, which would be a reason, I suppose, for extending the Bill to Scotland as rapidly as possible along with all the other defects of the 1969 jurisdiction as set out in Chapter 2 of the White Paper, I should have thought that there is every reason why this Bill should extend to Scotland or why there should alternatively be a Scottish counterpart.
10.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: As my noble and learned friend has explained, the Scottish divorce law has in recent times depended upon different provisions from those in England, although at present the statutory provisions are very similar. The history of the divorce law of Scotland and that of England and Wales has not been the same over the centuries. The way in which the law is used in Scotland is different; for example, a much smaller proportion of cases is based upon fault Scotland than in England and Wales.
Procedures in Scotland are somewhat different from those in England and Wales, but the essential difference between a fault-based divorce and a divorce that is not based on fault in relation to the times that one has to wait is reflected in the law of Scotland. The Bill is brought forward on the basis of consultation in the English jurisdiction. It is true of course that there are provisions for jurisdiction in Clause 16, which are the normal ones for this type of statute.
It may well be that in due course the Scottish people will wish to have a law along these lines or a different law. The two have not, as I said, marched together. I have no proposal to extend the Bill to Scotland. My responsibilities at the moment, as it happens, are in relation to England and Wales. There were minor matters with which my noble and learned friend was not concerned, but on the main subject matter it is not proposed to extend the Bill to Scotland. It will be for
1412
those concerned with the Scottish jurisdiction to consider in due course whether they want to follow along these lines.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend. Would he care to say something about the quickie divorce in Scotland?
The Lord Chancellor: I have sought to say that fault-based divorce is not used in Scotland in anything like the proportions in which it is used here. The procedures are somewhat different in Scotland, but they admit of a divorce being granted earlier on the fault base than on the non-fault base.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Arrangements for the Future]: [Amendment No. 190 not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 38, line 16, leave out ("obtaining the information which it requires to determine") and insert ("making an order in respect or).
The noble Lord said: Schedule 1 contains the exemptions to the requirements in Clause 9 to have finalised the financial arrangements before a divorce order or a separation order. The first exemption depends upon a number of conditions being met. Under paragraph 1(b) the applicant must show that he or she has:
"taken such steps as are reasonably practicable to try to reach agreement about the parties' financial arrangements".
Questions have been raised as to whether that will require disclosure of privileged correspondence to the court, which may preclude the same judge from dealing with the final financial hearing, if there is to be one.
Under paragraph 1(c)(i) the applicant must also show that the other party has been obstructive, or under paragraph 1(c)(ii):
"for reasons which are beyond the control of the applicant, or of the other party, the court has been prevented from obtaining the information which it requires to determine the financial position of the parties".
It is not clear what paragraph 1(c)(ii) is aiming at. It seems to envisage a situation when neither party is at fault, but somehow the court has been prevented from obtaining necessary information. One can imagine situations where the applicant, or indeed the respondent, is prevented from obtaining information by the other spouse or by some uncooperative third party, but it is less easy to see what might prevent the court. I also question why the exemption is limited to the obtaining of information. Would it not he better to provide for any circumstance which would prevent the court from making an order? I give as an example lack of available court time to deal with the case within the period of one year provided under the Bill.
These provisions are potentially of considerable importance. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, referred to forum shopping as between England and Scotland. Questions of broader international forum shopping need to be considered. Upon the progress of the divorce may well hinge the power to make financial provision. If a spouse is able to obtain a quicker divorce abroad, while under the English procedure at least one

1413
year must elapse, the inevitable consequence will be that without some amendment the English court will he disabled from dealing with the financial ramifications of the marriage breakdown. Other jurisdictions may be less willing to grant the equivalent of a stay if they learn that divorce in this country will take at least one year.
I do not seek to expedite the procedure whereby a year is required but it seems to me that these questions need to be addressed. Meanwhile, the purpose of this amendment is to probe a little further the thinking behind the first exemption in Schedule 1. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: In addition to supporting the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Meston, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 193 which stands in my name and is grouped with his amendment. It adds one more to the list of exemptions to the requirements under Clause 9. It adds the exemption:
"where there is continuing violence, to the applicant, other party or child of the family".
Those are circumstances in which continued negotiation may be extremely difficult and sometimes unsafe. It is a principle on which I have already touched, Ihat the physical safety of the parties should come first. if am sure that the noble and learned Lord will understand that sometimes it is crucial that women who are escaping continuing domestic violence should be in a place where their former partners cannot find them. Of course, if one is continually corresponding through a lawyer it is very difficult to keep one's whereabouts literally and strictly secret. If the exemption were not granted there could be a threat to the safety of the parties as a result.
Some time ago the noble and learned Lord kindly gave me a meeting on these issues. I hope that I shall receive a sympathetic response tonight. If he indicates that the amendment is not the most appropriate way of pursuing the matter, that is something to which I would listen. In the meantime, I do not beg to move any more than did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, but I hope that the amendment will be considered with this group.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I may speak to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It deals with the situation in which an application has been made to the court under Schedule 1(c), which is where the amendment takes effect. The paragraph reads:
"the applicant has made an application to the court for financial relief and has complied with all requirements of the court … but",
the court is unable to make the order for lack of information.
The effect of the amendment would be to widen the scope of the exemption so that it will apply in all cases where a court is prevented from making an order in respect of the financial position of the parties for reasons beyond the control of the applicant, not simply where information is not available to the court. That part of Schedule I was intended to provide for specific circumstances whereby a party was unable to put before the court sufficient information to enable a decision to be made about financial matters. For example, that may occur where there is outstanding separate litigation
1414
relating to the ownership of land or, indeed, to personal injury damages. The total amount of the asset in question might he difficult to assess. Such matters would affect the assessment of the total value of the parties' assets, so a final decision for a division of assets may take some years.
I am very wary of extending the scope of the exemption provisions of Schedule I because, as I tried to explain earlier, they are fairly fundamental to my view that it is essential that parties face up to the responsibilities of the marriage before a divorce is granted. That is the explanation for the provisions. I do not believe that it is necessary to make such provision wider in the way suggested by the noble Lord.
So far as concerns forum shopping, one cannot completely obliterate that unless one makes provisions in this Bill which are the same as those in every other jurisdiction; but, as they are not all the same, it would be quite difficult to do so. Therefore, some element of forum shopping cannot be completely ruled out. Nevertheless, I believe that we have a reasonable provision in the way that we have approached the matter with the jurisdictional requirements of Clause 16.
I turn now to Amendment No. 193. I can tell the noble Earl that, again, I am reluctant to widen the scope of the second exemption under Schedule 1 so that it could be used in cases where the applicant has been unable to reach agreement due to,
"continuing violence, to the applicant, other party or child of the family".
If I have understood the amendment correctly, I believe that it would allow for the applicant to take advantage of the exemption, even where he or she was the perpetrator of the violence, because of the reference to the "other party". However, I am not sure whether that is necessarily what was in mind.
In any case, I do not believe that the scope of the exemptions under Schedule 1 should be widened. Making financial arrangements does not, by definition, imply or require mediation or any other face-to-face negotiation. Parties can be separately represented and make their arrangements through their legal representatives; that is, through arm's length negotiation for which purposes legal aid would be available to those who qualified. As I mentioned earlier in relation to mediation, where questions of violence are likely to arise as between the parties, mediation would hardly be a suitable forum.
Obviously, where a party suffered injury or ill-health as a result of domestic violence which prevented him or her from making arrangements, the second exemption under Schedule 1 would apply. I am relying on Part III to deal with situations of domestic violence. Indeed, we have made provision in that part for dealing with domestic violence during the currency of the divorce, as well as at other times. In that situation, I am not very willing to extend the exemption further. One of the reasons why it is so necessary to have Part III before

1415
one can go forward to a satisfactory divorce law of this kind is precisely the sort of situation mentioned by the noble Earl.
Lord Meston: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the clarification that he has provided on the first exemption in Schedule 1. It is correct to say that my amendment would have somewhat widened the scope of the exemption, but, I would suggest, not unduly so. However, I understand the anxiety of the noble and learned Lord not to widen the scope of the exemptions much beyond those contained in the Bill.
I certainly would not wish to interfere in any way with the jurisdictional provisions of the Bill which preserve the existing law. Indeed, in no sense would I have sought to do so by way of this amendment or by any other means. My anxiety in that regard is that the provisions of this Bill, when they become law, may mean that other countries would be tempted to accept jurisdiction in divorce cases which they otherwise would not have accepted. My anxiety as a practitioner is that parties should not be tempted, as it were, to shop outside this country. I should prefer them to shop in this country—a shop in which I am an assistant. However, I recognise that this amendment is perhaps an inadequate peg for the various comments I sought to make about the first exemption. It is something to be looked at closer at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 192:
Page 38, line 27, leave out first ("or").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 192, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 194. These are drafting amendments to correct and clarify the parts of the clauses to which they refer. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 38, line 30, after ("agreement") insert ("with the other Party").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 195 and 196 not moved.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Financial provision]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 40, leave out lines 41 to 43.
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 197, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 198, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204 and 205. These amendments are largely technical and are inserted by way of clarification. The intention is that
1416
the current law relating to financial provision on divorce should be amended by Schedule 2 only to the extent that is necessary as a result of the changes in the Bill to the law relating to divorce and judicial separation and no more. Amendments Nos. 197, 198, 200 and 202 clarify that there is no change in the existing law in relation to the number of periodical payments orders and lump sum orders which may be made in favour of each spouse. Amendment No. 202 clarifies that only one property adjustment order of the same type may he made in relation to the same spouse. Where a term in a financial provision order in favour of a spouse or child of the family is to begin earlier than the time when the order was made, Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 alter the earliest time by which the term can begin from the date when the statement of marital breakdown was made to the date when the statement was received by the court. This is in the interests of certainty and should avoid disputes as to the date when the statement was actually made. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 197A and 197B not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 41, line 15, at end insert ("but may not make more than one periodical payments order, or more than one order for payment of a lump sum, in favour of the same party.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 41, line 18, after ("payments") insert ("or lump sum").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 206. Amendment No. 199 is designed to empower the court to order an interim lump sum at an interlocutory stage. I should tell the Committee that this is an amendment proposed by the Family Law Bar Association to address a gap in the existing jurisdiction. If the litigation or negotiations become protracted, parties may need more than just interim maintenance as the present law provides. They may need capital to continue to fund their lawyers or expert witnesses. They may require capital to purchase a house, or to put down a deposit. Some other need may unexpectedly arise for which they are unwilling or unable to borrow.
If the power is to be given to the court, it is clearly a power to be exercised with some caution in case it distorts the ability of the court to deal fairly with matters at a final disposal of the case. Nevertheless, it is a useful power, and I hope that the opportunity will be taken to add it to the legislative armoury.
Amendment No. 206 seeks to introduce two recommendations of the original Law Commission report which were omitted from the Bill. The first limb of the amendment provides for variation of settlement of property orders. Paragraph 6.3 of the Law Commission report includes the following passage:
"Experience has shown that settlement of property orders are usually made at a time in the lives of spouses and their children when it is extremely difficult to predict events which may occur and needs which may arise some ten to fifteen years ahead. This has

1417
been particularly so with the `Mesher type order, where the house is settled upon the parties in fixed shares, but not to be sold until. for example, the youngest child reaches a certain age or the mother re-marries. Such an order cannot he varied even though the shares were fixed on the assumption that, for example, one party would continue to pay mortgage instalments or make periodical payments. which in fact he or she has not done".
Amendment No. 206 is borrowed with gratitude, but with some modification, from the Law Commission. It provides for the power to be exercised in closely defined circumstances which appear on the face of the amendment. It provides that the power of the court shall be exercised if it appears that,
"a fundamental assumption underlying the making of the original order has become falsified due to supervening circumstances outside the control of the parties; or … one of the parties has failed to comply with his or her obligations under the order and in consequence it is unjust for the order to remain in effect; or … the order was made on the basis that any children of the family would reside with one party to the marriage and some or all of them are in fact residing with the other or elsewhere or have died".
The other limitation on the face of the amendment is that the court shall not exercise its power unless it appears that the interest of a third party will not be prejudiced.
Secondly, the amendment provides for there to be a power to commute an existing maintenance order by means of a capital order even if there has already been a previous capital adjustment. Considering the powers of the court when varying financial provision orders, the Law Commission stated at paragraph 6.9 that,
"it could not escape our attention that the exercise of the court's power to substitute a 'clean break' for a continuing maintenance obligation was unduly hampered by the fact that the court cannot make a property transfer ora lump sum order at that stage".
The report described the particular difficulties which were manifested in one reported case, where the court was unable directly to order the husband to pay a sufficient lump sum to compensate the wife for loss of future periodical payments even though he could well have afforded it. The problem is that, although an arrangement can be brought about by an agreement between the parties, if the payer will not agree, the court cannot order it. That is another gap in the law which is well known to practitioners and which hampers the clean break and limits the flexibility of the court. The wording of this part of the amendment is again borrowed from the Law Commission proposals. I beg to move.
Lord Phillimore: As a barrister practising in family law, I should like to support both amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I wholly endorse all the comments that he has made and all the reasons that he has advanced in support of his amendments. I understand that the intention behind the first is to enable the courts to make an interim lump sum order, which they cannot at present easily or usually make; that is to say, to have the power to make a capital provision order in divorce or separation proceedings at an early stage.
There are often circumstances such as those that the noble Lord outlined and others where it would be possible to alleviate the tensions and hardships that often occur during the trauma of divorce proceedings if the courts had such a power. It would be for the benefit not only of the parties but, more important, for any children involved.
1418
For instance, in appropriate cases capital provision could be made for alternative accommodation for one of the spouses at an early stage. At present, the usual practice is not to make any capital provision orders until after such matters as the determination of any application in relation to such matters as with whom the children should live in the long term. That necessarily involves substantial delay before the courts can properly make capital provision orders. It has often been said that justice delayed is justice denied. That would, in my view, he true in such circumstances.
I consider that my point would also be valid under the new procedure proposed by the Bill whereby the parties should seek to resolve any disputes relating to child, children and finance in the period for reflection and consideration by mediation or, in the absence of agreement, by recourse to the courts. It would seem highly desirable that the courts should have available to them the power to make all appropriate orders at as early a stage as possible and to have wide enough powers to do justice between the spouses.
This leads me also to support the noble Lord's second amendment, since it would provide the courts with two valuable powers which they do not at present enjoy in making financial provision and property adjustment orders. As I understand it, the effect of the amendment would enable the courts, first, to mitigate hardship and injustice in cases where the provisions of the original order making capital provision have unforeseen consequences. Secondly, it would enable the courts to make a further capital provision order at some time later than the original order. At the present time, the law only enables the courts to make one property adjustment order and/or one lump sum order. This type of order can only be varied in very limited circumstances, when the courts have allowed the device of leave to appeal out of time to be used. This device is reflected in the proposed subsections (2A)(a) and (c), derived, I believe, from the leading case dealing with this exception from the general rule. Furthermore, this exception can only be used where the fundamental supervening event has occurred within about 12 months from the date of the original financial order. I suggest that it would be preferable to grant the courts the necessary wider statutory power by these amendments.
As for the second additional proposed power, the present law only enables the court to make one capital provision order and that cannot be varied save in the way that I have already stated. That is too restrictive, since circumstances may subsequently occur where it would be possible in the light of the financial resources of the parties to impose a clean-break order where it was not possible when the original order was made. It is clearly desirable that clean-break orders—a phrase used to indicate complete severance of all financial links between the parties—should be made wherever possible so that, among other things, new relationships, whether of cohabitation or marriage, do not suffer unnecessarily from the continuing stress of maintenance payments.
10.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: Taking Amendment No. 199 first, my understanding is that the court does at present

1419
have an inherent jurisdiction to make such payments, but in rather limited circumstances. I think it is fair to say that the precise basis of the jurisdiction is a little uncertain.
My main concern regarding an amendment of this kind is that orders under it could restrict judicial discretion at the final hearing unless there are very substantial assets, which is when the court's inherent power would appear to be used at the moment.
I can, however, appreciate that a power of this kind might well be useful. Therefore, I propose to deal with it in the same way as I should like to deal with Amendment No. 206, which extends the power of the court in Section 31 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to vary or discharge property adjustment orders which settle property or vary settlements; and, secondly, gives the court power to make a property adjustment order or lump sum order where it considers it appropriate when it is dealing with an application to vary a periodical payments order.
In principle, in the interests of certainty and finality in litigation, property adjustment orders are once and for all orders. It is for this reason that only those which settle property or vary a settlement can be varied, and then only where they were made in the course of judicial separation proceedings and the decree is rescinded where an application for divorce is made.
I can appreciate that there are circumstances where, in the interests of justice, there may be grounds for making an exception to this principle. Accordingly, I wish to seek the opinion of the ancillary relief advisory group which we have in place in relation to these matters, advising about the whole procedure of ancillary relief, whether or not it would consider that amendments on these lines would be helpful. I should like therefore to consider these amendments and seek to obtain as soon as I can the advice of the ancillary relief advisory group.
Lord Meston: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, for his support. It is reassuring to have at least one other paid-up member of the Family Law Bar Association in the Chamber, even at this hour. I am also particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the indication that he will put this matter before the committee for further and, I hope, reasonably urgent consideration. On that basis, I am very happy to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 199A to 199C not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 200 to 203:
Page 43, line 22, at end insert ("but the court may not make more than one periodical payments order, or more than one order for payment of a lump sum, in favour of the same party.").
Page 44, line 11, at beginning insert ("On an application made under this section,").
Page 44, line 12, at end insert—
("(IA) If the court makes more than one property adjustment order in favour of the same party to the marriage, each of those orders must fall within a different paragraph of section 21(2) above.").
1420
Page 44, leave out lines 19 to 24
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 197. With the leave of the Committee I should like to move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 203A to 203C not moved.]
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved Amendment No. 203D:
Page 45, line 23, at end insert—
(" . For section 25(2)(g), substitute—
"(g) the conduct of the parties and the cause of the breakdown of the marriage;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 204A and Amendments Nos. 206A to 206F at the same time. I am most grateful to the Committee because I understand that certain of the points I raise may have been broached before.
My amendments are designed to remedy existing financial injustice in the divorce law. At present, before the courts will consider the conduct of any of the parties, the onus is on the applicant to show that the conduct is exceptional. In the words of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, as amended, it would be "inequitable not to consider it". Clearly, that is best done by permitting the court, when it assesses the financial provisions, to take into account the conduct of the parties and the causes of the breakdown of the marriage. I suspect that most people will agree that that is essential.
However, under the present law, conduct is all too frequently left out of account. I am told that in the case of Whiston v. Whiston (1995) Mr. Whiston had to go as far as the Court of Appeal at his own expense, before the court could be persuaded that his "wife's" bigamy was something which they should be concerned with when assessing what he should pay her. The respondent was legally aided so Mr. Whiston could not recover his costs and it was a great deal of money.
I was pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, so stated in his Second Reading speech, that in the settlements arrived at during the year of reflection, conduct ought to be considered. My Amendment No. 203D will ensure that that is achieved more satisfactorily than it is at present. The Committee may have noticed also the article referred to in the media and published in The Tablet by His Eminence, Cardinal Hume, in which he came to a similar conclusion. He said:
"If one party does not want to divorce and sees themselves as the innocent party it is extremely important that they should not be penalised in any settlement. To this extent, at least, it is essential that immoral or unjust conduct should effectively be taken into account".
Amendment No. 204A prevents a party from claiming maintenance not only when they subsequently remarry, but also when they start co-habiting as if married. Without this, marriage will continue to be discriminated against by the divorce laws. Since mediation is meant to be the means by which financial settlements are achieved, one might ask in passing: who is to choose the mediator? Who is to train the one person who is to

