Sitting of 8 July 1996

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

    Rail Travel
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to promote the use of rail travel. [34682]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): The best way to get more people to use trains is to make rail services more attractive to customers. Inviting the private sector to run the railways has, for the first time since the war, introduced strong commercial incentives to promote rail travel. That is already bringing additional services, extra investment and better customer care.
    Dr. Spink: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since Prism took over running the London-Tilbury-Southend line it has introduced new initiatives to attract more passengers to the line, including station improvements, increasing personal safety by providing guards at every station, extending booking office hours, and even introducing new rolling stock? Does he agree that those are the types of initiative that we need to get more people
    2
    on to the railway, and that those initiatives with privatisation represent a good deal for the taxpayer, for passengers and particularly for the environment?
    Sir George Young: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I am glad that the change in culture at LTS is already beginning to manifest itself and that we are already seeing the type of improvements that he has outlined. I am sure that his constituents and all who use the line will welcome the at least £14 million of investment in station improvements, improved car park and station security, better facilities for disabled customers, automatic ticket gates, closed circuit television and customer help points at all LTS stations. That is the new culture that the private sector is introducing into our railways.
    Miss Hoey: Is the Secretary of State aware of the deplorable state of Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road stations in my constituency, even though some money has now been given through the safer cities programme? Is he aware that what the public are most concerned about—and the factor that is most likely to get them back on to our railways—is safety, and that the matter of staffing must therefore be considered? Will he tell the new privatised companies that staffing must be a priority, and that even if we manage to get the stations cleaned up, until there are staff at the stations people—and particularly women at night—still will not use them?
    Sir George Young: I am interested to hear what the hon. Lady says, and I agree that safety is a key factor in winning back customers for the railways. If she examines some of the proposals made by those who have won franchises, she will find that they are putting more staff at the sharp end for precisely the reason that she outlined. One of the recent franchises—I think that it was Chiltern Railways—proposed to have more staff in the waiting rooms on the stations, and Gatwick Express is certainly putting more staff on trains. Safety is a key factor, and I hope that it will not be a source of disagreement between

    3
    Government and Opposition. Whether we are talking about the Underground or the railways, we want more passengers, and security has a role to play in that.
    Sir David Madel: As for rail travel on the tube, is it not a fact that the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen has ignored the agreed disputes procedure in the current dispute? Is not my right hon. Friend puzzled as to why ASLEF is taking so long to reply to the invitation to go to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to try to get this matter sorted out so that my constituents can travel to work in a reasonable way?
    Sir George Young: I very much regret that ASLEF has taken industrial action again today, which is causing unnecessary inconvenience to millions of commuters and Londoners. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) will respond to the invitation extended to her some time ago to deplore the strike. I very much regret that ASLEF has refused the invitation to arbitration extended by London Underground. I hope that it will think again, because many of the other unions have already come to a satisfactory agreement with London Underground and there is no reason why ASLEF should not do so as well.
    Ms Short: Having walked from Euston to my office in Millbank with a very heavy bag, I can tell the Secretary of State that I hope that the strike will be settled as soon as possible. Are not his claims that rail use would expand under a privatised model belied by the statements in the Railtrack prospectus that
    "Railtrack income is unlikely to benefit materially from any increase in passenger use",
    and that
    "opportunities for expansion of freight operations are limited"?
    Will the Secretary of State confirm that while political bluster comes cheap, there are legal obligations to tell the truth in the prospectus? Will he now admit that it was an unforgivable act of political incompetence to throw vast sums of taxpayers' money at creating a rail system that is incapable of expansion at a time when congestion on the roads is growing inexorably?
    Sir George Young: I listened with surprise to what the hon. Lady has just said because when she launched Labour's transport document, "Consensus for Change," she said:
    "There is little point in denouncing the present government's record."
    I also regret that the hon. Lady did not take the opportunity that I extended to her a few moments ago to join me in condemning the strike action taken by London Underground train drivers. Her silence will not go unremarked.
    Ms Short: I am worried about my feet.
    Sir George Young: We are all worried about the hon. Lady's feet. If she used her influence to persuade ASLEF members to go back to work, her feet and those of everyone else would be spared much pain.
    What matters for passengers is not Railtrack's statement, but the statement of those who are bidding for the franchise because they win the passengers. If she looks
    4
    at what they have said she will see that they are confident that they can dramatically expand the number of people travelling by rail.
    The hon. Lady will have noted that English, Welsh and Scottish Railways has ordered 250 more locomotives for freight and that a number of operating companies are contemplating investment in new rolling stock. The picture is not so bleak as the hon. Lady would have us believe. She offers us a ticket to the past that no one will want to buy.

    Rail Investment
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's estimate of future levels of investment in the United Kingdom rail network. [34683]
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): Investment in the rail network has been at record levels in recent years and is expected to rise following the privatisation of Railtrack and other rail businesses.
    Mrs. Prentice: Will the Minister admit that privatisation has been an absolute disaster for the rail network in the United Kingdom and that the £500 million spent on reorganisation and lawyers' costs should have been spent on infrastructure such as the west coast main line? Is it not time for the Minister to recognise that the rail network should work for the public interest rather than for the fat cats on the railway privatisation train?
    Mr. Watts: The Railtrack fat cats, as they are described, have committed themselves to spend £8 billion on the rail network in the next five years. Both Chiltern and Midland Mainline are buying additional rolling stock to provide extra services, while London-Tilbury-Southend and Prism are replacing two thirds of their rolling stock by November 1999, and through the cascading of modern rolling stock they will have replaced the other one third much sooner than that. The Labour party's record in government was not very good: in constant price terms, over four years, the average expenditure under the previous Labour Government was £924 million; over a comparable four years, from 1990–91 to 1993–94, expenditure under this Government was £1.35 billion—an increase in current prices of 46 per cent. I am not talking about lawyers, but about investment in rolling stock and infrastructure.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Did my hon. Friend hear the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) on the expansion of the rail network? Does he not have more confidence in the private sector's ability to raise investment for maintenance, improvement and expansion of the rail network than anything that he has seen emerging from the Opposition?
    Mr. Watts: Of course I have much more confidence in the private sector than I do in the Opposition Front Bench. My hon. Friend will recognise new Labour, new danger.
    Mr. Chidgey: Do the Minister's estimates include the investment needed to renew the 2,500 mark 1 carriages still in daily use around the country? He may recall that they were the carriages that the report on the Clapham rail

    5
    crash stipulated should be taken out of service by 1997. Will he instruct the franchising director not to issue any more franchises which do not provide for the renewal of mark 1 carriages within five years from now?
    Mr. Watts: No such instruction is required. When inviting bids for the South East Trains franchise, the franchising director has said that a 15-year franchise requires a programme to replace the existing rolling stock. Moreover, it is clear from my answer to an earlier question that private sector franchise operators are volunteering to provide new rolling stock; they do not have to be forced to do so.

    Driving Tests
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the new theory test for learner drivers. [34684]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I am confident that the new theory test, which has received wide support from motoring and road safety organisations, will improve road safety and reduce the accident rate among newly qualified drivers.
    Mr. French: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the introduction of the new theory test, which will make an important contribution to road safety. Will he ensure that standards are kept high so that it is regarded as an important part of the preparation for driving? Will he further ensure that the test makes it clear to those taking it that speed is dangerous and that they must be careful in their first few months and years of driving?
    Mr. Norris: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's endorsement of the new theory test; his views are shared by all hon. Members and by people outside. He is right to say that if the theory test is to have any value it must be sufficiently stringent to ensure that new motorists are aware of the important issues that it covers, such as attitude, road awareness, road signs and hazard perception. The key to success is to indoctrinate people with the right attitudes to speed at a very early age. The tragedy is that 1,000 people a year die in accidents where the driver is between 17 and 25. The theory test addresses that key group.
    Mr. Pike: Although the theory test is a move in the right direction, does the Minister agree that it fails to address the problem that in most parts of the country a driver can pass the test at 11 o'clock and at 12 o'clock drive on the motorway without any experience, because they cannot gain such experience as an accompanied driver before passing the test?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman identifies a worrying problem which he will appreciate is not capable of immediate resolution. If learner drivers are allowed on motorways, they will be a potential hazard not only to themselves but to other road users. However, it will be possible to develop interactive technology—some examples already exist—to enable us to give drivers experience of motorway conditions without necessarily exposing them to unwarranted danger.

    Central Railway
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the impact on passenger rail services of the proposals of Central Railway plc. [34685]
    Mr. Watts: We have received more than 13,500 representations in total, many of which refer to the effects on existing passenger services.
    Mr. Lidington: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the managing director of Chiltern Railways has said that Central Railway's proposals are incompatible with the present level of passenger services and, indeed, with assurances given under franchise arrangements for the minimum level of passenger services in the future? Will he undertake to bring the order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 before the House as quickly as possible so that we can dispose of Central Railway's half-baked proposal and send it where it belongs—into oblivion?
    Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has announced that he hopes to arrange a debate on the proposal before the House rises for the summer recess. I confirm that we have received a representation from Chiltern Railways about the effects of the proposed new railway on passenger services on the line. Central Railways should urgently contact Chiltern Railways to see whether the concerns that have been expressed can be allayed.
    Mr. Soley: Is it not strange that a company which is already blighting property from the channel tunnel to the midlands is not, so far as I can make out, financially viable to pay the compensation that it will need to pay if the proposal does not get the go-ahead? I understand that it will have to pay compensation after a certain period has elapsed. I received a letter from it a few days ago in which it refused to answer that point. Is it not time to review the 1992 Act to stop companies going ahead with such proposals when they have neither the capital for the project nor the capital to pay for blighting compensation?
    Mr. Watts: As this is the first substantial proposal to be introduced under the Transport and Works Act 1992, it may be a little premature to consider a review of the legislation.
    From the date of the application made by the company it is obliged to meet the full blight provisions of the legislation. Anyone who feels blighted by the proposal is entitled to serve a blight notice. The hon. Gentleman—and the House in general—will have an early opportunity to decide whether or not the project should be allowed to proceed to public inquiries.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has received many representations from my constituents about the effects of the proposals on the environment, particularly problems arising from noise pollution?
    Mr. Watts: I can confirm that I have received representations of the sort to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Ms Short: I hope that the Minister will agree that it would be helpful to the House, and to the large number of

    7
    families whose homes are blighted by Central Railway's proposal, to know the views of the Opposition. The Labour party is strongly committed to getting more freight on to the railways, but believes that we would achieve far more by investing about £300 million to enable the west coast main line to carry lorry trailers—in what is known as the piggyback system—than by spending £3 billion or more on this new freight line. We doubt whether the project is financially viable, and we hope that the House will shortly take the opportunity to kill off the scheme, thereby relieving large numbers of families from the great fear of blight.
    Mr. Watts: I thank the hon. Lady for clarifying at least one aspect of Labour policy.

    Road Construction
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on motorway and major trunk road construction in each of the past three years at constant prices. [34686]
    Mr. Watts: At constant 1994–95 prices, £1,479.4 million was spent in 1993–94, £1,459.9 million in 1994–95 and £1,254.2 million in 1995–96. These figures relate to the construction of all trunk motorways and all-purpose trunk roads.
    Sir David Knox: In view of the congestion on motorways and major trunk roads, does the Minister agree that those figures fall short of what is required? Is he in a position to tell us the cost to industry of road congestion?
    Mr. Watts: There is no absolutely accurate assessment of congestion costs, but many people will have heard the Confederation of British Industry estimate, which is in the range of £18 billion. As to the adequacy of the provision, my hon. Friend will be aware that decisions on priorities for public expenditure are taken by the Government looking at all competing claims in the round. It is the job of the Department of Transport to target the available resources on improving conditions where they most urgently need such improvement.
    Mr. Allen: Anyone who gets stuck in congestion on our roads experiences the truth that the Conservatives have slashed central Government spending on road maintenance and new roads by a third, and have savaged local authority spending on the roads programme by a third as well—all to help pay for a puny pre-election bribe. Will the Minister admit to the House, and especially to Conservative Back Benchers queuing up for their bypasses, that the roads programme is a con? It includes 114 schemes, but only one scheme went ahead last year. Instead of such fantasies, will the Minister use his last few months in office to devise an honest roads and maintenance programme and then stick to it, so that the construction industry and drivers may have some certainty about the future?
    Mr. Watts: It is easy for the hon. Gentleman to come up with what he calls an honest policy because the Labour party's policy as set out in "Consensus for Change" is to impose a moratorium on new road schemes and to scrap plans to widen the M25.
    8
    Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will write to me and explain how his views on a moratorium square with those of his party leader, who said in a speech on 4 July:
    "Part of our policy will be the upgrading of road and rail".
    Mrs. Lait: What percentage of the past three years' spending on motorway construction has been funded by the private finance initiative and what percentage does my hon. Friend expect in the future? Is the Minister simplifying and speeding up PFI procedures so as to provide us with a good, modern road infrastructure?
    Mr. Watts: In the past three years there has been little expenditure on "design, build, finance and operate" schemes because they were not in the pipeline. We now have 37 main trunk road schemes in the three tranches of DBFOs, and they will be carried forward much more rapidly using private finance than if they were procured conventionally.

    Bus Travel (London)
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the total bus miles travelled in London in 1995; and what is his forecast for 1996. [34687]
    Mr. Norris: London Transport Buses' estimate for 1995–96 is 204.4 million bus miles. Its forecast for 1996–97 is 207.6 million bus miles.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister not disappointed that the increase in proposed bus miles between this year and next is so small? Does he accept that it would help to improve bus use in London if bus lanes were strictly enforced, if bus priority measures at major junctions were rapidly improved, if the franchisees running those routes had good quality new buses, and if bus drivers were not under extraordinary pressure to work ever longer hours for ever lower wages? Would not those measures give confidence to bus operators and passengers in London?
    Mr. Norris: I am delighted to hear what sounds to me like a broad endorsement of the Government's policy. It is particularly welcome from the hon. Gentleman. I always knew that a closet Tory was lurking deep beneath that unlikely—but charming—exterior.
    No, I am not disappointed. On the contrary, I am delighted by what I stress is an increase not just in bus mileage but in passengers. That is a real success for the privatisation of London's buses, because it has occurred since then. The hon. Gentleman is also right about the need to keep the bus priority programme going. He will know that in our transport settlement it is one of the few programmes with increased resources precisely because we consider it important.
    The hon. Gentleman is right about enforcement, too. Without that, much of the value of bus lanes will be lost. That is why we are trialling bus lane cameras in the Holloway road, an area that the hon. Gentleman knows extremely well.
    On investment in the industry, I invite the hon. Gentleman to compare the record of investment by the largely municipally owned bus companies in 1984 and 1985 with investment in the past two years. He will find that it has risen approximately threefold.
    Mr. Brooke: As the most significant handicap to bus travel is its unpredictability, can my hon. Friend, whose

    9
    championship of transport in London is widely admired, say how many projects will be financed by the £9 million that he is putting into bus development this year?
    Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in such matters. I cannot tell him the precise number of schemes, but the £9 million to be spent this year is accompanied by a further £9 million, which London Transport Buses will spend on bus priority. The benefits of that are being seen in my right hon. Friend's constituency. He is right that if buses are held up by congestion and are, as is so often the case, the victims rather than the cause of that congestion, we shall be unable to get the advantages of better public transport that he and I both want.