1421
"divide the spoils" in a marital breakup? Surely, it would he wise to have a panel of at least three people. The body should include one who has experienced the trauma of divorce himself or herself; a child psychologist, if children are involved; and a lawyer trained in family law. This replacement for the present gallery of solicitors, counsel, accountants, asset assessors, etc., will be compelled by existing law to be subject to almost limitless acquisitiveness on the part of an applicant. That may often be the female spouse who is, more often than not, not the family breadwinner, nor usually the inheritor of capital assets nor the creator of those assets or of any income-earning business.
Members of the Committee may wonder how that will he so. I have to say that it is the law at present. The law with respect to financial settlements in divorce proceedings already works that way. A spouse may be turfed out of his house on false allegations. The other spouse will get de facto custody of the children thereby and may choose to invite a lover into the home. If the children are young the mother will get custody in the vast majority of cases. I doubt whether there are many lawyers who would dispute that.
If the children reside with the mother, she will then have need of the available accommodation and thus she will get the matrimonial home. She will get maintenance for the children and also for herself. The Child Support Agency will chase the father for child maintenance—and they can reduce him to just about the income support level. However, the father will not get any additional rights of access to his children, despite the financial asset-stripping which he will have had to undergo. Neither, more importantly, will the children get any greater rights to access to the father. That is a most important point which the social workers so often overlook.
Your Lordships may ask how this can be possible. The answer is this. No matter how flagrantly she may choose to ignore the order of the court defining the father's right to access, the likelihood of the court taking the children away from the mother and giving custody to the father is very slim. I think the Committee will begin to see that this can all have a shattering effect on the ordinary father. Yet there are many men who have suffered in this way. Some are not without fault; but many have done nothing wrong. They are just ordinary, regular husbands and fathers. But their lives are ruined. They have no home; no family. They cannot see their children except rarely when the mother allows; yet they have to pay, pay and pay. And they have to endure this cruel and unusual system of injustice until their children have grown up or have ended their fulltime education. That sometimes can be for the majority of the father's life. It is a sad fact that many of these fathers end up drifting away from their children, not because they want to—on the contrary.
A converse hardship can be seen in the case of older women whose children have grown up. She may be deserted by her spouse and her children have grown up, so she will not receive the usual lion's share of the family assets. However, what becomes of her selfless
1422
commitment to her marriage and her family? It is not a matter which the law directs the courts to he especially concerned about.
Our laws appear to be in the position where they reward the badly-behaved and they penalise the victims of such had behaviour. That is the very paradigm of injustice. We should be deeply ashamed that our legal system has sanctioned it. We all agree that this is unsatisfactory, and we all agree that it needs reform. But it is an unfortunate fact that the Family Law Bill as currently drafted will not change this most unjust situation.
I have knowledge of a case where the wife successfully sued for a decree absolute, custody of the children, the family home and all her husband's income-earning assets within four years of the husband having inherited capital wealth. The husband was forced to borrow large sums of money to replace sums which were in effect stolen from his children's education fund and also in order to cover maintenance payments to his wife and huge legal fees that he had no option hut to incur.
Unlike the situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, on the llth January (at col. 283 of Hansard), there was no proven fault in this case, and the respondent did not defend the case precisely because he was thinking of the children. This is not an unusual case. Similar cases occur regularly.
In defending the case, the husband recognised that the inevitable slanging match between the legal representatives, the parties and witnesses would be presented in open court. It would subject the children to harmful remarks at school or from those parochial newspaper readers who might gloat over the reports of the case.
That was not the only cause. I warmly urge the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, to hear that in mind before he makes further pronouncements about "defence" and the guilty parties in cases of marital breakdown.
The respondent husband was assured by his legal advisers, in the knowledge that there is a tendency among members of the judiciary to favour the mother, that for every extra week that he might wish to pursue the case in court and attempt to protect himself and his children from allegations falsely made against him and from the process of asset-stripping that he was forced to endure, it would cost him a further £100,000 in legal fees. Truly a most unenviable choice: the devil or the deep blue sea.
Who are the winners in that situation? Certainly from the financial point of view the appellant wife was, and of course the lawyers were. Who were the losers? One loser was certainly the respondent father, who is still paying heavy interest payments on his large, enforced borrowings. But, above all, the losers were the children. The financial arrangements originally designed for the children's future went into the pockets of the legal representatives; the major part of the balance went to the appellant wife. But, most of all, the children lost the all-important stability of their home life—to be able to confer, to question both their mother and father at any time and under the same roof and to have the assurance

1423
of a reply which they would and could accept with confidence in the knowledge that behind it lay the completely committed love of a father and a mother.
That stability disappeared. Consequently, it affected the children's education, which, in turn, required a further financial outlay from the respondent father. It appears that the father is always responsible for the education fees of the children as he is the conventional breadwinner. Therefore, on top of his existing interest payments and debts, he must pay still more.
That situation is not confined to the very rich. It is typical throughout the wealth brackets—the rich, the moderately well-off and those substantially poorer in society. Neither is it an uncommon occurrence; it is standard. An appellant who may be almost entirely to blame for marital disharmony, and who may be suffering from or prone to a mental disorder and lacking in the proper responsibility, is nonetheless permitted equal choice as to where the children of the marriage are to be educated. That is so despite her having no financial obligation towards that essential, vital part of their young lives.
There are many complications in this field—the location of the school and the proximity of the school to the custodial parent as well as to the other parent. It is so complex that it seems unjust to expect the mediator to take the decision or to allow him to require the parties to do so at his behest. It is precisely the kind of situation arising within the mediation process which will undermine any glimmer of reconciliation.
My amendments would provide for adjustments in maintenance payments according to changing circumstances. For example, if the child is a day-school attender and then changes to being a weekly or full-time boarder, to ensure that justice is done to the parties involved in the marital break-up, the provider of the education fund should be relieved from part of the maintenance payment that he is currently making.
One particular phrase that strikes terror in the heart of any man whose wife wishes to divorce him is that she has the right to live in the manner to which she is now accustomed. She can make a claim on her former husband, even if it means near-ruin for him financially. How will the mediator cope with that terrifying concept which will be imposed on him by law? How will he be able to maintain a balance between the parties in treating with them? This ill-conceived parameter for financial justice between the parties is generally applied to the female spouse, depending on the financial status of the male spouse at the time of the grant of the divorce order. The beneficiary applicant, who prior to the divorce has had the benefit of help from the ex-partner's financial advisers and has in the past left money matters to her husband, may find that a sudden inflow of capital goes to her head. Sometimes she finds that the money is just blown. That can hardly be to the advantage of the children. It cannot set a good example of careful husbandry of resources.
There is no doubt that the flow of capital from the male to the female spouse—though occasionally it may operate in the reverse—is more the rule than the
1424
exception. No matter which spouse is the recipient of the capital flows and/or maintenance payments, the inclination to live off unearned wealth is often wasteful and a poor education of the children in financial matters. All too often it is financially crippling to the respondent husband, particularly if his resources are limited. The eventual result may be that he becomes yet another person who relies on the taxpayer for welfare payments. The social costs rise. The mediator is to be paid out of the Legal Aid Fund. If there are little resources within the family, one of the parties will end up relying on welfare. The taxpayer is to pay. Where is the saving?
If approved in its present form the Bill will justly earn the title of a lethal, merciless and punitive measure, both to the taxpayer who will have to pay and to the party who is divested of his assets, and the children will be denuded of their basic right to the love and care of a mother and father. I note in passing that the framers of this legislation enjoyed that right when they were themselves children but seem very unconcerned that children of this generation should be denied it.
The majority of taxpayers need stable married lives. Why should they be required to subsidise the folly of our current situation? It strikes me as yet another form of hidden taxation. It may be worth the expense if the benefits to the children are obvious, but there are none. Instead, there is much damage. If it were not for the fact that the nation was fed up with the creation of new regulatory monitoring bodies, I would suggest that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor initiate the creation of a legal watchdog, similar to those that currently cover the public utilities. I hope that cricket and tennis umpires will forgive me if I suggest the name "Offleg" or "Offcourt".
Let us take a more optimistic view. Is it beyond the wit of us all to make the essential reforms to redress the terrible injustices to which I have alluded? I believe that it is not, and I urge these amendments upon your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I shall detain the Committee for only a moment or two. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, attributed certain observations to me on a previous occasion or occasions. I have to say that I neither recognise them nor recall them. I am as capable of erring in recollection as any. Hansard will tell. But I have to put on the record of our proceedings that I have no recollection of the observations that he has attributed to me.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not sure that I entirely follow all that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, said. The present law is the law under which the cases to which he referred must have been decided. There is no doubt that in matters of disputed residence and access to children, the courts make a decision in the light of all the circumstances. I believe that they do their best to reach the right decision. One of the leading principles under which they make those decisions is to treat the welfare of the children as their primary consideration.
The noble Lord considers that his amendment, Amendment No. 203D, would make matters better. Over the years, the courts have considered these matters.

1425
In 1973, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who was and is a very humane and concerned judge, said in relation to conduct:
"Does this mean that after a marriage has been dissolved, there is to be a post mortem to find out what killed it? We do not think so. In most cases both parties are to blame, or, as we would prefer to say, both parties have contributed to the breakdown. There will be many cases in which a wife, although once considered guilty or blameworthy, will have cared for the home and looked after the family for many years. Is she to be deprived of the benefit otherwise to be accorded to her because she may share responsibility for the breakdown with her husband?"
One has to consider what benefit that particular amendment would give. The noble Lord referred to Whiston v. Whiston. My understanding of the result of that case is that as a result of the wife's bigamy, the court held that no claim should be permitted for financial provision under the existing law. I am not sure whether or not the noble Lord thinks that that was a right decision, but, as I understand it, that was the decision. I doubt whether his amendment would have produced any other decision. I think not. So I do not understand how that case is relevant to supporting his amendment.
However, I should wish to refer this issue to the ancillary relief advisory group. My understanding of the law as it works at present is that conduct can be taken into account if it would be inequitable in the opinion of the court to disregard it. I believe that that is a reasonable basis on which conduct should be considered in relation to financial provision.
So far as concerns the various cases to which the noble Lord referred in the course of his speech, it is very difficult to generalise about these matters. But there is no doubt that, if husband and wife—father and mother—separate, there is a very difficult decision left for the court. My understanding is that the court does its best to do justice in the particular circumstances of the particular case. Certainly, I am not aware of any general view that the courts do not attempt to do justice between the parties in those situations.
So far as concerns the children, I believe that the court seeks to ensure that both parties remain in contact with the children so far as that is possible. Sometimes the nature of the dispute makes that difficult, but I am certain that it is in the best interests of the children that they should remain in contact with both parents in the generality of cases. I believe that that principle guides the court in its consideration. As with other amendments, I am prepared to take the advice of the ancillary relief group, but the present law on this matter was reached after mature consideration and I should be surprised if it can be improved upon.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his statement. Although I know that we differ on various aspects of this, I am grateful that he has acknowledged that conduct must also be taken into account. I am sure that this subject and the amendments that I have tabled will reappear on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 45, line 32. leave out ("made") and insert ("received by the court").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 197. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 204A not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 46, line 5. leave out ("made") and insert ("received by the court").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 206 to 206F not moved.]
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 207:
After Schedule 3, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE MATRIMONIAL HOMES (CO-OWNERSHIP)

PART I
RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF OWNERSHIP OF MATRIMONIAL HOME
PART I

  CHAPTER I
  INTRODUCTORY
  Scope of Part I
  1 .—(1) In this Part of this Schedule—

  (a) Chapter II provides, subject to certain exceptions, for husband and wife to become joint owners of land if it is owned by either of them while comprised in a property in which they have a matrimonial home after this Part comes into force; and

  (b) Chapter III makes provision as to the rights of a husband or wife in relation to land of which, while so comprised, they are or have been co-owners (whether statutory co-owners or not), and as to related matters.

  In this Part "statutory co-ownership" means co-ownership by virtue of the operation of Chapter II, and "statutory co-owner" shall be construed accordingly.
  (2) In this Part references to husband and wife and to marriage apply whether or not the marriage was entered into under a law which permits polygamy; but there shall be no statutory co-ownership on any occasion if at the time the husband has more than one wife or the wife more than one husband.
  (3) In this Part references to marriage apply to a voidable marriage, notwithstanding that it is retroactively annulled, and references to husband and wife shall be construed accordingly.
  Meaning of "own" and related terms
  2.—(1) In this Part of this Schedule the expression "own" and related terms refer to beneficial ownership and do not include ownership in a fiduciary capacity.
  (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (1) above land is for the purposes of this Part "owned" by a person if, but only if—

  (a) he is (within the meaning of the Law of Property Act 1925) the estate owner in respect of the fee simple absolute in possession or in respect of a term of years absolute in possession; or

  (b) he has a corresponding equitable interest.

  1427
  (3) Where an equitable interest arises under a contract to convey or grant, for valuable consideration, an estate or interest within sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (b) above, the said sub-paragraph (2)(b) shall not apply to the equitable interest so arising if and so long as the consideration has not been paid or transferred.
  (4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, where land or an interest in land is held on trust for sale, persons having an interest in the proceeds to arise from the sale and in the rents and profits till sale are for purposes of this Part to be treated as having the equivalent interest in the land; and sub-paragraph (2)(b) above shall include the case where a person is joint tenant or tenant in common of such an interest as is there mentioned.
  (5) A person is not to be treated for purposes of this Part as owning land by virtue of an interest he has in it as a member of a partnership; and for this purpose any interest a person has in land as a member of a partnership shall be deemed, notwithstanding that the partnership is dissolved or he ceases to be a member of it, to continue to be one he has as a member of it so long as any other person has any claim on the interest (or the property in which the interest subsists) as a member or former member of the partnership or in right of a former member.
  What constitutes a property
  3.—(1) Subject to the following sub-paragraphs, references in this Part to a "property" are to be read as references to a house or flat and any garage, outhouse, garden, yard and appurtenances going with it which from time to time constitutes or together constitute a dwelling.
  For this purpose "house or flat" includes a maisonette and any other separately occupied part of a building, but does not include a caravan or other structure designed or adapted for human habitation unless it forms part of the land on which it is sited.
  (2) Where husband and wife set up or have a home in a property as described in sub-paragraph (1) above, or a man and woman having a home in a property as so described marry, the property shall be taken to extend to any other land which—

  (a) is owned by them or either of them and goes with the property as an adjunct to it; but

  (b) does not form part of their dwelling either because it is used for business or other non-residential purposes or because it is not in their occupation.

  (3) Land not for the time being forming part of a property as described in sub-paragraph (I) above is, in particular, to be regarded under sub-paragraph (2) as going with the property if, given its situation and relation to the property, its primary use is likely to be for, or subservient to, the domestic purposes of an occupier of the property, including in those purposes the provision of accommodation for a parent or other dependant and such professional or business activities as those engaged in them commonly carry on at their homes.
  (4) Without prejudice to section 25 of the Interpretation Act 1978, references in this Part to land are to be read as including parts of houses or buildings.

  CHAPTER II
  STATUTORY CO-OWNERSHIP OF MATRIMONIAL HOME
  Construction of Chapter II
  4. The following paragraphs of this Chapter are framed for the case where, apart from their operation, the husband is the owner, but are to be read as applying equally, with the necessary adaptations of references to the husband or the wife, to produce the converse result in the case where the wife is the owner; and where each is part owner apart from the operation of those paragraphs that alone does not exclude their operation.
  Occasions for statutory vesting in co-ownership
  5.—(1) Where at the time when this Part comes into force husband and wife have a home in a property and the husband is owner of the property or part of it, then the two shall thereupon become co-owners in respect of the interest the husband then has as owner of the property or part.
  1428
  (2) Where husband and wife set up a home in a property, and the husband is owner of the property or part of it, then the two shall thereupon become co-owners in respect of the interest the husband then has as owner of the property or part.
  (3)(a) Where husband and wife have a home in a property, and the husband acquires the ownership or a new ownership of the property or part of it otherwise than from the wife or out of her interest, then the two shall thereupon become co-owners in respect of that interest of the husband in the property or part; and
  (b) a husband is to be treated for purposes of this sub-paragraph as acquiring the ownership of a property or part of a property in any case where he becomes the owner whether by acquiring an interest (or further interest) amounting to ownership or by a change in an interest he already has or otherwise.
  (4) Where husband and wife have a home in a property, and there is made to the property any addition owned by the husband (whether so owned before it is added to the property or not), then the two shall thereupon become co-owners in respect of the interest the husband then has as owner of the addition.
  (5) Where a man and a woman having a home in a property marry one another, and the husband is at the time of the marriage (or becomes on the marriage) owner of the property or part of it. then the two shall thereupon become co-owners in respect of the interest the husband then has as owner of the property or part.
  (6) This paragraph has effect subject to the exceptions in paragraphs 7 to 14 below.
  Effect of statutory vesting in co-ownership
  6.—(1) Where a husband and wife become statutory co-owners in respect of an interest of the husband in a property or part of a property, then—

  (a) if the interest is a legal estate, it shall become subject to a trust for them as beneficial joint tenants; and

  (b) if the interest is not a legal estate, it shall vest in the two of them as beneficial joint tenants; and

  (c) the same consequences (including the creation of a trust for sale and the severance of any joint interest) shall ensue, as if the like result had been achieved by a written declaration of trust or assignment made by the husband.

  (2) Notwithstanding sub-paragraph (1)(c) above, no limitation, covenant or condition restrictive of the husband's right to deal with the property shall be taken to extend or have reference to any transfer of ownership under this section.
  Exception from statutory co-ownership of joint interests and certain derivative interests
  7. There shall be no statutory co-ownership on any occasion in respect of an interest of a husband where the interest either—

  (a) is one he has as joint tenant with the wife; or

  (b) derives from one he had as joint tenant with her, the joint tenancy having been severed at a time when they had a matrimonial home in the property; or

  (c) is one he acquired prior to that occasion out of an interest of hers in respect of which he is on that occasion excluded under paragraphs 8 to 14 below from becoming statutory co-owner (or would be if she retained the interest).

  Right of husband or wife to exclude statutory co-ownership in transitional cases
  8.—(1) There shall be no statutory co-ownership on any occasion in respect of an interest which a husband has at the date when this Part comes into force (or which derives from such an interest) if before that date—

  (a) the husband has by any writing signed by him declared that the interest he has at that date, being a separate interest, is to be free of statutory co-ownership; or

  (b) where the interest is not a separate interest, either the husband or the wife has by a writing signed by him or her declared that both the interest the husband has at that date and the wife's corresponding interest are to be free of statutory co-ownership;

  1429
  and the person making the declaration under sub-sub-paragraph (a) or (b) above has not, before the occasion in question, by a further writing signed by him or her revoked the declaration.
  (2) A declaration under sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) above must be attested by a person present as a witness when the declaration is signed.
  (3) In this Chapter references to a separate interest of a husband or of a wife are references to an interest of his or her not being an interest as joint tenant or tenant in common with the other of them (with no implication that they are married at the time referred to).
  (4) In this Chapter references to a document being signed by a person include its being signed for him by his agent.
  Right of husband or wife to exclude statutory co-ownership of interests held before marriage
  9.—(1) There shall be no statutory co-ownership on any occasion in respect of any interest which a husband has in any land at the time of the marriage (including an interest acquired on the marriage) if—

  (a) he has before the marriage by any writing signed by him declared, either specifically with reference to the wife or generally, that the interest is to be free of statutory co-ownership; and

  (b) he has not, before the occasion in question, by a further writing signed by him revoked the declaration or (it being a general declaration) directed that it shall not have effect in the case of the wife.