    Railway Safety
    Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold urgent talks with the railway inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive to agree new mechanisms for monitoring railway safety. [34688]
    Sir George Young: I am satisfied that the independent Health and Safety Executive already has appropriate mechanisms for monitoring railway safety. Provisional HSE figures for 1995–96 show that the number of passenger and staff fatalities on the railway was the lowest on record.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that, following privatisation, there is now a clear conflict of interests between Railtrack, which is responsible for safety, and the fact that it is also responsible for safety on behalf of the other companies? A difficult problem may evolve if the Secretary of State is not prepared to accept that fact and ensure that the HSE changes its way of working to reflect it.
    Sir George Young: It is not necessary, because the Health and Safety Commission recommended a safety regime which took into account our belief that Railtrack should be privatized—and it has been implemented in full. Therefore, the clash of interest that the hon. Lady outlined does not occur.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the track suggested for use by Central Railway for its freight line in Ealing, North is regarded as totally unsafe for such a purpose and that the project will in any case be damaging to the health and safety of the people in the area and is not acceptable to them?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend will have heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads answer a question about Central Railway a few moments ago. Like my hon. Friend, I have a potential constituency interest in the matter. I have therefore asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State to handle the matter in the House.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the Secretary of State's position on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)? Is it that a clash of interest has not taken place or that a clash of interest can never take place?
    Sir George Young: The key point is that the Health and Safety Executive remains an independent safety
    10
    regulatory body with full enforcement powers. It sits above Railtrack and has all the powers that it needs to enforce safety on the railways.

    Road Rage
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the number of road rage incidents in recent months. [34689]
    Mr. Norris: I have received a small number of representations about road rage. My Department and the Home Office support recent advice to drivers by police and motoring organisations.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Today millions of Londoners have been forced to abandon the Underground and to drive their cars to work. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the Labour party's friends in the rail unions are making road rage much more likely and that there are therefore increased dangers on the roads as a result of frustrated tempers, all because the Labour party will not condemn the strikes? Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we need to take firm action and have a clear policy in relation to the strikes?
    Mr. Norris: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I condemn the strike because the union concerned has not exhausted the negotiating machinery, and other unions have accepted the deal that is on offer. Today, we are witnessing an outrageous piece of blackmail in London. I, too, would like to hear the Labour party condemn that sort of conduct. That having been said—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The substantive question was about road rage, and I would like to hear the Government's view on it.
    Mr. Norris: There are reports of motorists hitting each other over the head with starting handles in the 1920s. So far as we know, the only recent development is a convenient expression to describe an age-old phenomenon. There is no evidence that road rage is on the increase. Our advice to drivers is clear: to stay patient and calm, and not to act in an aggressive way, particularly if they are outraged on the road.
    Mr. William O'Brien: Does the Minister accept that if we are to resolve road rage we must make the penalty fit the crime, particularly where killing is involved? People guilty of road rage should be penalised to suit the damage that has been done. Until that occurs, there will be further cases of road rage. Will the Minister support the campaign to ensure that people who are guilty of road rage receive the proper penalty?
    Mr. Norris: It is appropriate that people who commit violent offences receive the appropriate penalty. I emphasise that this is not a matter of traffic law or a matter of regulation on the road; it is a simple matter of the application of the criminal law. I am sure that the courts will respond accordingly.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new road theory test will help to curb road rage, which in my youth would have been known as

    11
    temper tantrums? Does he agree that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's decision to select locations for the theory tests only on census figures is wrong? Should it not take into account constituencies such as mine, which has two higher education establishments—ancaster university and the University College of St. Martin's—here thousands of students want to take the test during term time and should not have to go to Blackpool, Preston or Barrow?
    Mr.Norris: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her ingenuity in asking a supplementary to Question 3. More important, I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating my hon. Friend on her birthday. If I were in a position to offer her a birthday present, I would do so, but as I am an uncustomed and curmudgeonly person, I am not sure that I can oblige. However, I shall look carefully at the situation in Lancaster. If there is evidence that we have misapplied the criteria that establish theory test stations, we shall act accordingly.

    Transport Needs
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to develop strategies for the more efficient management of Britain's transport needs. [34691]
    Sir George Young: Greater involvement of the private sector and targeted public investment provide the key to a more efficient transport system.
    Mr. Miller: Does the Secretary of State recognise the importance of the transport industry in my constituency? Does he recognise also that his policies have resulted in aging systems, aging trains on the network and the development of gridlock? Local authorities are unable to meet requirements because of Government policies. When will we have a coherent transport policy? Does the Secretary of State believe that the dogma of privatisation and deregulation is adequate for our transport needs?
    Sir George Young: As to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, following completion of the Hooton-Ellesmere Port rail electrification, design work is being completed. Planning permission has been secured to provide greatly enhanced access to Ellesmere Port railway station direct from Westminster road bridge. There are several other schemes in the pipeline with which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is familiar.
    The hon. Gentleman will know that we published a few weeks ago a Green Paper that sets out clearly the Government's transport strategy. A few minutes ago, I heard criticism of the current roads programme from the Opposition Front Bench; it was clearly implied that it should be undertaken at a higher level. We want to know how that higher level would be funded.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that efficient management of air transport forms a part of Her Majesty's Government's overall transport strategy, particularly greater use of existing airports such as Luton, Stansted, Gatwick, Heathrow—hopefully with a fifth terminal—and Farnborough? The latter should have corporate aviation facilities; trying to turn RAF Northolt into an airport makes no sense.
    Sir George Young: I know my hon. Friend's views about the matter, which are shared by some of our
    12
    hon. Friends in neighbouring constituencies. I understand that a meeting has been arranged with my noble Friend Viscount Goschen, at which they will have an opportunity to make their views even clearer.

    Rail Management
    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for ensuring efficient strategies for managing Britain's rail network. [34692]
    Mr. Watts: The Government's strategy is based on the successful privatisation of the railways, especially Rai ltrack.
    Mr. Smith: Will the Minister confirm that £500 million was spent on lawyers and consultants during the privatisation process? The result is a fragmented network in which profits come before passengers and shareholders before safety. How is that in the interests of efficiency?
    Mr. Watts: On the contrary, there is no fragmentation of the network. It was decided as a deliberate matter of policy to keep the ownership and the management of the rail network in one set of hands—Railtrack's.
    Mr. Waterson: When talking about efficient strategies for the rail system, will my hon. Friend describe the effect of rail privatisation on the level of public subsidy to passenger rail services?
    Mr. Watts: The evidence of the first eight franchises to be let shows that, by the seventh year—which is the end of the normal franchise term—the subsidy paid to private operators will be less than one third of the grant paid to British Rail in the past year.

    Cyclists
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cyclists were killed or injured last year in the United Kingdom. [34693]
    Mr. Norris: Cycle fatalities are at one of their lowest levels since records began in 1927. Last year, 217 cyclists were killed and 25,081 were injured.
    Mrs. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that those of us who have used bicycles as a means of transport for the past 30 years or so welcome his recent conversion? Is he aware also that many people are discouraged from cycling because it is a hazardous activity, as the figures demonstrate? What action will he take to ensure that the number of cycling accidents is reduced and, therefore, cycling becomes more attractive to more people?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Lady is right, and I commend her. I am sure that she was a cyclist long before me. I did not mean to imply that she is older than I am—few hon. Members are older than me. I am sorry, Madam Speaker. not a word will pass my lips. I may not have long to go, but I am going to stick with what I have got.
    A key feature of the national cycling strategy, which will be produced on 10 July, will be to try to make cycling safer in respect of the mileage travelled. The hon. Lady is

    13
    right; people will be prepared to cycle only when they feel safe on the roads, especially in a city such as London. There is still much that we can do to make cycling safer. We are spending money on it and we will no doubt be able to afford to spend a lot more in future because the programme is still in its infancy.
    Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend will know from his experience of cutting up and down the roads of London on his bicycle that the attitude of motorists is the biggest cycle safety problem. Will he therefore consider raising the profile of explaining to motorists the danger that they create for cyclists? Will he consider using my 1993 Cycling Safety Bill as one way—and only one way, and possibly not the best—of ensuring that motorists pay due regard to cyclists, who are their fellow road users?
    Mr. Norris: It is kind of my hon. Friend to mention my cycling experience, although all I seem to get is obscenities from London taxi drivers. He is right; the major problem is the attitude of motorists. We must tackle that not only by physical measures on the road but by education—-not only of cyclists but, more important, of drivers.

    Socially Necessary Rail Services
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received in the past 18 months on the subject of socially necessary railway services; and if he will make a statement. [34694]
    Mr. Watts: Since the beginning of January 1995, my Department has received some 6,500 letters about subsidised passenger railway services, mostly from members of the general public.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that reply. May I remind him how vital some rural lines are? The most popular and vital services are not necessarily those that make the most profit. Two lines in a sparsely populated area of my constituency, the Conway valley line and the Cambrian coast line, are vital to the local economy. Will he ensure that socially necessary services are preserved and enhanced?
    Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that every passenger service requirement has protected every station and line currently served by British Rail. He will have noted that, in the letting of franchises, service levels, far from being diminished, have been maintained and enhanced. He can have every confidence that the services that are so important to him and his constituents will be safeguarded under privatisation.
    Mr. Mans: My hon. Friend knows that one of the most socially and commercially necessary lines in the country is the west coast main line from Euston to Glasgow. Will he ensure that he puts all the Government's efforts behind those who want the line to be upgraded at the first opportunity?
    Mr. Watts: Yes. My hon. Friend will know that Railtrack is already progressing the core investment programme to restore standards on that line and is in discussions with the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and my Department on upgrade options for it.
    Mr. Bayley: Does the Minister realise that the early passenger service requirements required private operators
    14
    to maintain 90 per cent. of the service on their lines, but that the new passenger service requirement for cross-country trains allows all four daily trains that originate from York to be axed and shortens the journeys for three of the remaining seven services by excluding any transport south of Birmingham? How can that be efficient and protect the needs of travellers from York to the south coast and the south-west?
    Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that every franchise is of a similar character. Those which have protection close to the existing service levels are those that contain the highest proportion of socially necessary services, while those that specify services at a lower level are those where the majority of the services are commercial. That is the difference between inter-city and regional services and it has been reflected in all the franchises that have been let so far.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in London, the socially necessary lines are those provided by London Underground? Will he therefore welcome the fact that GEC Alsthom will later this year start delivering 106 new trains to upgrade the Northern line? Will my hon. Friend contrast that policy of improving public transport in London with the silence of Opposition Members, who seem to be more concerned that the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen should sponsor their constituency parties than about the disquiet and suffering of their constituents?
    Mr. Watts: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend on every point that he has raised except one: I do not accept that London Underground delivers all of the socially necessary services in London. Many such services are provided by heavy rail. As for my hon. Friend's central point on the silence of the Opposition in the face of a blackmailing strike in the underground system, their silence speaks much louder to the people of London than—
    Mr. Skinner: We support shorter working hours.
    Mr. Watts: I hear the voice of new Labour from the Opposition Bench below the Gangway in support of the strike.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Her Majesty's Stationery Office (Contract)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the preparation of the new contract with HMSO. [34712]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): As I announced on 22 May in a written answer, Official Report, column 191, a copy of the draft contract between the House and HMSO for the provision of printing and publishing services was placed in the Library on 4 June. Discussions with HMSO to finalise

    15
    certain outstanding details are now approaching completion, and it is expected that the contract will be signed before the end of July.
    Mr. Greenway: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to assure the House that HMSO will be paid in full for the contracts into which it has entered to supply education materials to the agencies of some foreign Governments? Will it be paid in full, or will it not?
    Mr. Beith: I cannot comment, because that is not a matter for the Commission. It is not something over which we have any control.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the right hon. Gentleman absolutely certain—can he give an undertaking to the House—that any such contract will protect the interests of Members, and the public interest in the control of parliamentary papers, which is fundamental to the working of the House?
    Mr. Beith: Yes. You, Madam Speaker, set out in a letter that was printed in Hansard the basis on which the House authorities needed to be satisfied. Officers of the House have gone to great pains to ensure that the conditions set out in that letter are satisfied in the contract. As far as it is possible to do that, I believe that the House authorities have satisfied the obligation.

    Child Care Voucher Scheme
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the cost of the child care voucher scheme for Commission employees. [34714]
    Mr. Beith: The scheme was introduced on 1 April 1995. Expenditure on child care vouchers to date is £58,877. Fifty staff have participated in the scheme since its introduction.
    Mr. Corbyn: Given the limited number of staff who have benefited from the scheme, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Commission cannot undertake a survey of all staff and others employed in the building to ascertain the need for on-site child care facilities? It is nonsensical that a very large number of people are employed in this building and that their employer is way behind any other large employer in London or anywhere else. Employees have no child care facilities, yet they are desperately needed. The provision of such facilities would send out a signal that we are serious about looking after people who have small children, people who sometimes cannot get to the House because of the illness of their children, for example, or because there are no facilities for their children in other workplaces, which there ought to be.
    Mr. Beith: The Commission ensured that a survey was carried out, and a full review, the results of which suggested that the child care voucher scheme was meeting many of the requirements of those employed by the Commission. Indeed, there was no evidence that a larger number of people would have their requirements met by on-site facilities.
    16
    The wider question of whether we should have a creche on the premises is one on which the Commission has regularly sought the advice of the relevant Committees—the Select Committee on Accommodation and Works and the Select Committee on Administration—both of which have regularly pointed to the difficulties of providing such a facility. The Commission continues to review the possibility and would in principle be happy to see such a facility available to the staff it employs.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Bearing in mind the old adage: people should put their money where their mouths are, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many hon. Members ask the House authorities to issue child care vouchers at the expense of their office cost allowance?
    Mr. Beith: That question would have to be directed to the Leader of the House, but it is a useful reminder that Members of Parliament could use the office allowance to extend the child care allowance to their staff. If hon. Members feel that the office allowance is inadequate for that purpose, opportunities might arise later in the week to raise the matter.

  TRANSPORT

    East and West Coast Main Lines
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much public money has been spent on upgrading and modernising the rolling stock and railway infrastructure of the (a) west coast and (b) east coast main line over the past decade. [34695]
    Mr. Watts: East coast main line electrification was completed in 1991 at a cost of £515 million at 1991 prices. The west coast main line was electrified in the 1960s and 1970s. and some £200 million was spent on new traction on that line between 1987 and 1990.
    Mr. Prentice: Is not it a national disgrace that so much public money has been used to modernise the east coast main line, which was virtually gifted to the American company Sea Containers, yet the west coast main line has been starved of investment? We have clapped-out rolling stock driven by puffing billies. The Minister, in answer to an earlier question, talked about improvements to the track. The bids are out for the franchise this Friday, and I would like an assurance from the Minister that, whoever wins the contract to run trains on the west coast main line, new trains—high-speed trains—will be introduced at the earliest possible time on that vital link between the north-west and London.
    Mr. Watts: Investment in the east coast line was not gifted to an American company. The investment was in track, power supplies and signalling, which is now in the ownership of Railtrack, for which the taxpayer has just received £1.9 billion, and in rolling stock, which is owned by the rolling stock companies, which were also sold for some £1.9 billion.
    Part of the reason for issuing invitations now for the franchise of the west coast main line service is so that potential operators—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: More delay. Always delay.
    Mr. Watts: No, not delay, as the hon. Gentleman suggests from a sedentary position.