  (2) A declaration under sub-paragraph (I)(a) above must be attested by a person present as a witness when the declaration is signed.
  (3) For purposes of this paragraph an interest as joint tenant and the interest derived from it by the severance of the joint tenancy are to be treated as one interest.
  Right of donor to exclude statutory co-ownership in case of gifts
  10.—(1) There shall be no statutory co-ownership in respect of an interest of a husband acquired by gift if the interest given him either—

  (a) is a separate interest which is directed by the instrument making the gift to be free of statutory co-ownership; or

  (b) is not a separate interest.

  (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, any disposition of an interest in land is a gift—

  (a) for purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a) above, if it is made without consideration in money or money's worth moving from the husband (and is not a disposition by him alone);

  (b) for purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, if it is made without consideration in money or money's worth moving from the husband or the wife (and is not a disposition made by them or either of them alone).

  (3) Where a disposition of an interest in land is made by the exercise of a power of appointment, the interest is to be treated for purposes of this section as acquired by that exercise and not under the instrument conferring the power; but the disposition is not for those purposes a gift unless that instrument was made (as well as the power being exercised) without consideration as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above.
  (4) Where the husband's interest in any land is or was conferred on him as a separate interest by an instrument conferring a power of appointment capable of being exercised in his favour, but he acquires ownership of the land by a release of the power, then if the instrument releasing it directs that the husband's interest is to be free of statutory co-ownership, the direction shall have the same effect under this section as if the husband had acquired his interest by the exercise by that instrument of the power.
  (5) For purposes of this paragraph an interest as joint tenant and the interest derived from it by the severance of the joint tenancy are to be treated as one interest.
  Exclusion of statutory co-ownership by husband and wife '.s agreement for or creation of sole ownership
  11.—(1)(a) Subject to any written agreement to the contrary
  1430
  signed by the husband and wife, there shall be no statutory co-ownership on any occasion in respect of a separate interest of the husband—

  (i) if at any time before that occasion the husband and the wife have entered into a written agreement signed by them that the interest is or is to be a separate interest and is to be free of statutory co-ownership; or

  (ii) if he has acquired the interest by her express disposition in his favour, or the interest became a separate interest or, being a separate interest, was enlarged or improved by such a disposition: and

  (b) in sub-sub-paragraph (a)(ii) above any reference to the wife's express disposition in the husband's favour is a reference to a written disposition made and expressed to be made to him beneficially and made by her or made and expressed to be made by her direction.
  (2) Subject to any written agreement to the contrary signed by the husband and wife, there shall be no statutory co-ownership on any occasion in respect of an interest of the husband if the interest is or derives from one in relation to which sub-paragraph (1)(a)(i) or (ii) above was satisfied at some previous time.
  (3) For the purposes of this paragraph an interest as joint tenant and the interest derived from it by the severance of the joint tenancy are to be treated as one interest.
  Exception from statutory co-ownership where entitlement of husband and wife to shared interest settled by agreement
  12.—(1) Subject to any written agreement to the contrary signed by the husband and wife, there shall be no statutory co-ownership on any occasion in respect of an interest of the husband, if—

  (a) the interest is not a separate interest, and the fact that they are or are to be joint tenants or tenants in common and, if tenants in common, the relative size of their shares has been specified by a written agreement signed by them or by an instrument such as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below; or

  (b) the interest is or derives from one in relation to which sub-sub-paragraph (a) above was satisfied at some previous time.

  (2) The instruments referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above are instruments whereby either—

  (a) the husband and wife are made beneficial joint tenants or tenants in common of the land or of an interest in it; or

  (b) one of them disposes of any right or interest in favour of the other,

  being instruments which satisfy one of the conditions in sub-paragraph (3) below.
  (3) The said conditions are—

  (a) that the entitlement of the husband and wife specified in the instrument as required by sub-paragraph (1) above is in accordance with a prior agreement between the husband and wife; or

  (b) that before the occasion in question both the husband and wife adopted the instrument by any act showing an intention to accept the instrument; or

  (c) where by the instrument one of them disposes of any right or interest in favour of the other, that before the occasion in question the other adopts the instrument by any act showing an intention to accept the instrument.

  (4) For purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(a) above the instrument (if it specifies the entitlement of the husband and wife as required by sub-paragraph (1)) shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, to do so in accordance with a prior agreement between them.
  (5) For purposes of this paragraph the entitlement of a husband and wife is not specified by an agreement or instrument as required by sub-paragraph (1), if the nature or extent of their interests is left in any relevant respect, other than a respect in which it is affected by the rights of some other person, to be ascertained from outside the agreement or instrument.

  1431
  (6) Sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 8 above shall apply for purposes of this paragraph as they apply for purposes of that paragraph.
  Exception from statutory co-ownership to avoid severance from other land
  13.—(I) There shall be no statutory co-ownership on any occasion in respect of an interest the husband has in a property or part of a property if at the time—

  (a) the husband has a substantive interest in any adjoining or neighbouring land which is not comprised in the property nor would be treated under paragraph 3(2) above as so comprised if owned by the husband; and

  (b) the difficulties or disadvantages involved in a severance would be such that, on a sale of the whole in the open market for the relevant estates or interests, subject to any subsisting tenancies but otherwise with vacant possession, it would not be practicable for the property or that part of it to be sold as a distinct lot without the adjoining or neighbouring land or, if it had to be so sold, the price to be expected for the whole would be substantially reduced.

  (2) Where but for this paragraph a wife would on any occasion have become statutory co-owner in respect of an interest of the husband in a property or part of a property, and afterwards while the husband is owner of the property or that part of it he ceases to be entitled to a substantive interest in the adjoining or neighbouring land or any material part of it (without the wife having in the meantime become statutory co-owner in respect of the interest in the property or the part of it in question), then this Part shall thereupon have effect as if he had acquired his ownership of the property or that part of it on ceasing to be so entitled.
  (3) For purposes of this paragraph "the relevant estates or interests" are—

  (a) in the case of the property or part of a property in question, the legal estate in respect of which, or in respect of the husband's interest in which, there is an occasion for the husband and wife to become statutory co-owners; and

  (b) in the case of the adjoining or neighbouring land, any legal estate in which the husband then has a substantive interest.

  (4) In this Part "substantive interest" means a beneficial interest (whether vested or contingent) other than an interest by way of security only, or by way of rent charge or annuity, or by way of charge under section 26 of this Act.
  Effect of bankruptcy or insolvency
  14.—(1) There shall be no statutory co-ownership on any occasion in respect of an interest of the husband, if at the time the wife is an undischarged bankrupt.
  (2) Where a wife, after becoming on any occasion statutory co-owner in respect of an interest of the husband, becomes bankrupt as from that time or an earlier time, then subject to sub-paragraph (4) below the wife shall be deemed not to have become on that occasion co-owner in respect of that interest.
  (3) Where a wife becomes insolvent, then—

  (a) there shall be no statutory co-ownership on any later occasion in respect of an interest of the husband, if the interest she thereby acquired would be included in the assets to be administered; and

  (b) subject to sub-paragraph (4) below, she shall be deemed not to have become on any earlier occasion statutory co-owner in respect of such an interest, if the assets to be administered extend (by relation back) to her then assets.

  (4) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3)(b) above shall not affect any dealing by the wife with her interest before the time when she is adjudged bankrupt or becomes insolvent.
  (5) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that, subject to sub-paragraph (6) below, the circumstances in which the disposition ("the statutory disposition") supposed, by paragraph 6(1)(c) above, to be made by the husband is voidable by reason of his bankruptcy or insolvency are the same as the circumstances in which an actual disposition of that kind would be voidable.
  1432
  (6) Where the wife and the husband each become statutory co-owners in respect of an interest which the other has as part owner of the land (the two interests being ones which they have as tenants in common) and—

  (a) subsequently the husband becomes bankrupt or insolvent; and

  (b) the bankruptcy or insolvency is not one within sub-paragraph (2) or (3)(b) above (so that the statutory disposition by the wife is unaffected by the bankruptcy or insolvency),

  the statutory disposition by the husband shall not be voidable by reason of the bankruptcy or insolvency except to the extent (if any) by which the husband's interest as part owner of the land exceeded the wife's (so that avoidance of the statutory disposition will do no more than prevent the wife from having obtained, as co-owner of both interests, more than she had previously as entire owner of the one interest).
  (7) This paragraph shall have effect in relation to bankruptcies and to insolvencies under the law of any part of the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
  (8) In this paragraph references to insolvency are references to the making, in bankruptcy proceedings, of a composition or arrangement under which assets are to be administered by a trustee for the benefit of the insolvent's creditors and references to the assets to be administered shall be construed accordingly.
  Effect of minority or incapacity
  15.—(I) Notwithstanding anything in paragraph 6(1)(c) above, that paragraph shall have effect—

  (a) in relation to any interest of a husband who is a minor as if he were of full age;

  (b) in relation to any interest of a husband who is an incapacitated person as if he were not incapacitated.

  (2) A declaration or revocation made for purposes of paragraph 8 or 9 above shall not he affected by the minority of the person making it.
  Minority: agreement or instrument excluding statutory co-ownership
  16.—(1)(a) This sub-paragraph applies to an agreement which, under paragraph 11 or 12 above, has the effect of excluding a wife from statutory co-ownership in respect of an interest of the husband in any land, and in this sub-paragraph "the relevant law about minors" means the law relating to the effect on a contract of the minority of a party to the contract.
  (b) If the agreement was made in contemplation of the use or possible use by the parties of the land (or a property comprising it) as a matrimonial home, the agreement shall be treated for purposes of the relevant law about minors as a contract for the husband to acquire from the wife her interest as statutory co-owner.
  (2)(a) This sub-paragraph applies to an agreement, disposition or instrument which under paragraph 11 or 12 above has the effect of excluding a wife from statutory co-ownership in respect of an interest of the husband in any land.
  (b) Where the agreement, disposition or instrument is avoided by the wife or husband by reason of her or his minority paragraph 5(3) above shall apply as if on the avoidance the wife and the husband each acquired (otherwise than from the other or out of the other's interest) the interest she or he then has in the land in question.
  Exemption from stamp duty on reversal of statutory co-ownership
  17. Stamp duty shall not be chargeable on an instrument executed within two years after a husband and wife have become statutory co-owners of a property or of land comprised in a property, in so far as the instrument operates to vest in each of them the same interest (if any) in any land as he or she would have had if on the occasion in question there had been no statutory co-ownership in respect of any interest of either of them in the property or land comprised in it.

  CHAPTER II

    CHAPTER III
    Incidents of Co-ownership of Matrimonial Home
    18.—(1) For purposes of this Chapter "relevant land" means land of which a husband and wife are co-owners at a time (after the coming into force of this Part) when it is comprised in a property in which they have a matrimonial home, and includes any such land—

    (a) notwithstanding that the land ceases to be comprised in a property in which they have a matrimonial home; and

    (b) notwithstanding that they cease to be husband and wife.

    (2) For purposes of this Chapter land continues to be relevant land notwithstanding that on death, or on any other occasion, either the husband or the wife ceases to own the land, so long as—

    (a) the other remains an owner of the land in respect of the estate or interest in respect of which the husband and wife were co-owners immediately before that occasion; and

    (b) that estate or interest is held by trustees.

    (3) In this Chapter, where the context permits, in relation to relevant land—

    (a) in accordance with sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, references to "husband" and "wife" include former husband and former wife,

    (b) in the circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (2), references to the husband and wife being co-owners are references to one of them being an owner, and references to the husband or wife are references to that one of them.

    (4) In this Chapter—

    (a) "the trusts" means the trusts under which a husband and wife are co-owners of relevant land,

    (b) "the trustees" means the trustees of the trusts,

    (c) references to a disposition of trust property made by the trustees are references to a disposition by them of, or of any estate or interest in, the estate or interest held by them, not being a disposition incident to or consequent on the appointment, resignation or removal of a trustee,

    (d) references to a disposition do not include references to taking a further advance under an existing mortgage or charge.

    Qualifications of provisions requiring consent of husband or wife
    19.—(1) This paragraph applies to the following provisions of this Schedule ("the consent provisions") namely—

    (a) in paragraph 20 sub-paragraphs (1)(a) and (2)(a);

    (b) in paragraph 21 sub-paragraph (1);

    (c) in paragraph 36 sub-paragraph (1).

    (2) The consent provisions shall have effect in relation to any relevant land only if the husband and wife are or have been sole co-owners of the land at a time (after the coming into force of this Part) when it is comprised in a property in which they have a matrimonial home.
    (3) For purposes of this paragraph a husband and wife are sole co-owners of land if, regard being had only to substantive interests, they are sole co-owners in respect either of the fee simple or of a leasehold interest.
    Rights in respect of trusteeship
    20.—(1)(a) The consent of the husband and of the wife shall be required to any appointment otherwise than by order of a court of a new trustee of the trusts or to the discharge of a trustee from the trusts otherwise than on an appointment of new trustees.
    (b) A person's consent is required by this sub-paragraph, and shall for purposes of this sub-paragraph be valid and binding, notwithstanding that person's minority.
    (c) An appointment or discharge of a trustee shall not be invalid for want of a consent required by this sub-paragraph, nor shall any person be under any liability for making or concurring in an appointment or discharge without that consent unless he knows or ought reasonably to have known that the consent was so required.
    1434
    (d) Where a trustee is appointed without a person's consent required by this sub-paragraph. the court may on the application of that person remove the trustee from the trusteeship, unless in the opinion of the court the appointment is one that would have been made by the court in the circumstances.
    (2) Where a husband and wife are co-owners of relevant land under the trusts of a legal estate in the land, then—

    (a) if either of them is a trustee, he or she shall not without his or her consent be removed from the trusteeship of that estate under any power contained in the instrument creating the trust unless he or she remains out of the United Kingdom for more than twelve months or refuses or is unfit to act in the trust or is incapable of acting therein; and

    (b) either of them may be appointed trustee of that estate notwithstanding the statutory restrictions affecting the number of persons entitled to hold land on trust for sale, or those on the appointment of additional trustees, and if appointed by virtue of this provision shall be disregarded in the application of those restrictions; and

    (c) if either of them (being of full age) is not a trustee and applies to the court to be appointed trustee of that estate, the court shall make an order appointing him or her trustee of it (and of the proceeds of sale), unless the court sees special reason for not making the appointment.

    (3) In this paragraph "the court" means the High Court or a county court, and a county court shall have jurisdiction notwithstanding that, by reason of the amounts involved or otherwise, the jurisdiction would not but for this sub-paragraph be exercisable by a county court.
    (4) Where a person withholds consent under sub-paragraph (1) above to the appointment or discharge of a trustee of an estate or interest in land, a separate set of trustees may be appointed in accordance with section 37(1)(a) of the Trustee Act 1925 for the remainder of the trust property (if any), notwithstanding that it is not held on distinct trusts.
    (5) This paragraph has effect subject to paragraph 19 above.
    Sales etc. to require consent of both co-owners
    21.—(1) The trustees shall not without the consent of the husband and of the wife make any disposition of trust property.
    (2) A person's consent is required by this paragraph, and shall for the purposes of this paragraph be valid and binding, notwithstanding that person's minority.
    (3) The requirements of sub-paragraph (1) above, for any case within that sub-paragraph, shall take the place of any requirement of consent that might arise from the land having been acquired for a matrimonial home or other common purpose.
    (4) This paragraph has effect subject to paragraph 19 above.
    (5) A disposition made without a consent required by this paragraph shall be of no effect.
    (6) Where the trustees hold a legal estate sub-paragraph (5) above has effect—

    (a) where the legal estate is registered land, subject to paragraph 24(2) and (3) below;

    (b) where the legal estate is not registered land, subject to section 4(9) of the Land Charges Act 1972 (inserted by paragraph 30(2) of this Schedule).

    Court jurisdiction as regards consents and powers of trustees
    22.—(I) The court shall have power on the application of any person interested to declare whether a person's consent is required by paragraph 20 or 21 above or by paragraph 36 below, in the case specified in the application.
    (2) If—

    (a) any consent to a disposition by the trustees, or to their taking a further advance under an existing mortgage or charge, whether required by this Schedule or not, cannot be obtained, or

    1435

    (b) the trustees refuse to sell, or to exercise any of the powers conferred by sections 28 and 29 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (powers of management, and delegation of powers),

    any person interested may apply to the court—

    (i) for a vesting or other order for giving effect to the proposed transaction, or

    (ii) for an order directing the trustees to give effect to the proposed transaction,

    and the court may make such order as it thinks fit.
    (3) In considering under sub-paragraph (2) above a consent required from a person as being or having been one of the parties to a marriage the court may have regard to the welfare (if affected) of any children of the family within the meaning of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
    (4) In this paragraph "the court" means the High Court or a county court, and a county court shall have jurisdiction notwithstanding that, by reason of the amounts involved or otherwise, the jurisdiction would not but for this sub-paragraph be exercisable by a county court.
    (5) The jurisdiction exercisable under section 30 of the Law of Property Act 1925 or section 17 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 shall not be exercisable where the jurisdiction under this paragraph is exercisable.
    Trustees holding a legal estate in unregistered land
    23.—(1) This paragraph applies where the trustees hold a legal estate which is not registered land.
    (2) So long as the husband or the wife is not one of the trustees there may be registered in the register of land charges under section 2 of the Land Charges Act 1972 a land charge for his or her benefit to be known as a land charge of Class G.
    (3) Registration of a Class G land charge for the benefit of the husband or wife shall constitute registration—

    (a) of that person's beneficial interest under the trusts; and

    (b) if applicable, of the requirement of consent by that person imposed by paragraph 21 above,

    and notwithstanding that registration of that person's beneficial interest under the trusts shows that the legal estate is subject to trusts, registration of the land charge, or failure to register it, shall not affect any other person's interest under the trusts.
    (4) The Land Charges Act 1972 and the other enactments mentioned in Chapter I of Part IV of this Schedule shall be amended as provided in that Chapter.
    Registered land
    24.—(1)(a) Where the registered land is relevant land production of the land certificate shall not be required by section 64(1)(c) of the Land Registration Act 1925—

    (i) for an application for the entry on the register of a restriction with reference to the requirement that there shall be at least two trustees; or

    (ii) for an application for the entry on the register of a restriction with reference to the requirement of consent imposed by paragraph 21(1) above; and

    (b) accordingly in section 64(I)(c) of the Land Registration Act 1925 after the words "except as hereinafter mentioned" there shall be inserted the words "or as provided by paragraph 24(1) of Schedule (Matrimonial Homes (Co-ownership)) to the Family Law Act 1996".
    (2) A purchase under a registered disposition, as defined in section 3 of the Land Registration Act 1925, shall not, as against the purchaser, require the consent of any person under paragraph 21 if that consent requirement is not protected by a restriction or other entry on the register.
    (3) Sub-paragraph (2) above is without prejudice to section 59(6) of the Land Registration Act 1925 (failure to register matters capable, in the case of unregistered land, of registration under the
    1436
    Land Charges Act 1925) or any other provision of the Land Registration Act 1925 concerning matters which have not been protected by entry on the register.
    (4) For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that the rights capable of being overriding interests under section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925 (which protects the rights of persons in actual occupation or in receipt of the rents and profits of registered land) do not include—

    (a) in the case of land held on trust for sale, interests or powers which are under the Law of Property Act 1925 capable of being overridden by the trustees for sale; or

    (b) in the case of settled land, interests or powers which are under the Settled Land Act 1925 and the Law of Property Act 1925 or either of them capable of being overridden by the tenant for life or statutory owner.