    17
    Part of the reason for issuing invitations now is so that potential operators can take part in the decisions that will have to be made shortly about upgrades of line performance over and above the core investment programme to which Railtrack is committed from its existing income.

    Public Transport (London)
    Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for improving public transport in London. [34696]
    Mr. Norris: The Government's plans for improving public transport in London were set out in the recently published transport strategy for London.
    Ms Jackson: I thank the Minister for that reply—albeit it is 17 years too late. Does he agree that dial-a-ride is a vital part of public transport for Londoners with disabilities? Does he also agree that the number of complaints about the service that is now offered to users of dial-a-ride is increasing? Will he therefore reconsider his refusal to meet one of my constituents—a user of the service—so that he might meet some of those who are so dependent on it and hear at first hand their complaints and discover a way to improve such a vital service?
    Mr. Norris: I make two points to the hon. Lady. First, it ill becomes her to talk about investment in London Transport. I remind her that, in 1978, the last year for which her party was responsible—I am talking now in 1996 prices—total investment in London Transport and London Underground was £203 million. The figure this year was £1,102 million—more than five times as much in real terms.
    Secondly, the hon. Lady should know—I suspect that she is too busy with her ASLEF activities to have noticed—that we have protected the budget for dial-a-ride. The budget is ring-fenced within London Transport. It has grown consistently in real terms over recent years and dial-a-ride provides in London the best service for disabled users of any comparable city anywhere in the world. I know of the hon. Lady's constituency case. I have told her that I cannot meet her constituent because I have an obligation to many other users of dial-a-ride, but I am always willing to hear constructive suggestions on how to make the system work better.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Will it surprise my hon. Friend if I point out that one way in which to improve public transport in London would be to establish passenger high services on the River Thames, a greatly underused highway through our capital city? Can he offer any prospect of progress on that front?
    Mr. Norris: I can indeed. As my hon. Friend knows, I established a working party to examine the viability of passenger services on the Thames two years ago. That working party has stimulated a good deal of activity on the river, and the Port of London Authority is currently organising a proper auction of available pier slots to determine how a viable service might be provided.

    Traffic Reduction
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to reduce the amount of traffic on United Kingdom roads; and if he will make a statement. [34697]
    Sir George Young: The Green Paper "Transport: The Way Forward" sets out our view of the measures needed to manage traffic growth.
    Mr. Cohen: Is it not time for significant traffic reduction measures? I have here a copy of the Japan Times, which describes United Kingdom roads as a "gridlock to nowhere". Japan's traffic derives from business and full employment, but we have no such excuse; our traffic throttles business and work. Should not direct measures be taken to improve public transport, cut fares—rather than increase them as the Government have—and keep cars out of city centres?
    Sir George Young: Only a couple of minutes ago, we heard an excellent recitation from my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London about the substantial investment that has been made in London's public transport. If the hon. Gentleman examines the situation in London, he will see that we are not investing a great deal in new roads, but that we are investing substantially in the Jubilee line, the Heathrow express, the channel tunnel rail link and Thameslink 2000. We are making much faster progress now than we have for many decades, and we are doing it with private finance. What we do not hear from Opposition Members is how on earth they would maintain that momentum without the partnership that we have created with the private sector.

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Sessional Spill-over Period
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the merits of the spill-over period in the sessional cycle. [34715]
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): A spill-over is on occasion necessary to complete the Session's business, and has been in recent years.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My right hon. Friend will appreciate the special reasons for the spill-over period to be examined in the lead-up to the general election, but does he agree that such an inefficient, outdated system would not be tolerated in any other walk of life? Will he give an undertaking to consider whether that system should be among those subjected to critical examination during the welcome reforms of our procedures?
    Mr. Newton: Given the inevitable uncertainties relating to the time that it takes to complete some business, I think that some form of flexibility is needed in the arrangements for a parliamentary Session, but I certainly accept the desirability of having no spill-over

    19
    period if that can be achieved. I am glad to say that I expect a shorter spill-over this year than has been customary in recent years.
    Mr. Winnick: In the spill-over period, would it be possible to give the British people what they want—an autumn general election?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman might like that, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we have a mandate to continue to govern the country, and we intend to do so.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's sympathetic response to the wise representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes). From every point of view, would it not make more sense for the House to rise earlier—towards the beginning of July—so that hon. Members could spend more time with their families, and to reconvene at the beginning of October, with no spill-over period? That would be a much more logical and effective way of doing business.
    Mr. Newton: I intended my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) to be sympathetic, but the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) would lead to another difficulty—unless he really wants the House to sit during the party conferences. That would involve some obvious problems. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I see that that idea is attractive to Labour Members. I would not want to go to their party conference either.

    Illegal Drugs
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Lord President of the Council what actions the ministerial group on tackling drugs together has taken in respect of the methods of sale of illegal drugs. [34716]
    Mr. Newton: The ministerial sub-committee of the Cabinet on the misuse of drugs, which I chair, is responsible for co-ordinating the Government's national and international policies for tackling drug misuse. All aspects of the Government's "Tackling Drugs Together" strategy, which focuses on illegal drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, are kept under regular review by the sub-committee. Action is taken to address other drugs of misuse as and when appropriate.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Given that, in some circumstances, the sale of amyl nitrates might be deemed illegal—particularly when sold to those under 18—are the Government considering further enforcement measures involving such sales, or even their proscription?
    Mr. Newton: I have been made aware of the fact that the hon. Gentleman is in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health about a particular case that has arisen in his constituency,
    20
    or which has been drawn to his attention by a constituent. The problem to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention is being carefully examined.

    Statutory Instruments (Scrutiny Procedure)
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of present scrutiny procedures of the statutory instruments passed since January 1994. [34717]
    Mr. Newton: I think that our procedures for scrutinising statutory instruments are generally effective but, of course, we are always willing to consider suggestions for improvements. The Procedure Committee's recent report on delegated legislation contained many interesting ideas and, on Thursday, during the debate on parliamentary procedures, there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to express their views.
    Mr. Steen: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the cost to industry of the 8,098 statutory instruments that have been passed by the House since January? Is he aware that the cost of implementing those 8,098 statutory instruments is £8.75 billion and that only 643 statutory instruments have been repealed? As the Government are committed to deregulation, just as I am, does my right hon. Friend agree that some improvements are called for before the general election?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend refers to activities that have gone ahead under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. I understand that he would like to see further and speedier progress but, inevitably, it has taken time to build up. I hope that he will acknowledge that many of the statutory instruments to which he refers—for example, the many that are concerned with social security—do not, in the sense in which he means it, impose costs on industry.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Lord President agree that one of the problems in scrutinising and debating the merits of statutory instruments is that, of late, primary legislation has been much more framework legislation than of yore, so the importance of statutory instruments and their impact on industry, to which the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) referred, are much greater than before? Should not the Government look to the drafting of legislation that is less of a framework and more precise and in greater detail when it is first presented to the House?
    Mr. Newton: I certainly agree that it is right to seek to improve the quality of the drafting of primary legislation. I have been seeking to advance that by publishing more Bills in draft so that practitioners may have a proper opportunity to look at them before they are presented to the House. Beyond that, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point but, equally, I understand the difficulties—for example, the pressures on parliamentary time. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity, should he catch your eye, Madam Speaker, to develop his thoughts further in Thursday's debate.