    Further advances on mortgages
    25. Chapter II of Part IV of this Schedule, which relates to mortgages made for securing further advances, shall have effect.
    Application of proceeds of sale
    26.—(1) Where the interest of a husband and wife in any relevant land is sold during the marriage, then either of them who pays or has paid the whole or part of the cost of acquisition of a new home (that is to say, of another property in which they have or propose to have a matrimonial home in place of the home in the property comprising that land) may require the other to apply in meeting the cost of acquisition of the new home a sum amounting to the other's share of the proceeds of the sale or any less sum and, if the other does not, may apply to the court for an order requiring it.
    (2) In sub-paragraph (1) above—

    (a) the reference to an interest in land being sold shall extend to any disposal, by the trustees, or by the husband and wife, for a consideration in money (and references in this section to proceeds of sale shall be construed accordingly); and

    (b) the reference to acquisition includes acquisition before the coming into force of this Part, and before the making of any decision to have a matrimonial home in the property.

    (3)(a) On an application for an order under this paragraph, the court may make such order (if any) as the court thinks just; but the court may refuse to make an order if the court thinks it just to do so having regard to lapse of time or other matters.
    (b) The court may in particular by an order under this sub-paragraph—

    (i) direct the respondent to make to the applicant or any other person such payments at such times as may be so directed; and

    (ii) direct that any payment to be made by the respondent under this sub-paragraph shall be secured for the benefit of the applicant on any substantive interest of the respondent in the new home.

    (c) An order of the court under this sub-paragraph shall not affect the substantive interests of the applicant and the respondent in the new home except in so far (if at all) as the extent of their respective interests is affected by the proportion in which they bear the cost of acquisition.
    (4) The jurisdiction conferred on the court by this paragraph shall be exercisable by the High Court or by a county court, and shall be exercisable by a county court notwithstanding that by reason of the amounts involved or otherwise the jurisdiction would not but for this sub-paragraph be exercisable by a county court.
    (5) A husband or wife's right under sub-paragraph (1) above, and the court's power under sub-paragraph (3), to require money to be applied in meeting the cost of acquisition of a new home shall be limited to the amount (or further amount) from time to time needed in order that the cost may be borne by the husband and the wife in proportion to their respective shares of those proceeds of sale, but includes the right to require any such amount to be applied in reimbursing to him or her money applied in meeting that cost.

    1437
    (6) Any reference in this paragraph to the proceeds of sale of land is a reference to the net proceeds after meeting the costs of or incidental to the sale and after satisfying any sum secured on the interest sold.
    (7) For purposes of this paragraph the cost of acquisition of the new home shall be taken to include—

    (a) the cost of any improvements or alterations to the property undertaken in order to adapt it for the purposes of the husband and wife; or

    (b) where the new home is provided by the erection of a house, the cost of erection, in addition to the cost of acquisition of the site.

    (8) It is immaterial for purposes of this paragraph that the new home is not in England or Wales.
    (9) Sub-paragraph (1) above shall have effect subject to any agreement made between the husband and wife, and shall not apply where either the husband or the wife is not an owner, but the land is relevant land by virtue of paragraph 18(2) above.

  PART II
  PROVISIONS APPLYING TO MATRIMONIAL HOME OR OTHER LAND
  Equal co-ownership of husband and wife not disturbed by payments for acquisition or improvements
  27.—(1) So long as two spouses are equal co-owners of any land in England or Wales either as joint tenants or as tenants in common having equal shares with one another, any contribution made by one of them in money or money's worth to meeting the cost of acquisition or to the improvement of the land shall be deemed, for the purposes of any rule of law or presumption as to the effect of such a contribution in conferring an interest or larger interest on the person making it, to be made equally by the two of them, except where they became tenants in common having equal shares with one another by the operation as between themselves of any such rule of law or presumption.
  (2) Any reference in sub-paragraph (1) above to a contribution to meeting the cost of acquisition or to the improvement of the land includes expenditure on or with a view to the repayment of money borrowed to defray the cost of acquisition or of an improvement.
  (3) In relation to the rule as to improvements this paragraph shall be deemed always to have had effect, except where the marriage has been terminated before the time when this Part comes into force, or before that time either—

  (a) one of the spouses has by any contribution acquired under the rule a share or additional share out of the beneficial interest of the other, and the extent of that share has been ascertained by agreement between them or by order of a court; or

  (b) one of the spouses by writing signed by him or her or for him or her by his or her agent has directed that this subsection shall not apply.

  (4) This paragraph shall not affect the operation of the rule as to improvements as that rule is applied by section 2(1) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970 (property of engaged couples if engagement terminated), except where an agreement to marry is terminated by death after this Part comes into force.
  Application of certain rules to engaged couples
  28.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, where after the coming into force of this Part a man and a woman enter into an agreement to marry one another, then as regards land in England and Wales the rule as to improvements and paragraph 27(1) and (2) above shall apply as if their agreement to marry had been implemented.
  (2) Where an agreement to marry is terminated otherwise than by death, the beneficial interest of the parties to the agreement in Any land shall be the same as if this paragraph had not been enacted.
  Interpretation of Part II
  29. In this Part—

  (a) "co-owner" has the same meaning as in Part I;

  1438

  (b) "the rule as to improvements" means the rule of law explained by section 37 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970.

  PART III
  MISCELLANEOUS
  Sharing of "winkling money"
  30.—(1) Where two spouses have a home in a dwelling-house (whether a house or part of a house) of which they have, or one of them has, a statutory tenancy under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. or the Rent Act 1977, and either of them receives any pecuniary consideration in respect of the giving up of possession of the dwelling-house, the other shall be entitled to receive from that one a sum equal to half the net amount or value of that consideration.
  (2) For the purposes of this paragraph "pecuniary consideration" includes any consideration in money or money's worth other than land and interests in land; and the net amount or value of the pecuniary consideration received by a spouse is the amount or value of it reduced by the amount or value of any consideration which that spouse gives in order to enable possession of part of the dwelling-house to be obtained from another and given up.
  Rules as respects registered and unregistered land
  31. The powers of making rules under section 144 of the Land Registration Act 1925 and section 16 of the Land Charges Act 1972 shall include power to make provision for the purpose of implementing this Schedule.

  PART IV

    CHAPTER I
    CLASS G LAND CHARGE: AMENDMENT OF OTHER ACTS
    Land Charges Act 1972 (c. 61)
    32.—(1) In section 2 of the Land Charges Act 1972 (the register of land charges) after subsection (7) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(7A) A Class G land charge is a land charge registrable under paragraph 23 of Schedule (Matrimonial Homes (Co-ownership)) to the Family Law Act 1996."
    (2) At the end of section 4 of the Land Charges Act 1972 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(9)(a) A land charge of Class G (as described in paragraph 23(3) of Schedule "(Matrimonial Homes (Co-ownership)) to the Family Law Act 1996) shall, as against a purchaser of the land to which it relates, or of any interest in such land, be unenforceable unless the land charge is registered in the appropriate register before the completion of the purchase.
    (b) Accordingly, unless the land charge is so registered before the completion of the purchase, the purchase shall overreach the beneficial interest of the person for whose benefit the land charge is registrable whether or not the requirements of section 27(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (capital money not to be paid to a single individual as trustee) are complied with.
    (c) Unless the land charge is so registered before completion of the purchase, the purchase shall not as against the purchaser require that person's consent under paragraph 21 of Schedule (Matrimonial Homes (Co-ownership)) to the Family Law Act 1996."
    Law of Property Act 1925 (c. 20)
    33. At the end of section 2(3)(v) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (interest protected by registration not to be over-reached under section 2(2) of that Act, but subject to the exceptions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the said paragraph (v)) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
    "(c) an equitable interest registrable as a land charge of Class G".
    County Courts Act /959 (c. 22)
    34. In Schedule I to the County Courts Act 1959 (county court jurisdiction under section 1(6) of the Land Charges Act 1972) in column 2 against section 10(8) of the Land Charges Act 1925 (re-enacted in the said section 1(6) for the words "or Class E" there shall be substituted the words "Class E or Class G".

    CHAPTER I

      CHAPTER II
      MORTGAGEES MAKING FURTHER ADVANCES
      Preliminary
      35.—(1) This Chapter applies where the estate or interest held by the trustees is subject to a mortgage made, whether before or after the coming into force of Part I of this Schedule, for securing further advances.
      (2) In this Chapter—

      (a) "mortgage" includes a charge, and "mortgagee" shall be construed accordingly,

      (b) "mortgagee" includes any person deriving title under the mortgagee.

      Further advance to require consent of both co-owners
      36.—(1) The trustees shall not without the consent of the husband and wife borrow any money by way of further advance secured by the mortgage.
      (2) A person's consent is required by this paragraph, and shall for purposes of this paragraph be valid and binding, notwithstanding that person's minority.
      (3) This paragraph has effect subject to paragraph 19 of this Schedule.
      (4) It is hereby declared that no obligation to make a further advance shall be enforceable against the mortgagee so as to require him to make it without a person's consent required by this paragraph.
      Avoidance of charge securing a further advance
      37. If a further advance is made without a person's consent required by paragraph 36 above, the mortgage, so far as it secures that further advance, shall be of no effect if, and only if, before the making of the further advance—

      (a) notice in writing was served on the mortgagee or his agent by or on behalf of the person whose consent was required stating that that consent was required, or

      (b) that person's consent was required to the creation of the mortgage, and the mortgagee knew that that consent had been given.

      Cases in which a further advance overreaches interest of husband or wife
      38.—(1) The mortgage, so far as it secures a further advance, shall not overreach the interest of the husband or wife under the trusts if the further advance is paid or applied in contravention of section 27(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (capital money not to be paid to a single individual as trustee), and the mortgagee had, before the making of the advance, effective notice, as defined in paragraph 39 below, of that interest:
      Provided that if the husband or wife was the person to whom, or by whose direction, the further advance was paid or applied this sub-paragraph shall not apply to that person's interest under the trusts.
      (2) Except as provided by sub-paragraph (1) above the mortgage, so far as it secures a further advance, shall overreach the interests of the husband and wife under the trusts.
      (3) This paragraph has effect whether or not the interest of the husband or wife under the trusts can be or is registered or protected under the Land Charges Act 1972 or the Land Registration Act 1925.
      Meaning of effective notice
      39.—(1) For purposes of paragraph 36 above the mortgagee has effective notice in the circumstances specified in this paragraph.
      1440
      (2) The mortgagee has effective notice when notice in writing is served on him or his agent by or on behalf of the spouse stating that the relevant land. or the trustees' estate or interest, is subject to trusts.
      (3) The mortgagee has effective notice as from the time when the mortgage is made if the trusts arose before that time and—

      (a) the mortgage was made by two or more persons, or by a trust corporation known to the mortgagee to be acting as a trustee, or

      (b) the mortgage did not overreach the interest of the husband or wife under the trusts.

      (4) Notice under sub-paragraph (3)(a) above is effective notice of the interests under the trusts of both the husband and the wife, and notice under sub-paragraph (2) or sub-paragraph (3)(b) above is effective notice of the interest of the spouse by or on behalf of whom the notice is served, or as the case may be of the spouse whose interest was not overreached.").
      The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 207, 208 and 209 were grouped with a paving amendment and, although they were not considered, they were open to debate. In those circumstances, I do not propose to move them.
      [Amendment No. 207 not moved.]
      [Amendments Nos. 208 and 209 not moved.]
      Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.
      Schedule 6 [Amendments of Children Act 1989]:
      Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No.209A:
      Page 57, line 35, at end insert—
      (" . After paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 there shall be inserted—
      " . Every local authority shall take such steps as are reasonably practical and as may be necessary, to advise, assist and, where appropriate, befriend those families with dependent children which notify a Court that the marriage or relationship has broken down or is in danger of breaking down.".").
      The noble Lord said: The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, asked me to express her regret that she cannot be here to move this amendment and has asked me to do so on her behalf. At present no steps are required to be taken by a local authority when marriages get into difficulty. A visit to a solicitor is often the first step, followed by divorce. There is a role for the churches and the counselling agencies but they are voluntary and need first to be approached by a party to the marriage. Parties may not know of their services. In the first instance, a local authority has a role to fill that gap. Its services should be activated after parties notify the court of the breakdown of their marriage - that is, when there is the initial statement of breakdown. Local authorities should make available their services to advise, assist and, where appropriate, to befriend those families with dependent children. The local authority may then assist those families to seek help from counselling agencies or the Church, which would keep costs to a reasonable level.
      I know that the noble Baroness was particularly anxious that in the divorce process the voice of the child should be heard and that the child should have someone to speak to and, where appropriate, to assist him or her. That is the purpose of the amendment. It strikes me that the amendment meets a need which, to some extent, used to be met by the old Section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Since the amendment of that section

      1441
      of the Children Act 1989, the usefulness of Section 41 has diminished considerably. It is on that basis that, on behalf of the noble Baroness, I beg to move.
      The Lord Chancellor: The court's power in Section 16 of the Children Act to make a family assistance order in any family proceedings has certain similarities to the amendment. That order can apply to specific members of the family or to the family as a whole, and can he made whether or not any other order is made in relation to the child. It is a short-term order designed to provide the expert help of a probation officer or local authority officer to promote co-operation within the family or to assist it to cope with problems arising during what may be a difficult period of transition following divorce or separation.
      However, that involvement will clearly not be necessary or appropriate in every case, and the Act therefore provides that before making an order the court must he satisfied that the circumstances are exceptional and that the consent of every person named in the order other than the child is obtained.
      The proposed amendment would be in addition to the court's power to make a family assistance order. Local authorities would be required to become involved whenever the court was notified of the breakdown or impending breakdown of a relationship, and to decide themselves what steps it was reasonably practical and necessary to take. I consider that, as at present, decisions of that nature are best exercised by the courts in the light of all the circumstances of the individual case, which is essentially the power under Section 16.
      In addition, the amendment is unclear on whom the onus to notify the local authority would rest. It appears that an obligation would be placed upon the court to keep a record of notices received and to pass them to the local authority. Also, it does not require the consent to the referral of all the parties involved. The latter is essential, as, if there is opposition to the involvement of an outside agency from within the family, then that involvement is unlikely to be successful in resolving the difficulties that may exist. The principle of the Children Act is that only where intervention in family life is necessary is it right for a local authority, for example, to become involved.
      The Government are committed to providing help to support services to families where the need arises to help them resolve areas of conflict and to protect the welfare of the children involved. However, I believe that families should not be subject to the intervention of outside agencies unless it is clear that that is genuinely necessary. In the great majority of cases, it is likely that local authority intervention of the type proposed by the amendment would not be appropriate, and thus substantial time and resources would be wasted in unnecessary investigations which could well have the effect of exacerbating tensions within the family.
      I understand well my noble friend's concerns, so well expressed on her behalf by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, but I believe that Section 16 of the Children Act strikes the appropriate balance between those concerns and the need to preserve the autonomy of families generally when considering intervention by
      1442
      outside agencies. Therefore I hope that my noble friend and the noble Lord will see that it is better to address those concerns within the powers existing under Section 16 to which I have referred.
      Lord Meston: The amendment was designed, as I understand it, to provide a practical method of notification of local authorities. It has to be said that even the exceptional circumstances which would normally provide for a family assistance order can he overlooked under the existing process. Perhaps the way to cater for the needs which the amendment seeks to meet would he for the Government to consider breathing some fresh life into Section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. That is something that may have to be looked at later. I am sure that the noble Baroness would wish me to reserve her position. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Schedule 6 agreed to.
      Schedule 7 [Transfer of certain tenancies on divorce etc. or on separation of cohabitants]:
      The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 210:
      Page 58, line 45, leave out ("respective").
      The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 186. I beg to move.
      On Question, amendment agreed to.
      Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
      Schedule 8 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
      Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 211:
      Page 62, line 44, leave out ("months") and insert ("weeks").
      The noble Lord said: The schedule reproduces Section 1(5) of the Matrimonial Causes Act which provides that the time between the decree nisi and the decree absolute in a nullity suit should be six months unless a shorter period is fixed. Since 1972 the period has actually been six weeks and it seems absurd to re-enact a period of six months. On that basis, I beg to move.
      The Lord Chancellor: I am happy to consider this amendment. However, there is a question as to whether if one does this the power of the High Court to shorten the period further should be preserved. It may be that at this juncture the thing to do is to fix the period in the primary legislation and leave it at that. However, I shall be happy to consider that further.
      Lord Meston: I am grateful for that indication. I would wish the power of the court to shorten the period to be preserved. But, subject to that observation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      [Amendments Nos. 212 to 212C not moved.]
      Schedule 8 agreed to.
      Schedule 9 [Modifications, Saving and Transitional]:
      The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 213:
      Page 78, leave out lines 13 to 18.
      The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
      On Question, amendment agreed to.
      Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
      Remaining schedule agreed to.
      House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

  Reserve Forces Bill [H.L.]
  Reported from the Committee (on Recommitment) in the Moses Room with an amendment and ordered to be reprinted as amended.
  House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Committee on the Reserve Forces Bill [H.L.]
(on Recommitment, second day)
"1996-01-30">Tuesday, 30th January 1996.
The Committee met in the Moses Room at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
Clause 56 [Call out for certain operations]:
On Question, Whether Clause 56 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Judd: Before we endorse this clause, I hope that it might be in order to raise one or two points. First, we on this side of the Committee— as I am sure noble Lords on all sides of the Committee— would want to put on record our unqualified admiration for the tremendous work, particularly in recent years, which has been done by the armed services in the context of the kind of role described in Clause 56. I also would hazard to say that my impression is that it gives a great deal of professional satisfaction to those involved, who feel that they are already making a very useful contribution to humanity.
That work obviously overlaps with the work of many existing humanitarian agencies. In a sense, I should certainly declare an interest because my professional life has mainly been spent in such agencies. Some of them are non-governmental voluntary agencies, and some, of course, are the big United Nations multi-national agencies. It would be reassuring for us all to hear the kind of conversations and discussions that have been taking place with those who have traditionally done this work about how best the role can be dovetailed, and how best it can be mutually supportive and effective.
Perhaps I may illustrate that by mentioning some questions that I have personally heard raised. First, among people who are in no sense negative about the armed services, who greatly appreciate the armed forces and armed services, they ask whether the services will not, inevitably, in the aftermath of the Cold War, he looking for a role. Finding a role is not necessarily quite the same as finding the most cost-effective way or the most relevant way of delivering a particular service— they do not necessarily coincide. There is some public anxiety around that point and it would be very good to hear the noble Earl's views on it.
Then there is the issue of neutrality. Some humanitarian agencies would claim that essential to their success in history has been the fact that they demonstrably have no vested interest in any party to a conflict; they are concerned about people in a situation, and it is that that has given them access, sometimes in
CWH 100
some of the most difficult circumstances. Would that role be as available to the armed forces and how would the reserve forces play their part within that?
There is also the whole issue of the professional competencies involved in humanitarian work, relief work, and so on. Here, it would he very interesting to look in a little more detail at the arrangements that are being made between the reserve forces, the mainstream forces and the humanitarian and voluntary agencies about sharing competencies, learning from each other, and the rest.
I raise these questions because they are anxieties. On this side of the Committee we are very positive towards this Clause. It provides a very distinguished and exciting role for the armed services to play, and we wish it well. We would like to see it get off to the best possible start. Therefore to hear the noble Earl's thinking about some of these issues would be helpful.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: It is not for me as a transient and passing phantom in this Committee to inquire by what miracle the Committee finished at Clause 55 last Thursday. Suffice to say that it was very convenient. I just want to make one small, but I believe rather important, point arising from my discussions in South Wales. Clause 56 enables the Secretary of State to call out members of a reserve force for,
"operations outside the United Kingdom for the protection of life or property; or",
as paragraph (b) says,
"for the alleviation of distress or the preservation of life or property in time of disaster or apprehended disaster".
The short point is this. I fully understand the great enthusiasm of the non-governmental organisations to be useful in this direction. However, there is another side to this that is particularly concerned with the medical services. The three services have significantly cut back on medical staff and cover both at home and abroad in relation to regular medical staff, so the likelihood of them relying upon reservists to run operations such as the Gulf War is very much greater.
The National Health Service itself is under stress. In this country, hospitals and trusts are all working under great strain. If there is an humanitarian operation overseas and medical staff in this country are fully engaged in their hospital work, what will happen? It may be predicted, rightly or wrongly, that there may be some resistance to calling out people who are engaged on medical operations here to do humanitarian operations overseas. I just ask what the Government think about that.
I support what my noble friend Lord Judd said. I believe that this Bill is receiving a splendid reception— and I do not often pay compliments to the Ministry of Defence— because of the very great care that has been taken in its drafting and the detailed consultations that have taken place. People feel that local opinion has been taken into account, and that is especially right because of the splendid work volunteers do in the Territorials, which is never recognised. It comes only second to the work being done by your Lordships in this Committee, who are spending so much time on it.

CWH 101
Perhaps I may suggest that the Minister has another word with the local organisations and especially with the hospital trusts to see whether we can get a clearer definition and clearer criteria as to how to balance the requirements of restricted medical staff here and a situation arising when the services may require them.
Lord Bramall: The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, has a very, very real point. These reserve army officers have to come from the health service. Although for a general war the health service may be prepared to let them go, there is a great reluctance, when it is so hard pressed, to do so for humanitarian operations or situations such as Bosnia. It is absolutely right that there should be a capability to call up reserve officers. But it demonstrates the great danger of running down the regular medical services to the extent that has happened. There will be a clash of priorities, as I see it.
Lord Craig of Radley: Perhaps the Minister can help the Committee by outlining who has primary call on individuals or medical servicemen in the National Health Service who have a reserve responsibility. It is not clear to me where the priority would be in a conflict of the sort described by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. Indeed, as the Minister will recall, at the time of the Gulf War we had to call out a number of National Health Service "medics", many of whom, having set up their field hospitals, were held there against the day when operations would start but at the expense of National Health Services patients here in this country. We had problems involving a conflict of interest at times when there were many more medical personnel available in the services. One is left with a very unhappy feeling about how a situation such as that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, would be dealt with.
Lord Redesdale: I support the clause, but I would like some information. The Secretary of State may make an order. I wonder under what circumstances he will make that decision. Will it be a cost assessment? As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out, NGOs already fulfil many of these functions and in many cases could do the job at far less cost than the regular Army. I speak of situations such as Rwanda where the Royal Air Force quoted a cost of transportation six times higher than that of private airlines and freight companies. I wonder on what grounds the Secretary of State would make the order and, if he did so, whether a cost assessment would be available for examination.
Where would the money come from? Would the Overseas Development Administration be asked, under any circumstances, to fund certain operations? And if so would the ODA be able to influence the decision of the Secretary of State over the resources to be used? I believe we have an amendment later concerning medical personnel. I speak from personal experience of the Gulf War in which my brother-in-law served. There was a very considerable problem, because he could not be given a specified date of return to his civilian job. It seemed that medical personnel were being kept for every eventuality. There should he a cut-off date. Perhaps the Minister can indicate whether that could happen?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on the clause. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for the warm welcome he gave to the inclusion of these provisions in the Bill. As he indicated, they are entirely new provisions, the purpose of which is to enable the Secretary of State to call out any member of any reserve force for peacekeeping tasks outside the United Kingdom and also for disaster relief tasks anywhere in the world. The increasing role of reservists in the capability of the services as a whole and, as he said, the enthusiasm of reservists to serve in these operations make this power wholly appropriate.
As with the other powers, call-out is authorised by an order. The order would cease to have effect on a specified date but not more than 12 months after it is made. The order's effect may be limited should there no longer be a requirement to call out reservists and the order may be revoked if there is no longer anyone serving under it. It is important to note that the Bill sets limits to the frequency and duration of call-out to nine months in any 27-month period. This period cannot be extended without the consent of the reservist in question.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about the circumstances in which the power might be used. The power to call out reserves for peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance overseas would be applicable, for example, to the recent and continuing suffering in Rwanda or to the current monitoring and support operation in Angola.
The use of reservists in disaster relief overseas needs little elaboration. I was asked about the criteria which would be adopted. We already deploy regular service personnel overseas in support of such operations. I believe it is only right that where reservists possess the relevant skills they should be able to be called out to assist their regular colleagues with the employment protection which the law confers. Normally, such operations— if they represent bilateral aid— are funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but it clearly depends upon under whose auspices the aid is offered. It could be under one of a number of banners. Reservists can bring civilian skills valuable in humanitarian operations that may not be available in the regular services at all. An example is the geotechnical expert deployed to Bosnia last year to assist in the search for new water sources for isolated communities and services bases.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked about the relationship of the call-out of reservists under this power and the work of humanitarian relief agencies such as the Red Cross and others. Let me say— and I am sure your Lordships would ask me to speak on your behalf— that the courage and dedication of those who work for such agencies arc undoubtedly features of their work which we would do well to recognise more overtly. They do absolutely splendid work and are very often not praised enough, I believe, for the expertise which they bring to it.

CWH 103
Our armed forces have worked successfully alongside voluntary bodies—for example, during famine relief in Africa— and I believe that co-operation has been extremely effective. If similar occasions arise in the future, then our armed forces, regular and reserve, will work alongside humanitarian agencies as the situation demands. Of course, each situation will be subject to its own appropriate plan. The introduction of this power will not lead to any change in our relationship with the voluntary agencies. I do not believe that that is either necessary or desirable.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, made a valuable and pertinent point. We fully understand that the call out of medical reservists presents particular problems. However, we believe that for the types of operations envisaged under Clause 56 the level of manpower established for the regular services is sufficient. Indeed, that would hold for quite substantial deployments of all three services. It may be helpful to mention as an example that there are no doctors or nurses among the reservists called out for the current operations in Bosnia.
More generally, my department maintains close touch with both the NHS Executive and the trusts and also has contact with the BMA. In the course of the formal consultation exercise on the Bill many trusts and the BMA wrote in with their views. Some of the points they raised were similar to those put forward by employers in general. The provisions for exemption from or deferral of call out and for payments to employers will apply to the NHS trusts in the same way as they do to ordinary employers and will go some considerable way towards meeting their concerns. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that we shall make a point of consulting NHS interests before making the relevant regulations.
I hope that what I have said will serve to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, and other noble Lords that we are sensitive to the needs of those NHS trusts which are employers of medical reservists. We recognise that the support of NHS trusts for the reserve forces cannot be taken for granted. Our national employers liaison committee is working hard to ensure that its message setting out the benefits to employers of having reservists on their staff gets through to the trusts.
I believe, as I have said, that this is a useful and valuable clause which will enhance the role of the reserve forces. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Bramall:Before concluding the debate on this important and vital clause, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl the Minister whether he is aware of the deep concern in the service medical services in the fields of surgery and anaesthetics there will not be enough medical expertise to be able to deal with the sort of situation that exists in Bosnia if it goes on for any length of time. I should like him to go back to the Ministry of Defence to make inquiries. My understanding is that in those two fields they are utterly reliant on the reserve forces. It may be very helpful to go back to the Ministry of Defence when there is a clash between the requirements of the forces and the requirements of the National Health Service.
Lord Judd: Before the Minister winds up, perhaps I may reinforce this point. We will all have been reassured by the terms in which the noble Earl has replied, but the whole debate underlines the fact that we have gone extraordinarily far in cutting down these essential services within the regular forces. I should like to have some indication from the noble Earl that he accepts and recognises this point.
This is coupled with another point which I think it is in order to raise in the Committee, although it is the other side of the coin. With market disciplines having been introduced into the National Health Service to the extent they have been introduced, flexibility has been eroded and the ability to meet unforeseen circumstances has been very much diminished. Everything has been reduced to the absolute bare minimum so that the whole problem becomes more acute.
In trying to further an excellent intention, the noble Earl is brought face to face with problems which both probably originate in the Treasury rather than in his own department. It would be good to hear him acknowledge the strategic issues that lie behind all this and to have him indicate that he may be able to address them.
I wish to make just one other point. I am pleased the noble Earl has said that he will consult, and that the ministry will consult, with the hospital trusts and so on. But I should like to hear him say at the same time that, as this very valuable new role for the service is developed, the Ministry will make a point of consulting with the humanitarian and voluntary agencies as a whole, not just in specific situations, but in the whole approach as to how the armed services can be best equipped and prepared to fulfil this role. There is a wealth of experience in those humanitarian agencies. We all know how these things happen and it will be a great shame if what could be a very fruitful and positive collaboration became a slightly uneasy one because of a lack of consultation and of a feeling of mutual involvement. Anything the noble Earl is able to do to foster that kind of spirit would be well worth while.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Judd, makes a very valid point. I am sure the services themselves would say that they do not have a monopoly of wisdom in such matters and that consultation with the voluntary organisations would only produce a better and more effective service wherever it is deployed. I gladly take that suggestion away with me.
If I may address the other concern that he covered and the concern that the noble and gallant Lord also poised. It is clearly true that there is no pool of unemployed doctors in the UK. One cannot pretend that there is. Indeed, in some specialities there is a shortage. The noble and gallant Lord mentioned anaesthetists in particular. I am certainly aware that there is a shortage of anaesthetists. We are trying to address that. Of course the problem cannot be solved overnight, but I understand that that particular problem is a very long-standing one indeed. There are always shortages of some specialism or other. What we have to do is to ensure that our planning takes account of that.

CWH 105
In the circumstances that we are in, holding a higher proportion of trained doctors in the regular services would merely serve to exacerbate the shortage of doctors in civilian life. If a crisis arises, we must, as I am sure the Committee will agree, ensure that our services have full and proper medical support. In some circumstances, that will require the call-out of reservists. Such call out will inevitably have an impact on the NHS, but we believe that within the context of the NHS as a whole it should not have an unmanageable impact. There may, of course, be localised difficulties and we will discuss them with the Trusts concerned. Bear in mind that the exemption provisions in Part VIII of the Bill do provide a formal channel for such concerns to be aired if ever there is a real need to do so.
I readily acknowledge that there are shortages, but not in every discipline by any means. I hope the Committee will be somewhat reassured by the fact that our planning has been very detailed and thorough in this regard.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I do not wish to abuse the indulgence of the Committee, but I must say that my noble Lord's second answer did not reassure me as much as his first answer did. I wish he had left it at the first. What he has to avoid is a feeling which I am not able to comment on, but I quote:
"that Reservists were being called out for peace keeping, humanitarian and disaster relief operations which should perhaps more properly be performed by Regular Forces, i.e. the Reservists were being used as a cheap substitute for Regulars who have now been made redundant."
If that impression is widespread—and I am not able to say whether it is or not—then he really has a problem to overcome it. Does not this debate really amount to this: that the regular forces in this particular area, the medical services, have been run down too fast, and that there ought to be a small increase perhaps in the number of people serving in the regular forces on the medical side so that the dilemma which will undoubtedly arise will be avoided.
Earl Howe: Let me simply say two things. First, a point I made at the Second Reading was that calling up reservists is not a cheap option. It certainly is not a back door route to filling a gap that may have been left by the run down in the regular forces. It is in many circumstances an expensive option. Even if that were in the Government's mind, which it is not, it would he a very expensive thing to do.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: But forgive me—if it is an expensive option, why adopt it?
Earl Howe: Because it is a cheap option if you regard the reservists, as I am sure your Lordships all do, as an insurance policy against severe contingencies. So long as we have reservists, there ready and waiting if we need them, it is an extremely cost-effective option for the nation; but clearly, once they are deployed, they become more expensive.
The second point I simply repeat for the benefit of the Committee is this. Bosnia, and the deployment of our forces there, represents the largest single
CWH 106
deployment of NATO forces since the Second World War. Despite that, we have not felt it necessary to call out any medical reservists at all, either doctors or nurses. We have sufficient in the regular forces for our needs.
Lord Bramall: It is really not fair to say that, because this operation has been going only for about six weeks. The problem arises when the operation has been going for about one year, not when it has been going for about four to six weeks. That is the real problem which the Ministry of Defence must address.
Lord Williams of Elvel: If I may say so, there is also a secondary problem which my noble friend Lord Callaghan raised. It is not necessarily a question of military operations; it is humanitarian operations which are important. If the feeling were to get around that NHS doctors, surgeons and anaesthetists were being used for humanitarian operations abroad when they were fully occupied with humanitarian operations in the United Kingdom, that would be bad indeed for morale in the NHS.
Earl Howe: I take the noble Lord's point, but clearly we would always look first for volunteers rather than for those who perhaps were being wrested unwillingly from their place of employment. These are very pertinent matters to the consultation that we shall undertake on the regulations. I believe that the points that have been made in the debate this afternoon will be most informative as we conduct that consultation. I hope that, once the regulations are formulated, noble Lords will be considerably reassured about the precise way in which we intend to implement them.
Clause 56 agreed to.
4 p.m.
Clause 57 [Maximum duration of service on call out under section 56]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 32, line 6, leave out ("9") and insert ("6").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 36 standing in my name and that of my noble friends Lady Turner and Lord Judd. We come here to a central point in the whole Bill: the length of service required under a general call-out order. During the Second Reading debate this point was raised by a number of noble Lords, including myself and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. If a call-out order is issued in a particular situation, the question is how long should the reservist have to serve before he is released.
It is clearly in everybody's interests that there should be sufficient time, because once you demobilise the reserve force that has been called out, it is very difficult to remobilise it again. We understand that. On the other hand, if a reservist is in service beyond a proper time—whatever the proper time might be remains to be defined—that will give rise to great discontent, loss of morale and, in certain instances in history, even mutiny. I would be grateful if the noble Earl could tell the Committee exactly how the figure of nine months was

CWH 107
arrived at, because in my submission it would be better if it were six months and a possible extension allowed for. I beg to move.
Lord Bramall: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, my noble comrade in arms on this amendment. Of course, I first declare my interest. I am president of the Greater London Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve. All my contacts with volunteers have indicated that, unless there is a finite period for which people are going to be called out for these emergency operations, the volunteers will become disenchanted and it may persuade them to cease being volunteers.
I know there is argument about the exact length of time, but many of those to whom I have spoken feel that six months is quite long enough. Some have said that they think it is too long. I think anything under six months would make it very difficult.
I know you can argue that nine months is right, on the basis that the Territorials who were going to be called up might need some extra training before they were committed to a particular area of operations, and they might be joining a regular unit at the very beginning of its tour, which was a six month tour. If you put all that together it becomes much easier for the staff if the period is nine months. On the other hand, they may not require extra training. Many of the people being called up will be fully trained, and anyhow can have a certain amount of on-the-job training when they get there. Many of them will not be joining a unit that goes out there, and certainly will not be joining it at the beginning of the tour. Therefore, the fact that a regular unit goes out for six months is fairly immaterial.
I believe you have to look at it from the point of view of the bottom tier and very especially from the point of view of the employer. If you do go over six months you have a very great risk that both the employer and the volunteer will become very disenchanted and think that it is not something they wish to risk happening to them. Therefore, we will lose the whole value of the exercise, which at the moment has the volunteers' support, and what we will merely be doing is slightly on-the-cheap substituting unwilling volunteers for regulars who now no longer exist.
I believe the right time is six months. With six months it will be a successful scheme; with nine months it may be an unsuccessful scheme. I know this very well, as a commanding officer who has frequently had to go on unaccompanied tours, taking soldiers away from their families. In the old days we used to do four-and-a-half to five months. At six months there was a very decisive cut-off point when the man suddenly said, "If there is any more of this I don't want to know"; or, "If there is any more of this my wife will not want to know". Once you go from six to nine months, you get into a sea change, and I believe that the whole of this excellent idea may falter on this three-month period.
Earl Attlee: I support the noble Lord's amendment. I should perhaps remind the Committee of my interest, as I am a serving officer in REME TA. Clause 57 refers to Clause 56, which is purely for humanitarian aid and
CWH 108
not a military operation, and therefore there should he limited requirements for extra training. Therefore soldiers could he sent out with fairly limited training to carry out specific tasks. If it is to support a six-month regular tour there should not he a problem with six months.
I have recently spent 11 months in Rwanda supporting the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. It was not a military operation; I was operating purely as a civilian. However, I was working very long hours, away from home, and I found that more than six months became very hard indeed. The first six or seven months were not a problem, but when it came to 10 months and being operational all that time, I found it very hard. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and other noble Lords for setting out their concerns on this part of the Bill so succinctly. The Government have considered carefully what maximum period should apply under this clause where there is need to call out a reservist under Clause 56. The services wanted to be able to call on reservists for up to 12 months in order to make an effective contribution to peacekeeping or humanitarian operations. During our public consultation on the Bill, however, employers expressed a wish to limit the absence of their reservist employees to six months for operations of that kind. A limit of nine months represents a compromise between the needs of reservists, employers and the services. It allows time for individuals to be accepted into service, to be trained for their roles and to perform a period of worthwhile service before preparations for their discharge begin. I think back to our debate last Thursday when, I believe, on both sides of the Committee we recognised the need for proper training in advance of deployment. Indeed, regulars also need pre-deployment training.
We do not have to hold reservists for the maximum period is there is no need to do so. That perhaps goes without saying. But a reduction in the period to six months, as proposed in the amendment, would place unacceptable limitations on the services and would prejudice this country's ability to make a sustained contribution to disaster relief and humanitarian or peacekeeping operations.
It is worth reminding ourselves that there is provision for flexibility in the Bill. If a particular employer or reservist is likely to suffer substantial disruption or hardship as a result of the call-out, he will be able to apply under regulations to be made under Part VIII of the Bill for one or more of a number of remedies. He will be entitled to seek exemption from call-out, deferral of call-out or an earlier discharge date or financial compensation.
I do not accept that the difference of three months represented by the amendment would mean the difference between success or failure of this power. We are confident that there is general acceptance of our