Orders of the Day

  Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Ordered,
  That the Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order. namely, New Clauses relating to Part I, amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 103, Schedule 1, New Schedules relating to Part I, New Clauses relating to Part II, amendments relating to Clauses 104 to 117, New Schedules relating to Part II, New Clauses relating to Part III, amendments relating to Clauses 118 to 125, Schedule 2, New Schedules relating to Part III, New Clauses relating to Part IV, amendments relating to Clauses 126 to 139, New Schedules relating to Part IV, New Clauses relating to Part V, amendments relating to Clauses 140 to 145, Schedule 3, Clauses 146 to 149, New Schedules relating to Part V.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

New clause 11

  HOUSING GRANTS: THE AGE OF THE PROPERTY
  '.—(1) A local housing authority shall not entertain an application for a grant in respect of premises provided (by construction or conversion) less than ten years before the date of the application, unless—

  (a) the application is for a disabled facilities grant, or

  (b) the application is for an HMO grant in respect of a house in multiple occupation provided by conversion.

  (2) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (I) so as to substitute another period for that specified.'.— [Mr. Clappison.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 17.
  Mr. Clappison: The joint effect of amendment No. 17 and new clause 11 is to remove the 10-year age requirement as a condition of grant for houses in multiple occupation that are provided by conversion. We accept that, in terms of the 10-year condition, houses in multiple occupation are a special case.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: The new clause, which responds to one that we moved in Committee, makes a great deal of sense. Houses in multiple occupation are often in poor condition. They form some of the worst housing in the country and present some of the most life-threatening conditions. It is vital that action is taken to remedy that. Often, because of the way in which the conversion takes place, the property has been brought into multiple occupation fairly recently, so the 10-year limitation, which would apply otherwise and is perfectly sensible other than in respect of disabled facility grants, where the Government already accept the need for an exemption, would be unhelpful. We are pleased that the Government recognise the logic that we advocated in Committee, so we welcome the new clause.
  Mr. Chris Davies: I welcome the general tone of the new clause, which is
  22
  helpful, but I draw the House's attention to subsection (2) and the power that it gives to the Secretary of State, rather in the way referred to during questions to the Leader of the House. It enables a Secretary of State, at a whim and with a parliamentary majority, to substitute almost any period that he or she may wish for the time specified.
  No doubt the Secretary of State, in keeping with the views of the House, would always act reasonably and ensure that any amendment was in keeping with what the Minister intends today, but, in practice, this is a good example of broad drafting that can allow massive changes later. Unwritten rules and conventions, which many of us follow as a matter of course, can so easily be torn up if the political complexion of the Executive decides that that should be the case.
  I lost my position as chairman of housing in Liverpool when a Labour administration came in, with its strong bias towards the militant tendency. Those unwritten rules were torn up immediately. The administration took full advantage of broad drafting of this sort in the council's policies. Within days, policies that we would have expected to continue for many years were completely revised, without the council's full endorsement. Much the same can happen to laws with such broad drafting. Ministers are keen to respond to points made in the House and say that they would not dream of giving the Secretary of State undue powers, but this new clause gives the Secretary of State, of whatever political party, just that sort of authority.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 3

  PUBLICATION OF DISABLED FACILITIES GRANT PROCEDURE
  'A local housing authority shall publish information in accessible formats clearly outlining the procedure for applying for a disabled facilities grant in their area.'.—[Mr. Chris Davies.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Chris Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 11, in clause 19, page 11, line 25, at beginning insert—
  '( ) The local housing authority shall ensure that an applicant shall be able to apply for a disabled facilities grant as soon as is reasonably practicable after making an initial enquiry either to the local housing authority or the social services authority.'.
  No. 12, in clause 24, page 14, line 20, at end insert—
  '(3A) Where the local housing authority is not itself a social services authority, the two shall agree jointly as to who will act as the principal point of contact for enquirers and applicants for a disabled facilities grant.'.
  Mr. Davies: I hope that the House will regard this as a reasonable and constructive new clause. Applying for disabled facilities grants can be complicated. Some elements of the grant are mandatory, others discretionary. Although the housing authority would normally be responsible for ensuring the smooth processing of applications, inevitably, social service departments will be brought into the process. Because of the nature of local government, that may involve more than one local

  23
  authority at a time. In such circumstances, there is always a risk of disabled persons being caught up in a bureaucratic system that prevents them from gaining access to the grants that every hon. Member would wish them to have.
  The Department of the Environment has undertaken its own evaluation of disabled facilities grants and has recognised the problem that I highlight in the new clause. In its reports, it has recommended that simple leaflets giving information should be published. I hope that that includes versions in Braille as well as in hard print, so that the needs of all disabled people will be met.
  One of the problems is that, although, normally, I would wish local authorities to respond to that in the way in which good local government is expected to do, and to meet the needs of its citizens, that is not happening in each and every case. Frankly, some local authorities are not getting their act together when it comes to ensuring that departments are working closely and in co-ordination, and that disabled residents are getting the information that they need.
  I ask the Minister, therefore, to consider the new clause positively and to take my point, which is that, in relation to disabled persons, it is not inappropriate for the House to lay down certain minimum standards.
  Mr. Clappison: New clause 3 would require housing authorities to publish details of the procedures for applying for disabled facilities grants in the authority's area. That is not necessary, because authorities are already able to provide information to potential applicants.
  The Department's grants literature, which authorities distribute to potential applicants, already sets out full details of grants, including information about how to apply and where to obtain help and advice before commencing works. That literature will be updated in readiness for the introduction of the new grant regime.
  Authorities are also encouraged to operate preliminary inquiry systems to help people understand how their application will be processed by the housing authority and how grant, if any, will be assessed. Many authorities have set up their own advisory services to provide advice to potential applicants and answer queries. That helps to ensure that any uncertainty in applying for grant is removed and applicants therefore have a clear picture of the application process.
  In addition, home improvement agencies also provide a valuable service in helping elderly and disabled applicants and those on low incomes through the difficult task of arranging for works and obtaining finance to meet their share of the cost of works.
  I believe that those arrangements already ensure that applicants receive the right information on the procedures for making an application for disabled facilities grant, and I do not consider the new clause necessary.
  I heard the arguments of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) about social services and housing authorities. I am aware of the reports to which he referred. As we made clear in Committee, we
  24
  are looking into the way in which social services' advice and input into the system is organised. It is appropriate that decisions remain with the housing authority and that it works together with the social services authorities in the way that I have described.
  Mr. Davies: That is an inadequate reply. It does not even tackle the problems that the Department mentioned in its reports, which said that the system that the Minister described is not working, although he implied that it was. Would he at least meet me half way, by placing some guidance in the guidelines that the Department of the Environment produces when the Bill reaches the statute book?
  Mr. Clappison: We made it clear in Committee that we would consider the problems that arose in respect of the social services organisation of, for example, the occupational therapy service and the part that it plays. We think it appropriate for the housing authority to be the main authority responsible for the grant system.
  Mr. Davies: That answer is thoroughly inadequate and disappointing, but rather than taking the time of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 5

  POWER TO SPECIFY MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF GRANT
  '.—(1) A local housing authority may specify the maximum amount of grant it will pay in respect of an application for a grant, which shall he determined in accordance with the terms and conditions of its private sector housing renewal strategy.
  (2) A local housing authority may make different provisions for different types of grant, or for the same type of grant in different c ircumstances.'.—[Mr. Chris Davies.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Chris Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in clause 33, page 19, leave out lines 24 to 40.
  No. 8, in page 19, line 31, leave out from 'grant): to end of line 38 and insert
  `there shall be no maximum amount of grant to be paid if the application is approved.'.
  No. 72, in page 19, line 39, leave out from 'not' to 'pay'.
  Mr. Davies: The new clause gives local authorities flexibility to tailor their private sector renewal strategies to meet the circumstances that they encounter and to tackle unique and individual problems. It does not conflict with the prime purpose of the Bill and has no public expenditure implications, because the overall amounts allocated to housing authorities are strictly controlled by central Government, and any flexibility within that will be within the overall guidelines.
  The new clause will enable local authorities to determine how that money is best spent in their districts and boroughs. In some cases, they could consider

  25
  widening the scope of grants and enabling more people to qualify for grants each year, by setting the maximum grant at a lower level than the Minister might otherwise recommend. It would also enable local authorities to tackle particular circumstances by raising the grant to a higher level, but as fewer residents would qualify for grant in such circumstances, it would be a step that they would take only with reluctance. There will be instances in which that flexibility will be useful, particularly when large properties require modernisation and renovation, and when the needs of large families, perhaps of ethnic minority groups, must be catered for.
  I ask the Minister to consider the new clause carefully and to recognise that it does not affect the overall tone of the Bill in any way; it will ensure that the Government's objective of ensuring that money is wisely used is implemented properly.
  I ask the Minister to remember that when it comes to judging the circumstances in any one area, the local housing authority there is almost certainly in a better position than the Secretary of State to determine the most appropriate fine-tuning.
  Mr. Clappison: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but I do not think that he has done justice to the framework set out in clause 33, particularly the wide measure of discretion that it gives to local authorities. As he well knows, that is an important aspect of the purpose of the reforms.
  Clause 33 restates the power of the Secretary of State to impose a grant limit on both mandatory and discretionary grants. The important point is that we intend to retain a grant maximum of £20,000 only for mandatory disabled facilities grants. As local housing authorities will be able to decide their grant policy within the resources made available to them, we currently believe that there is no reason to introduce a grant limit on other discretionary grants.
  3.45 pm
  New clause 5, replacing clause 33, would provide for the power to specify maximum grant limits to rest with individual local authorities rather than with the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman will remember the full discussion that we had in Committee. Despite the arguments which he advanced then, and which he advanced today, I remain of the view that a consistent national policy should apply when essential and important principles, such as the maximum grant payable, are involved. Therefore, we think that it is right for the power to make those determinations to rest with the Secretary of State.
  Amendments Nos. 6, 8 and 72 would remove the power to place a limit on the amount that may be paid on an application for a disabled facilities grant, regardless of the circumstances. As I have already said, we intend that there should be a maximum of £20,000 for mandatory disabled facilities grants.
  It is worth mentioning that the average mandatory disabled facilities grant is about £4,000, with a very small minority of disabled facilities grants near the top end of the £20,000 limit. Those higher grants are usually given when a disabled person needs more extensive adaptations, including an extension to his home.
  26
  We recognise that there will be some disabled people whose needs will result in adaptations that require grant assistance in excess of the limit. So that authorities are not prevented from giving grants in those cases, a new provision—clause 33(3)—was introduced, enabling local authorities to pay discretionary grants above the grant limit when they consider that to be justified. So there is flexibility for local authorities.
  When there could be a high cost to the recommended works, we believe that local authorities should be given the opportunity to assess the benefits of carrying out such works and to decide whether there is any other way in which to meet the disabled person's needs.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, our original proposals for the means-testing of disabled facilities grant applicants included relaxation of the test for mandatory grants, but not for discretionary grants. We considered that matter, and we have given an undertaking—which I now repeat—to allow for discretionary disabled facilities grants to be means-tested in the same manner as mandatory disabled facilities grants, thereby aligning the two means tests. That means that there will be no disadvantage to disabled applicants when they are given discretionary top-up grants beyond the £20,000 limit.
  Given that undertaking, the £20,000 grant limit for mandatory disabled facilities grants now acts as a watershed, beyond which local authorities and social services departments must give careful consideration to whether the works proposed in the grant application are necessarily the only or even the best option available to meet the disabled person's needs. Local authorities will also have the power to exceed the limit when they are satisfied that that is necessary.
  Notwithstanding the arguments that I have heard today, I believe that we have struck the right balance and given the correct discretion to local authorities.
  Mr. Raynsford: The Minister rightly mentioned the earlier discussion about the different means tests applying to disabled applicants seeking a mandatory award as against a discretionary award. We highlighted that problem in Committee, and Opposition Members are delighted that the Government have now accepted the case for a streamlined procedure, with a single means test applying to disabled applicants seeking mandatory awards and to those seeking discretionary awards. Those important improvements, which were achieved in Committee, create a fairer climate for disabled people and avoid unnecessary bureaucracy.
  The existence of a limit has been part of the scheme—the Labour party believes that that is right. During the 1970s and 1980s a great deal of renovation work was undertaken with, on average, smaller sums than has recently been allocated to renovation grants. Under the provisions of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 which are, in effect, being repealed by the Bill, the size of individual grants rose astronomically and there were cases involving extraordinary sums of public money being allocated to individual properties. That led to the progressive introduction of, first, a £50,000 limit and, more recently, a £20,000 limit. Clearly, that limit needs to be kept under review; it would be wrong to see it as a fixed figure for all time.
  Given the limited availability of public resources and the need to ensure that as many renovation grants as possible can be approved, the Opposition do not object to

  27
  the principle of a broad, national limit to ensure consistency throughout the country and to ensure that resources are spread as widely as possible to benefit the maximum number of people.
  Mr. Chris Davies: Rather than a consistent national policy—to use the Minister's words—which is promoted by both Conservative and Labour, I would prefer to see guidelines within which there was more flexibility for local authorities. It would seem that I am to be disappointed on this new clause and many other amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 14

  GRANT FOR THE REDUCTION OF CONCENTRATION OF RADON
  `.—(l) In the case of grants for the purpose of work to reduce the concentration of radon in the dwelling it shall be mandatory, subject to the provisions of this Part, for the local housing authority to approve an application for grant where—

  (a) the concentration of radon in the dwelling has been shown to be above the action level for radon, and

  (b) the nature of the work for which the grant is being made is as specified in guidance for local housing authorities produced by the Secretary of State.