CWH 109
proposals. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord feels more comfortable and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bramall: The noble Earl appreciates, I hope, that members of the regular forces are not sent away from their families for more than six months. I know of no emergency tour—whether it is in Bosnia or anywhere else—which lasts for more than six months. I hope that he will therefore consider the question of taking the volunteer away from his family for more than six months.
Earl Howe: I take note of the noble and gallant Lord's vast experience in these matters. Naturally, what he has said will be noted and pored over in the Ministry of Defence. I do not believe that at this stage there is any more reassurance that I can give him. However, it is open to your Lordships to return to this matter at a later stage of the Bill and I shall in the meantime study what has been said.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that last sentence because I believe this is something that the Government need to reflect upon.
If I may say so, the most telling point was the last point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. If regular soldiers, sailors, and airmen are only sent away from their families for six months, why should volunteers be sent away from their families for nine months. That seems to be a very telling point. I hope very much that the noble Earl will bear that in mind when he re-considers this matter. Furthermore, my experience of these matters is that compromise solutions succeed in satisfying nobody; satisfying neither the employer nor the armed services. It is wise to come down on one side or the other because, if it goes wrong, then the Committee will have to accept that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, with all his experience, will be proved right and the whole scheme will fall flat on its face. That is not something we want. I hope very much that the noble Earl will consider this and we will come back to it at a later stage in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clauses 58 to 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Liability to recall]:
Lord Williams of Elvelmoved Amendment No. 37:
Page 36, line 37, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: This is a very small amendment. Previously we included the Royal Fleet Reserve, the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Marines Reserve in the numbers that Parliament was going to establish. I wondered whether we had left something out here which should properly be in the clause. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: There are good practical reasons why the number of persons who are recalled under the Bill should not count towards the numbers in the regular army or air force authorised by Parliament. Persons who
CWH 110
are recalled arc deemed to be enlisted in the regular services. Parliamentary control of the numbers of the regular Army dates back, as my noble friend, Lord Mottistone reminded us last week, to the prohibition in the Bill of Rights on the maintenance of a standing army in times of peace, except with the consent of Parliament. Parliament annually fixes the maximum numbers of the armed forces through the Votes A procedure. Thus, if there were an emergency requiring recall in large numbers, the numbers authorised—
4.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to intervene at this early stage, but my amendment is directed to leaving out subsection (5) of the clause on the ground that the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Fleet Reserve and the Royal Marines Reserve could actually be included. At the moment it refers only to the regular Army or regular Air Force. Since we have amended that at the early stages of the Bill I would imagine that this might be something, without going through the rest of the clause, to which the noble Earl might address himself immediately.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I hope they have not forgotten them.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Lord. If he will allow me to conclude, I believe he will find that I have taken his point on board.
If there were an emergency requiring recall in large numbers, the numbers authorised might be exceeded, and in theory those recalled could not therefore be accepted into service until Parliament had made special provision for them. Noble Lords will appreciate the difficulty that that might create.
The recall powers apply only if it appears to Her Majesty's Government that national danger is imminent, a great emergency has arisen or in the event of an actual or apprehended attack on the United Kingdom. Parliament would then be recalled and would therefore be able to debate any concerns over the numbers of the regular forces. Clearly recall happens only in cases of national emergency and impending attack. I do not believe that the provisions of the Bill are inconsistent with that fact.
On the specific point that the noble Lord made, Parliament has not taken statutory control over the numbers of the regular naval and marine forces, and so they are not mentioned here. The persons concerned in Part VII are not members of the reserve forces but people who are recalled to the regular services.
Lord Bramall: I am extremely confused about this subsection. I do not know whether I should be supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, to leave out subsection (5), or whether it should be left in. This is partly because I do not understand what it means. There should not be any problem as regards the noble Lord's amendment because if there are two bottles—one of the reserves and the other of the regulars—and you take something out

CWH 111
of the reserve bottle and put it into the regular bottle, one will go down and the other will go up; and presumably at the end the amount is the same.
What worries me—and this is why I am not sure whether I can support the noble Lord's amendment—is that we must be extremely careful that, if these people come across to the regular forces and there is suddenly a surge in regular recruiting, we might for a short time exceed the numbers laid down for the regular Army. Obviously the regular Army was not big enough; otherwise we would not have wanted the reserves in the first place. Therefore someone in the Treasury may start using the word "substitution" instead of "addition". And once there is talk of substitution, we are in dead trouble. It means that recruiting gets turned off and the unit which has accepted reservists is not allowed to recruit the number that it would have needed before it recruited the Territorials.
If subsection (5) allows the regular forces to over-bear for a short period while they have reservists with them, I would approve of it remaining in the Bill. Perhaps the noble Earl can explain exactly what it means. I am still not very clear.
Earl Howe: Clearly there is some confusion here and I will do my best to elucidate. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I repeat myself. The individuals dealt with in this part of the Bill are not reservists; they are individuals who are civilians in peace and are not subject to statutory control at all. They are recalled to the regulars. That is very different from the reserve forces who are called out as members of their reserve force. That is why I emphasise that recall is only possible in the most serious crisis. I explained in my opening remarks why the clause was structured as it is to enable us to do this: because persons who are recalled are deemed to be enlisted in the regular services.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: On a different point, I am hopelessly out of date I know, but I was surprised to hear that Parliament does not have to give its assent to the numbers of men in the Royal Navy. When I was Parliamentary Secretary in 1950 we used to submit those returns every year. Do we no longer do that? If not, why not?
Earl Howe: My understanding is that Parliament does vote a number, but there is no statutory provision to oblige it to do so.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: Good heavens! I wish I had known that a long time ago.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl and all who have participated in this debate. I take it, in the light of our previous discussions in Committee about the powers of Parliament to set the numbers of reserve forces, that if and when the Armed Forces Bill comes before your Lordships from another place that may be an argument we will need to have about the regular forces. Were this Committee, or both Houses, to decide that the view of my noble friend Lord Callaghan
CWH 112
is liable to he set into an Act, then this subsection would be amended accordingly. Am I right in thinking that? I imagine I am.
Earl Howe: Obviously I have not had an opportunity to consult the lawyers, but I would imagine that what he says is correct on the supposition he makes.
Lord Williams of Elvel: This has raised a number of interesting and rather complicated issues. I propose to the Committee that we study rather carefully what the noble Earl said, and, if necessary, come hack at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clauses 66 and 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Recall for national danger, great emergency or attack on the UK]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 38
Page 38, line 21, after ("Majesty") insert ("on the advice of the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 38 standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Williams of Elvel and Baroness Turner of Camden and myself. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendment No. 39 at the same time.
We have debated both of these issues already in our considerations. These amendments are designed to clarify the situation. Under Clause 68(1) Her Majesty would make such an order on the advice of the Secretary of State. So that everybody knows where we stand, it is probably just as well to say so in the Bill. We hope that the noble Earl will now feel able to accept that point.
On the point in Clause 68(10), it is of course the issue on which we finished our last day's proceedings in this Committee. The simple point is that it does not deal with the issue of what would happen if we were in the middle of a General Election. Therefore, to include "if not dissolved" covers the point, although it does not leave us any the wiser as to what would happen if we were in the middle of a General Election. It would be very helpful if at some stage we could hear the noble Earl's views on that. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 38. The amendment would not make any change to the current position. By convention Her Majesty would not act in these circumstances, except on the advice of her Ministers. If the noble Lord cares to look at Clause 68(9) he will see that a recall order must in any event be,
"signified under the hand of the Secretary of State",
so that in practice that gives effect to the sense of his amendment. I hope the noble Lord will agree with me that the amendment is unnecessary.
Turning to Amendment No. 39, as the noble Lord indicated, we debated around this subject at some length last Thursday. As I said then, in theory if Her Majesty were obliged to make a recall order while Parliament was dissolved, then it is true there would be no

CWH 113
Parliament to which the making of the order could be reported. But Parliament would not be dissolved without a date being fixed for the sitting of a new Parliament, so it is most unlikely that there would be any substantial interval which would delay reporting the making of the order.
As I said last week, it may also be fair to imagine that we would not be subjected to a national danger or a great emergency without having some warning of it. In those circumstances one presumes that Parliament would not be dissolved.
I say again that I think the problem envisaged by the noble Lord is perhaps more apparent than real. I shall nevertheless reflect on the problem he has posed, as I promised that I would, and if there is any further comfort I can give him, perhaps I may write to him between now and Report stage.
Lord Judd: I thank the noble Earl for his response. I am glad to see there is no issue of principle between us. It seems to me that, while of course I hear what he says about the conventions, for everyone reading the Bill and understanding it, it would be clearer to make plain that Her Majesty acts on the advice of the Secretary of State rather than just to suppose that everyone reading the Bill has constitutional knowledge and information which would cover that point. It is not a major issue, but in a Bill which, as my noble friend Lord Callaghan said, has been drafted with so much care and attention to detail, it is just a pity that this point has not been covered.
On the second point, if the noble Earl will forgive my saying so, I notice that we return to the language of "We presume that things will be in such a fashion or not in such a fashion". Presumption is not a very strong mode of thought in the drafting of legislation. It is much better that legislation should cover foreseeable eventualities, even if they are not very likely. As I always tremendously enjoy receiving letters from the noble Earl, because I find they are written with so much care and attention to detail, I very much look forward to seeing a letter from him on this point before we move forward to the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clauses 69 to 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 [Period of service and release]:
On Question, Whether Clause 72 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I should be grateful if the noble Earl could clarify something. As I understand the position—I may be quite wrong but I raise the matter for clarification—there seems to be a maximum period of service for a person who has been accepted under a recall order into the regular forces. Is that the case or is it still the nine months which applies to reservists?
Earl Howe: Clause 72 provides that "on release", in the case of officers, and "discharge", in the case of men,
CWH 114
the individual will cease to be a member of the regular service to which he was recalled, and will revert to being a civilian. If he is under the maximum age for recall, he will remain liable to be recalled again, subject to the limit on the aggregated service that can he required within a six-year period, set out in Clause 69. Subsections (3) and (4) permit those whose acceptance into service has been delayed through no fault of their own to be treated as if they had reported earlier than they did. Subsection (5) permits the trial by court martial of a person who would normally be entitled to be released or discharged for an offence committed while he was subject to service law.
The noble Lord asked me a specific question. He said that he could not see where there was a maximum period of service specified for those subject to a recall order. Clause 69(2) sets out the limit as three years in any six and Clause 69(5) permits extension to five years in six. I am not sure whether that answers his point fully but I hope it does.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Am I right in thinking that under Clause 69(2), to which the noble Earl referred, the maximum is three years? Is that right?
Earl Howe: Yes, that is what I said. I believe I read out a wrong reference. It is Clause 69(6), which permits the extension to five years in six. In subsection (8) "relevant service" is defined as being within the six years immediately preceding the day on which a person's current service began. I believe that not only is there a limit but it is quite clearly set out.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do accept that and I am grateful to my noble Earl for pointing me to the clause where it appears. If I may just extend the discussion a little, who are these people who leave the regular forces, become civilians and then are recalled? Have they engaged in any contract to do so? That presumably is the case.
Earl Howe: The people concerned are defined in Clause 66. As the noble Lord will recall, up to now they have been defined in terms of their pension eligibility. We have changed that under the Bill. As he will see, Clause 66 lists the categories of people who may be liable to recall under Part VII.
Lord Mottistone: I was liable for recall up to the age of 55, and beyond if I insisted.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74: [Exercise of functions by authorised officers]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 42, line 35, leave out from ("Council") to end of line 37.
The noble Lord said: This is again a very simple amendment. The intention is to obtain clarification on how the Defence Council shall choose the particular officers. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could tell us a bit about that. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has asked me to clarify the nature of the delegations set out

CWH 115
in this part of the Bill. I am sure that he needs no convincing that delegation is essential to the efficient and effective working of the armed forces and this is reflected in the Bill. It is essential that the Secretary of State should be able to delegate some or all of the functions given to him by the Bill and desirable that he should be able to do so directly, without the necessity for him to go through the Defence Council in every instance. That would be time-consuming and it would not offer any additional safeguard. At the same time, the ability to delegate the relevant functions totally to the Defence Council confers a very valuable flexibility.
The normal procedures for such delegation are simple. They are that the officers authorised to exercise the relevant function are clearly described. They themselves would either be given written authorisation, or the fact that they were so authorised would be reflected in written instructions, or both. Such delegations of responsibility are commonplace throughout the armed forces and work well.
I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel happy that this part of the Bill has been sufficiently explained.
Lord Mottistone: Would Mr. Winston Churchill, as he was when Minister of Defence in the last great conflict of the Second World War, have ever wanted to go through the War Office or the Admiralty before he appointed somebody? He caused a great deal of trouble by appointing people direct but, on the whole, he would never have put up with it. This is a very important inclusion to this Bill to make sure that we are not too hamstrung when we have decent leaders.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has quite grasped the point that am trying to make.
I am grateful to the noble Earl. That is a useful expression of what the Government's intentions are in the matter and who can do what, and it is exactly what I wanted in moving this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 74 agreed to.
Clauses 75 and 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Individual exemptions etc. from call out]:
On Question, Whether Clause 77 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Judd: I should like to say just a few brief words on Clause 77 and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Clause 78.
We need not detain the Committee for long. Simply put, these are two very major clauses dealing with individual exemptions. It seems that what this Bill is about is formalising the situation as it covers everybody, and in moving into the realm of individual exemptions all sorts of misgivings could perhaps unnecessarily arise as to what this is all about: what sort of arrangements will be made to enable certain individuals, and which individuals, to be freed from the obligations which fall upon others. It is a question of justice not only being
CWH 116
done but being seen to be done. I am sure that even from those few words the noble Earl will understand the point that I am making and I look forward to his reassurance for the Committee.
Earl Howe: Clause 77 provides for regulations to be made permitting an individual or his employer to apply for the individual to be exempted from call-out or to have his liability to report deferred. If he has already been accepted into permanent service, the clause also provides for the individual to be released. The clause permits regulations to be made covering the call-out of individuals under Parts IV, V and VI of the Bill. Those liable to recall under Part VII are dealt with in Clause 78.
We recognise that an individual or his employer may find that call-out occurs at a particularly inconvenient time. The provision of regulations enabling reservists and employers to seek deferral or exemption from call-out has therefore been widely welcomed.
The noble Lord expressed misgivings about the type of situation that might be covered by regulations. I believe that there are likely to be a variety of reasons why an individual may seek deferral or exemption from call-out. For example, an employer might find that losing a key skilled employee at a particular time could have an adverse economic effect on the business; or a self-employed reservist might find that his or her absence from the business could result in serious damage to it. There might also be compassionate reasons for exemption or deferral, such as the serious illness of a close relative, the care of children or of an elderly parent, where no other arrangements can be made for their care. Each situation might give rise to exemption or deferral, as appropriate.
It is important to remember that the Bill requires (in Clause 80(5)) the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations under this clause. We regard such consultation as essential to the success of the regulations.
Lord Judd: May I just make the point to the noble Earl that, as much as in any other part of the Bill, it will be tremendously important here that the regulations are well understood and transparent because it is just the kind of minefield into which inadvertently public opinion can move: "Why was so and so granted an exemption when so and so was not?". "What was the pull that this particular employer had with the Minister or with the department as distinct from that employer?", and so on. The regulations must be very clear and very much above board so that everybody knows what their rights are and what the opportunities are; the kind of illustrations that are given will be very important.
I am sure that the noble Earl will have taken on board our anxieties on this score. In the expectation that he will work with the department in getting this right, I think we should let the matter rest.
Earl Howe: It is important, as I am sure the noble Lord will recognise, for the regulations to contain an element of discretion rather than they should attempt to lay down hard and fast rules for every case. If an

CWH 117
individual is discontent with the way in which he or she has been treated, there is always a route to appeal through the tribunal.
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clauses 78 to 80 agreed to.
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 80, insert the following new clause—
DISCHARGE ON GROUNDS OF CONSCIENCE
(".—(1) Applications by any person wishing on grounds of conscience to be discharged from all requirements to serve under the provisions of this Act will, in the first place, be handled by the force concerned.
(2) Applicants for discharge on grounds of conscience will be interviewed by a person or persons authorised by the Secretary of State and, if the case is accepted, will be discharged from all requirements to serve.
(3) If an application for discharge on grounds of conscience is not accepted under the provisions of subsection (2) the case may be referred to the Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors (ACCO) as appointed by the Lord Chancellor or, in the absence of such a referral, the applicant may directly appeal to the ACCO.
(4) In the case of a referral or appeal to the ACCO the decision of the ACCO will be communicated to the Secretary of State for approval; after approval the decision will be communicated to the applicant by the person or persons authorised under subsection (2).
(5) If the ACCO reject a referred application or appeal, the applicant must fulfil all obligations to serve and will be subject to all normal service discipline.
(6) An applicant whose application for discharge on grounds of conscience is rejected by the ACCO may re-submit an application if there is additional relevant evidence to be heard; any such resubmission will follow the procedures laid down in subsections (I) to (5).").
The noble Lord said: One area of our national life in which we can take great pride is the care and consideration with which we have for a long time treated genuine conscientious objection. All the amendment seeks to do is to make explicit in the context of the Bill what no doubt the noble Earl will tell us is implicit. In deciding to table the amendment, we had in mind the reality—I have encountered it not infrequently in life—that people can become genuine conscientious objectors having completed permanent military service. It is very important that people in that position should be treated in exactly the same way as those who registered their conscientious objection before they undertook any service whatever. It is in that sense that we look for reassurances from the noble Earl.
With the help of the department, the Library and others, we have sought to put into words what is the existing situation. There is, however, one point I should clarify. Subsection (4) refers to the fact that in the case of a referral or appeal to the Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors the decision of the advisory committee will be communicated to the Secretary of State for approval. That is perhaps a slight change in emphasis, but I hope that it is acceptable. At present, I understand, the decision is in theory the Secretary of State's but there is no case on record of the Secretary of State ever having rejected the advice of the advisory committee. We are simply seeking to accept the
CWH 118
convention which has developed and put it into words. I look forward to hearing that the noble Earl accepts the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: I support the amendment, especially in the case of those who have been recalled. As mentioned earlier, the time limit can be up to six years. It has been the experience of those organising Army exercises that when they have tried to contact people for recall many former soldiers showed little willingness to serve again and no longer felt the same as they did when they were actually serving. In six years, a person can change a great deal. It also seems that these people would be called up only as a very last resort and that after six years their military skills would be slightly rusty. If they have changed their views, this amendment would be helpful.
Earl Howe: Clearly, we are dealing with an important and sensitive area. However, we do not believe that it would be sensible to make specific provision in the Bill for conscientious objectors, if only for the reason that any new arrangements would also have to consider the regular forces. I do not believe that there is benefit in having statutory provision for conscientious objectors. We have long-standing arrangements for such situations which work well. A reservist has the right to appeal to the Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors. A member of the reserve forces who is called out and wishes to submit a plea of conscientious objection to his military service obligation has an established procedure which he can go through. He must submit a written statement of his reasons, supported by at least two statements from referees who know him well. These documents form the basis of an application for exemption from military service and are sent to the appropriate service authority. The applicant's case is then forwarded to the ACCO for consideration. Where the ACCO supports the application for conscientious objection, the application to resign or be discharged on the grounds of conscience will be granted and the individual, if a member of the regular forces, will cease to have any effective reserve liability. If the ACCO does not uphold the individual's application, then he will be informed that he must continue in service.
I believe that these arrangements, which are long-standing, work well. They are very similar to what is proposed in the noble Lord's amendment. Therefore, in the circumstances, I do not believe there is anything to he gained by seeking to put this kind of provision on the face of the Bill.
Lord Judd: I am grateful to the noble Earl. He has made very plain that he understands the procedures well and that he is determined that they shall operate in this context as in any other. With those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 81 agreed to.

CWH 119
Clause 82 [Payments to individuals in respect of call-out or recall]:
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 48, line 18, leave out from first ("payments") to end of line 19.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to take away what we believe is an onerous burden on members of the Territorial Army. Under the terms of the clause, the Secretary of State is given power to make payments for financial loss. I do not see why, if the claim is justified, the soldier is later asked to make a detailed analysis of what he spent the money on. That seems slightly harsh.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has expressed his concern about this part of Clause 82. In fact the wording of subsection (3)(c) is designed to be an important safeguard to ensure that payments made under the scheme are applied for the purposes for which they are awarded. The amendment—although I realise it is a probing amendment—were it to be accepted, would remove that safeguard. The requirement to say how the money has been used relates solely to payments towards the provision of pensions, allowances or gratuities.
I do believe that it is right and proper that the Ministry of Defence is able to satisfy itself that the money has been used for the purpose for which it was given. I am sure that reservists themselves will understand the need for that type of safeguard.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the noble Earl for his reply. As long as it is treated in the manner in which he describes, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Payments to employers etc. in respect of call-out or recall]:
On Question, Whether Clause 83 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mottistone: I was approached over the weekend by a lieutenant-colonel from Scotland, who is a Territorial officer of 30 years' service, saying that he was not happy that Clause 83 gives sufficient encouragement to employers to release people for the purposes laid down in the clause. He proposed two additional subsections, which he has since put in the post to me. On reading them with my noble friend the Minister, they seem remarkably like subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 83. I am only speaking now because it is my intention to follow this up with the colonel before he disappears to Bosnia at the end of the week. I want to be quite certain that this is necessary. I have agreed with my noble friend that, depending on the outcome, I shall be writing to him for advice as to what might be done at Report stage, perhaps with a view to putting down an amendment to cover this particular point.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to my noble friend for flagging up this issue and naturally I shall do whatever I can to clarify our position on the suggestions that my
CWH 120
noble friend's acquaintance has put forward. I should naturally he delighted to correspond with him between now and Report stage on that point.
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clauses 84 to 91 agreed to.
Clause 92 [General power to make rules]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 52, line 3, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 43 standing in my name and that of my noble friends, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendment No. 44. We are dealing here with reserve forces appeal tribunals, and in Clauses 90 and 91 we note the sudden appearance of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate. The appointment of a panel of ordinary members and the membership of tribunals will he decided by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate in their respective territorial jurisdictions, I imagine.
When it comes to making rules with respect to the practice and procedure to be followed on appeals to appeal tribunals, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate mysteriously disappear and the Secretary of State takes their role. I would have thought that the Committee would agree that, if those with the legal experience—the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate—are to be involved in the appointment of members of the tribunal, at least they should be involved in the procedure of the tribunals, because it is the procedure of the tribunals that is going to determine a lot of what happens.
That is the point of Amendment No. 43 and I look forward to hearing from the noble Earl why the Government believe that it should be the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Defence that determine the procedure rather than those who perhaps are—dare I say it?—rather better equipped to do so than the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 44 addresses the rather difficult question, which has indeed been addressed in public about various reports and inquiries that are in process, of whether the proceedings of the tribunals should be, could be or might be held in private as opposed to in public, and the representation of the parties. Your Lordships will be aware of inquiries which have taken place on a variety of matters, which have been governed by something known as the Salmon Rules as a result of the Salmon Commission. The recommendations of the Salmon Commission Were that the parties should be represented, there should be cross-examination and the possibility of examination by one's own lawyer.
This clause as drafted allows the Secretary of State to determine that that should not be the case, and I would argue that that provision is undesirable.
I believe that these tribunals should, in general, be held in public, and I hope that the noble Earl will agree with that. I do not necessarily insist that they should always be held in public. I would, however, tend to insist that the parties should always be allowed to be represented and that there should be no conceivable

CWH 121
loophole which would allow the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor or Lord Advocate, or whoever is to determine the procedure of such tribunals, to prevent those involved being represented. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I turn first to Amendment No. 43. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has expressed concern that the rules for appeal tribunals will be drawn up by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will be bound by Section 8 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 to consult the Council on Tribunals before he can make rules for the appeal tribunals.
The noble Lord will, I am sure, he aware that the Council on Tribunals consists of not more than 15 nor less than 10 members appointed by my noble and learned friends the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate. Members of the council and its Scottish committee are selected for their knowledge of the law and other relevant professional matters, and indeed their general experience. I note that the chairman of the council is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, who is admirably qualified to serve in that capacity.
If, despite the scrutiny of the Council on Tribunals, Parliament is still not satisfied on the appeal tribunal rules, it can pray against the rules which will be statutory instruments subject to the negative resolution procedure. There is therefore effectively a double check on any rules made by the Secretary of State.
On the other point that the noble Lord makes in connection with the clause, although we expect that the appeal tribunal hearings will normally be held in public, it is important for the tribunal to be able to sit in private in appropriate circumstances. Examples might be where classified or commercially sensitive material may be produced or matters discussed which are intensely private in nature.
Paragraph (g) allows for the possibility of parties being represented by someone other than lawyers, for example. This is consistent with our intention that appeal tribunal hearings will be informal and inexpensive. I can assure the Committee that it is our intention to broaden rather than to narrow the range of persons who may represent appellants.
I trust that the noble Lord will agree that the interests of applicants will be well safeguarded and that he will feel comfortable in withdrawing this amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Earl He is quite right in saying that my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell is admirably qualified to adjudicate on these matters. I cannot think of anybody better qualified. However, it seems to me to be odd, in spite of all the safeguards that the noble Earl said are available, to transfer the responsibility from the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate, in the case of appointment of members of a tribunal, to the Secretary of State in the case of procedures. I shall not press this matter too far because I understand that there are certain safeguards, but it seems to be a very odd type of arrangement.
CWH 122
On the question of privacy, I conceded the point—I hope the noble Earl agreed—that there may be occasions when the tribunal has to be held in private because certain confidential information might be and had been made available. But I take the noble Earl's point—and I hope that he means it with his usual seriousness—that it is the Government's intention that these tribunals should normally be held in public. We take that as a ministerial statement of what we believe this clause to mean.
On the question of representation, I also take it that the noble Earl means that the Secretary of State will never say under paragraph (g) that nobody will represent the parties; that that will not be part of the rules of procedure which will be set out by the Secretary of State, but there will always he the possibility of representation; that what the noble Earl is trying to do is to broaden rather than narrow these arrangements and that there will always be the possibility of legal representation. I hope that I am right in saying that.
Earl Howe: That is correct.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 92 agreed to.
Clauses 93 and 94 agreed to.
Clause 95 [Failure to attend for service]:
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Clause 95 agreed to.
Clauses 96 to 111 agreed to.
Clause 112 [Powers and duties assignable to associations]:
On Question, Whether Clause 112 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Judd: We thought it would be quite important, before this clause was endorsed by the Committee, just to dwell on its implications a little. As we understand it, the thrust of this whole Bill is to strengthen the central role of the reserve forces in the total defence effort. That is something which is happening, and this Bill is designed to make it happen as effectively as possible.
There is, of course, within the reserve forces and Territorials a tremendous amount of tradition which unashamedly is to do with the social ethos of the Territorials and the reserves, which is very important. It seems to us that in this particular clause, this coming together of the tradition and the new demands becomes quite acute.
In subsection (1) the clause opens with the statement,
"An association shall have such powers and duties connected with the organisation and administration of—"
and it goes on to illustrate how this would work.
In subsection (4) it is clear that,
"An association shall not have any powers of command"
and I underline "of command",
"or training over any part of Her Majesty's forces".

CWH 123
That is an interesting inter-relationship. It is by no means an impossible relationship but it is an interesting inter-relationship.
If we then go back and look at subsection (2), perhaps I could just illustrate where it seems to us there may he room for reflection. In subsection(2)(a) it refers to,
"the organisation of the units of the Territorial Army and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and their administration (including maintenance) at all times other than when training or on duty or when in permanent service".
But then in (e) it goes on to deal with,
"arranging with employers as to leave of absence for training, and ascertaining, after consultation with the representatives of the main employers in the area for which the association is established, the times of training which having regard to their businesses are best suited to the circumstances of civil life".
That is quite intriguing because it is the convenience of the business and the needs of the employers being given very high prominence over the demands of the service. Yet at the same time we are saying that the Bill is all about the reserve forces and Territorials becoming much more central to the organisation of defence. Perhaps we need to think about that and hear the noble Earl's reflections, because we can see possible contradictions there.
Paragraph (g) refers to,
"the provision of transport for the peace-time requirements of the reserve forces".
Again, the thinking behind that would be interesting. Paragraph (h) refers to,
"providing accommodation for the safe custody of arms or equipment".
That seems arguably very essential for operational requirements. Why this should be something within the powers of the reserve forces own organisation, as it were, as distinct from the mainstream organisation of defence, is not necessarily self-evidently clear. It is important to get the thinking behind these points on the record at this juncture so that we do not just endorse the clause but endorse it full-heartedly with the Minister's explanation of how it will operate a little more clearly on the record than the Bill itself makes possible.
Lord Bramall: I understand that the spirit behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is one of seeking information rather than protest. I have already declared my interest but I think that the associations perform a very valuable role. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has often mentioned the umbilical cord aspect of the reserve forces. I think the association can contribute enormously to that in establishing the roots of the reserve forces into the various shires, counties, boroughs and so on. I think it is very important.
I do not see much wrong with the drafting. There is one very quaint phrase about manoeuvres which I have not heard used since 1930, but apart from that it seems to me that Clause 3 and the various subsections put very clearly what the responsibilities and limitations of the association are. That is very important. I can see no great harm in that going in. I think there must be some recognition of the
CWH 124
association, although there may be scope for minor drafting points to make it more explicit. I think that this meets the requirement.
Lord Mottistone: I strongly agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. It is important that this is really an updating and not a very great change on Section 124 of the 1980 Act. I think its origins stem from Lord Haldane in 1908. The important thing about the territorial associations—the noble and gallant Lord also said this—is that over the past nearly 90 years they have proved themselves to be an extraordinarily strong and capable organisation for handling the Territorial Army reserves in this country. They have survived two major wars without anybody wanting substantially to change the kinds of things that are required of them. I think that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Perhaps Members of the Committee opposite should reflect on the fact that there is nothing new here and nothing extra is required.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Does the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, understand the procedure in this Committee? We are probing for information. The fact that we give notice of our intention to oppose that a clause stands part does not mean that we oppose the clause. We are having an exchange where we require and ask the Government for information. It is not that we do not appreciate the associations. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, quite rightly pointed out that I said on Second Reading that the associations were part of the umbilical cord. I hope that we can get that straight so we are not always criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for opposing things to which we are not in fact opposed. If we want to oppose things, we will oppose them at the Report stage of the Bill.
Earl Howe: Clause 112 specifies the powers and duties which may be assigned or transferred to associations to meet their responsibilities. As my noble friend, Lord Mottistone, has pointed out, the provisions in the clause represent an updating, if you like, of the provisions in the 1980 Act. Substantively and substantially, the provisions remain unchanged.
The main responsibilities of associations include the recruitment and welfare of the Territorial Army and Royal Auxiliary Air Force; the provision and maintenance of accommodation for the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Marine Reserve, the Territorial Army, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Cadet Forces; and liaison with the civilian community, especially the maintenance of employer support for the reserve forces. Here, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, directed our attention to subsection (2)(e), and the watchword in connection with that part of the clause is "consultation". It is that liaison with the civilian community that the associations do so well. I believe that the subsection fairly describes that activity.
Subsection (2)(a) prevents the associations having any control over the organisation of units of the Territorial Army and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force when they are training on duty or in permanent service. That, again, reflects the current position.

CWH 125
The noble Lord drew attention to subsection (4) which provides that associations should not have "powers of command or training". There is no need for them to have such power. The functions of the associations necessarily have to be distinguished from those of the chain of command. It would be very odd if the associations had powers which cut across that chain.
The local associations and their council continue to work hard at getting the message across, as does the National Employers' Liaison Committee. Events such as Exercise Executive Stretch, where employees of local businesses participate in a range of outdoor activities over a weekend under the supervision of the TA, and Bring-a-Boss evenings are two examples of how the reserve forces are promoting themselves to employers. Some problems, inevitably, occur from time to time and some reservists find it difficult to meet their reserve commitment because of pressure from employers.
The services are always considering further ways of adapting to the more flexible employment patterns that exist today, so that reservists can more easily meet their reserve commitment.
The Government greatly appreciates the support which the associations have provided to the reserve forces over the years. They have given enormous support to the process of consultation over this Bill and for that we are also grateful. We see no need to disturb what is a very satisfactory and effective relationship.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Judd: I am grateful to the noble Earl. It is always valuable in these exchanges to have this unrivalled insight and experience from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. They inform our proceedings and will be on the record for future reference, which is therefore very important. We on the Opposition Bench are second to none in our admiration of the territorial and reserve forces. We shall not yield to the Government on that. Those forces have a powerful record in national life. They have been an important element in the whole social fabric of our society; we would not dream of suggesting otherwise. However, I suspect—and I say no more—that some of the issues referred to in the clause will re-emerge with the passage of time in one way or another. We are at a very significant moment in the organisation of the armed forces in this country. The relationship is not as it always has been. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, says there is nothing new. I am sure that he will not mind my saying that that is slightly our anxiety and we are in a new situation. More searching reflection on the implications of that new situation might have been helpful as a background to the wording and drafting of the clause.
It is clear that the main defence effort from now on will be centrally more dependent upon the reserve forces. There will be less flexibility within the regular permanent services and a more immediate demand for a critical role by the reserve forces. In the spirit of that development, clear lines of authority of command are
CWH 126
most important. Any confusion about just what the association is able to look after and what others must look after needs to he dealt with.
We would not want to delay any further—we could not in any case under the conventions of this Committee—the passing of the clause, but we say in good faith that it contains a great deal that is of central significance to the implementation of the Bill.
Clause 112 agreed to.
Clause 113 agreed to.
Clause 114 [Accounts of associations]:
On Question, Whether Clause 114 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Once again this is a request for information from the Minister. We are dealing here with the accounts of associations. These will be made up in a manner to be specified in future regulations. Would the Minister be good enough to give us some idea of what the regulations will say? Will they allow associations to accumulate reserves? Will they specify the ring-fencing of certain activities that are not related to the matters discussed in Clause 112? Will they provide for auditing? Will they provide for who should audit and in what form the accounts should be set out? I should be grateful if the noble Earl could give us some idea of what is proposed. As a specific question, will the form of the accounts be approved by Her Majesty's Treasury?
Earl Howe: This clause spells out the requirements for auditing the associations' funds and reproduces Section 126 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980, which is to be repealed. It requires associations to make up accounts and to have them audited annually in accordance with regulations. Copies of the accounts and the auditors' report are required to be sent to the Defence Council or as directed in regulations. The requirement for the submission of annually audited accounts and for copies of auditors' reports supports the MoD's own accounting procedures.
The day-to-day management of TAVRA funding is the responsibility of the Command Secretary HQ Land and the audited association accounts are sent to him for scrutiny. The noble Lord may be interested to know, as an aside, that the TAVRA regulations require public and private funds to be identified separately in association accounts, and these provisions are in practice applied in the accounts.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl as far as we go. Do I assume that the public funds that he refers to are those which are specific for the purposes of the TAVRAs as defined in Clause 112 and that other activities which they may engage in should be properly regarded as private. Can he possibly say whether the Treasury would have any input in deciding the way in which TAVRA accounts are made up, and the method of audit?
Earl Howe Earl Howe: I would be happy to write to the noble Lord with further details on this but, in answer to his first question, associations only generate income from

CWH 127
the element of the overall TAVRA grant relating to the general administration of the TA. Such income does not arise from the element of the grant allocated for TAVRA administration or the TAVRA estates.
Associations are able to invest this element of the TAVRA grant and are permitted, under TAVRA regulations, to use the income that has been generated for TA general administration purposes without prior approval from the Ministry of Defence. This income is treated as coming from a private rather than a public source as it does not come directly from the Ministry of Defence but rather from the institution with which the money has been invested. This gives flexibility to local decision-making, which the associations I believe greatly appreciate, and it is very much in line with the department's own arrangements for delegation of responsibility.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be content, subject to my following up in correspondence the further points that he raised.
Clause 114 agreed to.
Clause 115 agreed to.
Clause 116 [Regulations as to associations]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 62, leave out lines 19 to 25.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 46 standing in my name and that of my noble friends. I should be most grateful if the noble Earl could explain to the Committee what subsection (1)(h) of Clause 116 means. Having read through it several times I am afraid I cannot understand it. Perhaps he can explain it in simple English.
Earl Howe: I confess that I, too, had difficulty with this part of the Bill and I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling this amendment. If he chooses to press it, then I am prepared to accept it, because I can find little in the way of argument for retaining this paragraph in the Bill. In fact, it is a hangover from the 1907 legislation and, as far as I am aware, is no longer required.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am very grateful to the noble Earl and, in the spirit of mutual bafflement, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved]
Clause 116, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 117 [Compensation of displaced employees]:
On Question, Whether Clause 117 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Turner: This clause relates to compensation of displaced employees and I have to say that I am not happy about this clause. Perhaps the Minister can explain precisely why it is necessary. Presumably the persons employed by the association are civilian employees. There is already legislation in place which offers some protection to employees in the, event of redundancy through wind-up or other causes. If there is a takeover or merger, what are commonly known as
CWH 128
the TUPE regulations, dealing with the transfer of employment, apply and under them an employee whose employment disappears because of a transfer or merger, must be offered the same terms and conditions of employment as formerly.
The clause we are talking about allows the Secretary of State to make regulations which presumably could differ from the terms available to other civilian employees in what one might term "normal employment". There are, moreover, rights not to he unfairly dismissed, rights in regard to the minimum period of notice, and so on. The clause further states that regulations,
"shall be made by statutory instrument which shall he subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
Again, if we are talking about civilian employees, I question why that is necessary. I would not like anything to go onto the statute book which looked as though employees could he treated differently and possibly less well, just because they worked for an association. These associations can be wound up and perhaps merged with others, and there are specific protections for ordinary employees in such circumstances. While protection is not as strong as some of us would wish, at least it is there and it gives some sort of guarantee to civilian employees. No such guarantees exist in this clause. We seem here to be entirely dependent upon what the Secretary of State may, in his wisdom, decide to include in regulations to put before each House.
I would be grateful, therefore, if the Minister would tell us a little more about what is intended here because I would not want a worsening of conditions for such employees.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: I have listened carefully to the points made by the noble Baroness and I am sure it would be helpful to her if, first, I give some background to the clause.
The clause substantially reproduces Section 129 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. It provides statutory authority for regulations to be made governing the compensation of the employees of associations or the Council of TAVRAs who are made redundant or suffer a pay cut as a result of the closure, or proposed closure, of an association, or of a change in the activities or area for which an association is responsible. It also provides statutory authority for the Secretary of State to make payments.
I can reassure the noble Baroness that the provisions in this clause do not reduce the statutory rights of individuals. Indeed, I do not believe that the clause as drafted would permit the making of regulations which attempted to do so. TAVRA employees are covered by employment law in exactly the same way as other Crown Servants. Their terms and conditions of service are broadly similar to those of civil servants.
The noble Baroness may wish to know that the current regulations provide for, among other benefits, the annual payment of a sum of one-sixtieth of salary

CWH 129
multiplied by the number of years of reckonable service, and this is payable from the date of redundancy until normal retirement age.
That the payments are more generous than the statutory minimum is shown by the fact that the regulations provide for any payment to be reduced by the amount of any statutory compensation payable.
I hope that, with those remarks, I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness about the purpose of the clause, and that she will feel completely comfortable that there is no question of TAVRA employees being disadvantaged by virtue of it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation which will now go on the record. Certainly we on this side are happy with his assurance that the employees concerned will in no way he disadvantaged. In fact, from what he says it seems that they will be slightly advantaged.
Clause 117 agreed to.
Clauses 118 to 120 agreed to.
Clause 121 [Safeguard of employment for members of reserve forces]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 63, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) After section I, there shall be inserted—
"Obligation not to discriminate.
1A.—(1) It is unlawful for a person, in relation to employment by him at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate against another on the grounds that he is or may become a member of the Reserve Forces of the Crown—

(a) in the arrangements he makes for the purpose of determining who should be offered that employment; or

(b) in the terms on which he offers him that employment; or

(c) by refusing or deliberately omitting to offer him that employment.

(2) It is unlawful for a person to discriminate against a person employed by him at an establishment in Great Britain, on the grounds that that employee is or may become a member of the Reserve Forces of the Crown—

(a) in the terms of employment which he affords him; or

(b) in the way he affords him access to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training, or to any other benefits, facilities to services, or by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford him access to them; or

(c) by dismissing him, or subjecting him to any other detriment.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to benefits, facilities or services of any description if the employer is concerned with the provision (for payment or not) of benefits, facilities or services of that description to the public, or to a section of the public comprising the employee in question, unless—

(a) that provision differs in a material respect from the provision of the benefits, facilities or services by the employer to his employee; or

(b) the provision of the benefits, facilities or services to the employee in question is regulated by his contract of employment; or

(c) the benefits, facilities or services relate to training.".").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to extend Clause 121 of the Bill, which contains provisions of the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985. The Act deals with the rights of reservists who have been called up to full time service to be re-employed. The amendment proposes the incorporation of a new section in the 1985 Act, rendering it unlawful to discriminate in the field of employment on the grounds of membership, or potential membership, of the reserve forces.
Why do we think it necessary for that to he done? The Bill does not impose a statutory duty on employers to permit employees to join the reserves and to fulfil their training and employment obligations. We are advised that this is particularly true of, for example, NHS Trusts. Despite assurances that the majority of trusts make provision for their employees to participate in volunteer reserve forces training, it would appear there are trusts which are reluctant to allow, for example, key medical personnel to do so. Some trusts are issuing contracts which do not permit medical staff to join the reservists and it is feared that the competitive nature of the internal market in the NHS is likely to lead to an increase in the number of trusts which do just that. It is one example which has been brought to our attention by the BMA.
We hope therefore that the Minister will feel able to accept this amendment or, if he does not like its wording, that he will at least produce something rather similar in order to cover the set of circumstances which has been brought to our attention. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I wish to speak to this amendment because I believe it goes to the heart of the Bill. The Bill will stand or fall in practice on how it is perceived, not just on the way it is drafted. It will be very difficult—I speak as someone who has attempted recruiting—to recruit people if they believe that they will be discriminated against in the workplace. The discrimination may not take place, but if people believe that they are under some disadvantage in joining the Territorial Army, it will make the job of recruiting that much harder. One of the purposes of the Bill is to increase retention in the Territorial Army. Without a degree of safeguard, people might feel unable to join.
I realise that the Minister may not wish to take the amendment as it stands, but I hope he can give some assurance that he will look into the matter.
Lord Craig of Radley: I accept the thrust of the amendment. I do not know whether I can accept the precise wording, which needs to be looked at more closely, because it is not clear to me that an individual could assert with complete confidence that his re-employment was turned down by an employer on these particular grounds. However, this is a point on which it would be fairly easy to see whether there was an alternative reason for not accepting the individual.
Nevertheless, the amendment raises one important point—one to which I referred earlier when speaking to Clause 56. Just exactly who has the final authority for requiring an individual to attend for full-time service if he is recalled? My reasons for saying this have been

CWH 131
referred to earlier in relation to the "medics". There are ways in which an employer can excuse the individual who is employed and yet there are also statements in the Bill which, while they do not have a statutory obligation, would appear to have close to a statutory obligation in that the individual reservist must attend when he is called up by order placed by the Secretary of State for Defence. Perhaps the Minister can help us on that point?
Earl Howe: I have listened with great care to the concerns expressed by the noble Lords and the noble and gallant Lord on this issue. I must stress that one of the aims of this Bill is to provide adequate safeguards for reservists and their employers. We have sought to do this, broadly, in two ways. First, we recognise that many employers are reluctant to face the loss of a valued employee for a period of some months for a period of call-out—the more so if the call-out occurs at an especially busy or important time for the employer. We have therefore introduced formal rights for employers to seek exemption or deferral of the call-out of their employees should this occur at a particularly critical juncture for their business. As your Lordships will be aware, the necessary powers are provided in Clauses 77–80.
Secondly, we recognise that there was concern that the effort of the employee called out needed to be replaced, and there are, correspondingly, powers under Clause 82 to 85 to provide financial assistance to employers whose employees are called out. For those dissatisfied with any claim, there is access to the new reserve forces appeals tribunals. All of these safeguards have been widely welcomed by employers and reservists alike. We know that some reservists have felt that their employers had some apprehension over their employees' membership of the volunteer reserve forces.
With these safeguards, we believe that we have removed most of the grounds on which an employer might reasonably raise objections to his employee joining the volunteer reserves. As the noble Baroness referred to it, I should add that reservists already have protection in the law in the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985. In general terms it places a duty upon employers to reinstate the reservist employees after those employees have been released from a period of permanent service when called out or recalled. It also makes it a criminal offence for an employer to dismiss an employee on the ground that the employee concerned has a liability to call-out. Clause 121 effects various minor amendments to that Act so that reservists called out under the Bill will have the same protections as apply to those called out under the existing Act.
In the light of these safeguards, an anti-discrimination measure along the lines proposed by the noble Baroness is not appropriate for this Bill. Indeed, such a measure might well be counter-productive and make it more difficult, rather than less, for reservists to gain employment. We wish to work in co-operation with both individuals and employers. The Bill does provide a power for us to require the individual to attend when called out, and we would not wish to lose the ability to require that. That power is underpinned by Part X of the Bill covering offences.
CWH 132
I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Baroness will feel sufficiently reassured to withdraw this amendment, although naturally I have taken on board the points she has made and, indeed, points made from all sides of the Committee.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Minister should be aware that he has not really covered the major point in my noble friend's amendment about potential members of the reserves. He has surely received representation from the British Medical Association, for instance, which says quite categorically that:
"Some NHS Trusts are issuing contracts which do not permit medical staff to join the reserves."
There is nothing at present in the Bill, as I understand it, that would make such procedure illegal. There is also anecdotal evidence, according to the British Medical Association, that junior doctors are not prepared to join the reserves because they are fearful that attending training commitments may be held against their annual or study leave entitlement. It is these sorts of matters which the Bill has to address, and which indeed my noble friend's amendment does address because it would make such contracts as issued by some NHS trusts illegal.
Earl Howe: I take serious note of that particular point, and I am more than happy to undertake to speak to my right honourable or honourable friends in the Department of Health to investigate further this practice and the extent to which it is happening. Quite obviously, I take it very seriously, but the key point is one I made earlier, which is that one cannot force anyone into becoming a reservist and, indeed, one cannot force an employer into accepting employees as reservists. It is much better to have willing parties on all sides. Nevertheless, we wish to promote the reserve forces and to gain the support of as many employers as we can. That is why I believe, especially in the light of our earlier debate on Clause 56, that it is important that the NHS in particular is fully on board.
Lord Redesdale: I should like to follow up this point. Considering that the NHS, which is a government body, can undertake this, what is to stop the practice becoming widespread among many civilian employers?
Earl Howe: In theory, nothing at all. But as I say, it is our job and I believe the job of the associations, and indeed reservists themselves, to promote the value of the reserve forces, not only to the nation but to the employer. That is something that is often overlooked. The virtue of having employees on the payroll who also volunteer for service is one that can redound to the benefit of the organisation concerned by having better trained and better motivated employees.
Lord Redesdale: Perhaps I could take the point slightly further. We are really talking about the high-readiness reserve to a greater degree here and we are looking at very specialised skills—ones which are not easily replaceable and which will be of value. Obviously in certain situations, with certain conflicts, employers will look at the situation and say that this is obviously a dangerous area for losing employees and

CWH 133
will write something to that effect into their contracts. What is to stop specific areas of employment doing that? I take it that there is nothing at all to stop this. In fact, this could backfire against the very purpose of the Bill.
Earl Howe: I have noted the many concerns expressed by noble Lords today. I would like further time to investigate the extent of this problem and to take legal advice and, in the light of that advice, consider what further action might be needed.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am grateful to the Minister for taking so seriously the points that have been raised. I noted what he said about the various safeguards. If, despite all the safeguards, discrimination is still taking place, or at least threatened, discrimination, it seems to us that there is a need to write something further on the face of the Bill. Certainly it seems that the BMA has very real worries about this issue. I am pleased that the Minister has said that he will look into that. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has said, it is not just the National Health Service; other employers might be tempted to follow suit. It goes much wider than the NHS. I would be very grateful if the Minister could also look at the wider implications of the clause.
As I said earlier when moving the amendment, we are not absolutely wedded to the wording. If it comes back with different wording but embodies the principles which we have all enunciated today, we would be very happy. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 121 agreed to.
Clauses 122 and 123 agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 124 [Absence for voting]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 64, line 27, after ("Parliament") insert ("or of the European Parliament or in local elections").
The noble Lord said: Clause 124 specifically mentions,
"voting at any election of a Member of Parliament or going to or returning from such voting"
as an excuse for not being penalised or punished as a member of a reserve force. It seems to us that voting at European Parliament elections and at local elections should be included. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I strongly support the amendment and think it very sensible.
Earl Howe: I take note of what the noble Lord said. I believe that he made a very cogent point. I am happy to look into the matter further, obviously without commitment, before the next stage of the Bill, and no
CWH 134
doubt I shall be in touch with the noble Lord either by correspondence or by means of further debate at a later stage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that partial reassurance but I have to tell him that, should he not come back with some solution that is satisfactory to me and to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, we may feel it necessary to pursue the matter further at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 124 agreed to.
Clauses 125 to 130 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Enlistment]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 68, line 17, leave out ("well founded") and insert ("proved").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friends and myself. I hope the Committee will forgive us for delaying it on this matter but it seems to us that, with the greatest possible respect, the drafting may be somewhat loose. If within three months from the date on which the person signed the declaration he claims his enlistment is invalid it is not the claim that is important. It is whether or not his enlistment was valid or invalid that is the issue. Therefore, the words,
"the claim shall be submitted as soon as may be to the Defence Council and, if the claim is well founded"
are surely not the point of what the schedule is about. It is whether or not the enlistment was valid which is at stake. Our wording may not be ideal. We would not claim any complete and absolute insight into these matters. We feel, however, that to use the word "proved" would better meet the concern we have expressed than the words "well founded". We shall he very satisfied if, in the excellent spirit of concern and co-operation which the noble Earl has demonstrated throughout our deliberations, he is at least prepared to say that he will examine the matter before Report Stage.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord has made a very interesting point. As he will he aware, the clause is intended to allow a recruit whose enlistment is invalid to be discharged either because the legal requirements of the Act were not complied with upon attestation, or for some other reason. The noble Lord suggests that the wording in the Bill is loose. I shall reflect on what he said and consider the matter between now and Report. I would just say that the effect of the word "proved" seems to raise doubt about the standard of evidence required in the kind of case likely to be involved. The sense of the phrase "well founded" is about right for the level of evidence that should be needed to satisfy the requirement. I am not convinced that substituting the word "proved" makes the matter any clearer. Does it mean "proved beyond reasonable doubt" or "proved on the balance of probabilities"? It seems to me that the current phrase is apt for what is after all an administrative rather than a judicial process.
I should perhaps add that equivalent provision is made in the case of the regular forces; for example, in Section 10 of the Armed Forces Act 1966 in the case of

CWH 135
the Royal Navy and Section 18 of the Army and Air Forces Acts of 1955 for the Army and Royal Air Force respectively. The same phrase is used in that legislation. The issue therefore goes rather wider than this Bill and I believe that we should, if at all possible, seek to maintain consistency in this case.
I am grateful to noble Lords and, as I say, I shall reflect further on this issue.
Lord Judd: I am very grateful to the noble Earl and I would not want to die in a ditch on the word "proved". The noble Earl demonstrated that he has taken the point we are seeking to make. We are very glad that he will go away and look at it and I am sure that he and his advisers will find a formulation of words which covers the points that he is concerned about and meets the observation we have made. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Deserters and absentees without leave]:
Lord Judd Lord Judd moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 71, line 10, leave out from ("he") to end of line 13 and insert ("shall without delay bring him before a Magistrates' Court.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment we are expressing our concern that the Bill is giving a tremendous amount of responsibility to a local police officer, and subjectivity might well become fairly clear in terms of different approaches by different officers. It is a significant matter. It is a question again, as I used the phrase earlier in our deliberations, of justice not only being done but being seen to be done.
On the whole, we on these Benches feel that it would he much better that, where a police officer is convinced that somebody is illegally absent from the reserve force, he should take that person before a magistrates court and for that court to be responsible for dealing with the matter. Otherwise, why have the provision for the magistrates court? Why not just let the police officer in any case deal with the matter expeditiously? It seems to me that if we have introduced the concept of the role of the magistrates court, it would be much better to have a procedure whereby absentees are brought before the magistrates court. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: In fairly long experience of naval discipline, I can tell the noble Lord that the Bill as it is drafted answers the problem much better. Whether the man is a reservist or a regular does not matter. It is much better that a serving sailor or soldier should be brought before his own justice in the first instance, because they really know how to handle it.
I shall never forget being the prisoner's friend when two of my sailors were arrested in Hull during the war when they were drunk and singing. They appeared the next day in the magistrates court and I went to defend them. They had a wonderful story about how they thought that everybody would like singing because it was rather dull in Hull. The Committee can imagine the sort of thing. The magistrate loved it. He said, "This is the best case I have had for a whole week. Not guilty." If those same people had been brought before our first
CWH 136
lieutenant he would have tackled it in a much more sensible way and said, "Don't get so bloody drunk next time" and give them the normal punishment for that sort of offence.
Magistrates' courts cannot handle soldiers and sailors. Many of these reservists are ex-regulars anyhow, but even if they are not they pick up all the tricks and they would run rings round a magistrates' court, probably wrongly, for whatever offence, even desertion. Therefore I believe that to give both facilities is the right answer. If there is not a handy naval or military jurisdiction to put them into, they will have to he put before a magistrates' court. But that is only a second option, as is set out in the Bill.
Lord Judd: At this point the schedule is dealing with something rather more serious than simply getting drunk in Hull. It is being illegally absent. If we really were convinced that it would be better for such things to be dealt with by the service concerned, might it not be appropriate for the noble Lord to put down an amendment on Report eliminating the reference to a magistrates' court?
Our point is that to introduce the concept of a police officer deciding whether a magistrates' court has a role to play in this situation could be quite invidious. In parts of the country police officers might have a rather antagonistic view towards the local Bench. They might have had some failures in terms of cases they had brought before the local Bench of late and they might then decide "Well, we're blowed if we're going to put this before the magistrates; we're going to take this straight back to the service". It is giving a great deal of authority—subjective authority—to the individuals, the police officers, concerned. In that context we applaud the fact that the Government have emphasised the role to be played by magistrates' courts and we are therefore suggesting that this should be the norm.
Lord Mottistone: I shall not pursue this too far. However, with regard to desertion, I was in command of a destroyer going around Australia and we had three sailors who deserted, two of them because they fell madly in love with ladies of ill repute in the places the ship had visited. They were recovered by the Australian police and returned to us. We handled them in a sensible way. That was a very good answer for that sort of thing. The third case was different but I shall not bore the Committee with that now.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel Shame!
6 p.m.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has raised an interesting point with this amendment. I acknowledge that at first blush the discretion allowed to a police officer might seem a cause for concern. However, if we study the context we can see quite readily that that discretion applies only in the case of deserters who surrender themselves to a police officer. The discretion is not given in the case of deserters who are arrested. Paragraph 2(4) of the schedule provides that they are to be brought before a magistrates' court in every case.

CWH 137
The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be simply to require even the most clear-cut case of a surrendering deserter to be brought before a court. It seems much better, I would suggest, to rely on the police officer to sort out the wheat from the chaff. However, it is interesting to note in this context that under Clause 98 someone who pretends to be a deserter or absentee also commits an offence.
This part of the Bill is exactly the same as that in Section 118(2) of the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955. That is not just to make a point about drafting consistency because I imagine it would be difficult for the police to operate with different provisions according to the force from which a particular person is thought to have deserted.
I hope that those remarks will serve to reassure the noble Lord that in practice the provisions of the Bill should work effectively and that his amendment is not appropriate to those to whom this part of the Bill applies; namely, those deserters who surrender to a police officer.
Lord Judd: I thank the noble Earl for that reply. It may be the hour, but he has not, in all honesty, totally
CWH 138
persuaded me of his argument. He has demonstrated that there is a difference in this schedule between a situation in which somebody is arrested and one where somebody surrenders himself. What he has not dealt with is our point that within this part of the schedule we are giving the police officer discretion—there are two options. Why has that been introduced? The noble Earl has not briefed us on the thinking that led to the introduction of the option. If the option is there, is that really a good thing to rest in the hands of any individual police officer?
However, at this stage of the proceedings, not least because of the conventions of this Committee on which we have all agreed, I will beg leave to withdraw the amendment and we will reflect on what the noble Earl has said. We will reflect rather carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
The remaining schedules agreed to.
Bill to be reported with an amendment.
The Committee adjourned at three minutes past six o'clock.

  Ministers: Public Statements
  Ministers: Public Statements
  Mr. Nicholas Soames
  Mr. Nicholas Soames
  UN War Crimes Tribunal: Assistance by IFOR
  UN War Crimes Tribunal: Assistance by IFOR
  South Korea: Military Exercises
  South Korea: Military Exercises
  Criminal Legal Aid in the Magistrates' Courts
  Criminal Legal Aid in the Magistrates' Courts
  Common Land: Management
  Common Land: Management
  Alnwick: Development Proposal
  Alnwick: Development Proposal
  HIV and AIDS: Treatment and Care Funding
  HIV and AIDS: Treatment and Care Funding