  (2) The action level for radon shall be determined by the Secretary of State after consulting with the National Radiological Protection Board and such other bodies and individuals as he sees fit.
  (3) Grants shall be available in full to meet the cost of work arising under this section.
  (4) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for the full reimbursement of local authorities for grants made under this section.'.—[Mrs. Maddock.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mrs. Diana Maddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 112, in clause 12, page 7, line 35, at end insert—
  '(g) to reduce the concentration of radon in the dwelling;'.
  Mrs. Maddock: New clause 14 and amendment No. 112 set up a mandatory grant framework for dealing with radon gas in people's homes. For the benefit of hon. Members, I shall take one or two minutes to describe radon. It is a naturally occurring radioactive gas which, like some other dangerous substances, is odourless and colourless. It can, however, be detected by a simple and cheap test.
  The risk to those with the gas in their homes is considerable. The gas is known to be a health hazard. We know that, because underground miners who have been heavily exposed to the gas suffer high rates of lung cancer. Investigations into the problem have estimated that radon in people's homes may cause lung cancer in about 2,000 people every year—5 per cent. of the total incidence of lung cancer in Britain. That figure makes it second only to smoking as a contributory factor to lung cancer.
  Radon gas is not evenly spread across Britain; it is particularly concentrated in the south-west and there are other pockets of concentration across the country.
  28
  The Government have designated some areas as radon-affected areas. They include Devon and Cornwall, parts of Somerset, Northamptonshire, Derbyshire and, in Wales, Pembrokeshire, Clwyd and some parts of Powys—it is quite a wide-ranging problem.
  Mr. William O'Brien: The hon. Lady said that the problem is not evenly distributed throughout the United Kingdom. What action has been taken to ensure that local authorities carry out tests to see whether there is radon gas in their area? If no action has been taken, does the hon. Lady intend to introduce provisions this afternoon to ensure that it is?
  Mrs. Maddock: I am grateful for that intervention. As I continue with my speech, I hope to answer some of the questions asked.
  High concentrations of radon tend to be the result of particularly permeable ground containing a high level of uranium, because radon comes from within the earth and travels through cracks and fissures until it reaches the surface. Once it has reached the surface, it normally spreads out into the atmosphere and disperses relatively easily, but it can be concentrated in buildings, including people's homes, which is why I introduced the new clause. It is concentrated in homes because the air pressure in buildings is usually lower than that outside. Unless a building is well ventilated, radon will concentrate inside.
  Modern developments in home insulation have meant that the problem has increased in recent years. Subsection (1)(b) of new clause 14 proposes action to tackle the problem with ventilation in homes. Two things can be done: first, ventilation can be installed in the roof space of houses and, secondly, a sump can be installed at ground level to soak up radon. The sump is more effective, but it is usually more expensive, costing between £500 and £1,500 for a contractor-fitted system. The do-it-yourself option is cheaper at £150 to £400 and is very effective, typically reducing radon levels by about 90 per cent.
  Roof space positive ventilation is much cheaper, costing between £350 and £450 and about an extra £100 for installation. That method reduces radon levels by only half to two thirds.
  Radon concentration is measured in becquerels per cubic metre: 1 bq is one radioactive emission per second. The Government have adopted the action level of 200 bq/cu m, which is at the bottom of the action range proposed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection of between 200 and 600 bq/cu m.
  The action levels in subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause were proposed with the Government's figure of 200 bq in mind. New evidence may become available from time to time and the Government should have the necessary flexibility to vary that action level.
  The action level varies from country to country. In Canada, the figure is high—800 bq—but in the Netherlands, it is low. Ours is broadly in line with that of Norway, Sweden and Australia, among others.
  The Government deserve some credit for their response to the risk to people's health from radon. In recent years, the National Radiological Protection Board, an independent statutory body, has been funded to carry out a programme of radon measurement. This year it completed its mapping of radon levels over England and Wales.

  29
  The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) asked about local authorities, which have an opportunity to publish information about radon. Publicity is often insufficient and people are not always aware of the free offer that is available. The radon levels of 250,000 homes have been measured using the Government funding.
  The 1991 building regulations require all new properties in action areas to have mechanisms to reduce the concentration of radon because of the recognised risk of lung cancer, but the operation of the system for existing homes is at best patchy. The radon concentration in about 100,000 homes is higher than the Government's action level, so about 250,000 people may run the risk of contracting lung cancer.
  We need a mandatory grants scheme to relieve the risk. The current scheme is discretionary and is not working properly. The most recent survey of environmental health officers was carried out in 1992. Some things may have changed since, but the best picture of grant provision is not good. In the worst affected area of Devon and Cornwall, only seven of 16 local authorities had a written policy for dealing with radon, and only seven had a policy of giving discretionary grants. In 1992, those seven councils approved only 11 grants between them—a tiny take-up, which shows the lack of public recognition of the risks involved.
  People must realise the health hazards and must be given more information. Moreover, the Government should set up a mandatory and automatic grant scheme. The evidence shows that making grants discretionary significantly discourages take-up.
  4 pm
  This morning, as is my wont, I listened to Radio 4 and heard that the Government are to make some announcements about health and the environment. I shall therefore listen with interest to what the Minister has to say. Perhaps the fact that we tabled these amendments for debate today has pushed the Government into taking the issues seriously. The areas affected are concentrated in small pockets, but I still think that the money should be provided by central Government.
  I agree that a mandatory scheme will not in itself solve the problem. It must be combined with greater publicity—the Minister may be about to tell me something along those lines in a moment. Greater public awareness of the risks is an important part of the strategy. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the new clause and the amendments, which explicitly state that radon reduction is a suitable use of renovation grant. Amendment No. 112 refers to that and new clause 14 sets out the framework.
  If the Minister cannot accept our proposals, I hope that he will at least promise to review the situation and extend the funding available to local authorities in the affected areas. I hope too that the NRPB will be given more money and that publicity will be stepped up. More work clearly needs to be done. It will not amount to a great strain on the Exchequer; it would cost the Exchequer a lot more to treat people who contract lung cancer.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I am glad of the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. There is a significant concentration of houses with high radon gas levels in
  30
  Northumberland, in the Wooler area on the edge of the Cheviot hills. When the identification was first made, six or seven years ago, levels of more than 500 bq were found in some properties there. The National Radiological Protection Board is to carry out more inspections; arising from that, there are two points that I want to draw to the Minister's attention.
  First, it is difficult for local councils to implement a clear policy of assistance, because the whole subject is dealt with in great secrecy by the NRPB. That may be partly to protect property owners from adverse publicity if their houses are badly affected by radon, but it makes life extremely difficult for a local authority whose responsibility it is to know the condition of the housing stock in its area. I therefore hope that the Minister will reflect on the need for such secrecy. I also hope that local authorities will be told more about precisely what the NRPB is doing and about which houses or groups of houses are having to be inspected. Berwick-upon-Tweed borough council has encountered that difficulty throughout.
  Secondly, like my hon. Friend, I refer to the applicability of the grant system to alleviating the problem. A great many householders are worried about their position if they find that they have to pay for significant improvements. I raised the problem some time ago; indeed, when I first raised it in 1990, the Secretary of State for the Environment was Chris Patten. He said then that it would cost between £500 and £1,500 per house to deal with the problem, but that he felt that the means-tested discretionary grant scheme was adequate for the purpose. I do not share that view.
  It is not satisfactory if householders, some on modest incomes, but perhaps not modest enough to benefit from means-tested grants, must find that much money to make improvements as a result of a bolt from the blue. People in some areas have had to find money for many other problems with their properties recently. We had an extremely harsh winter and many people, including myself, experienced flooding from burst pipes. It is unfair if home owners are suddenly faced with a big bill to deal with an unseen but extremely worrying problem, so the Government should look beyond the minimal discretionary grant scheme to help them.
  The issue has now dragged on for some time. It is six years since I first raised it and people in the affected area still do not have a clear picture of the problem. I hope that, once they know the extent of the problem, they will receive some assurance about financial help to do something about it, otherwise it will be a serious worry. I therefore plead with the Minister to look sympathetically at the new clause.
  Mr. Clappison: I listened carefully to the contributions of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on this serious subject. I shall look into the right hon. Gentleman's points about liaison between the National Radiological Protection Board and Berwick council.
  I cannot satisfy the hon. Lady entirely, but I hope that she will feel that I have gone some way towards doing so on this important subject. We take the subject of radon seriously, as it is a health risk and can contribute to causing lung cancer. As she fairly said, this year we took

  31
  forward the programme of information and testing to a number of households in additional areas. The programme seeks to deal with the radon problem effectively and completely.
  I cannot accept the new clause and amendment because they would fundamentally cut across the principles that renovation grants shall be made at the discretion of the local housing authority and that authorities should develop private sector renewal strategies for using available resources. Making grants mandatory for that purpose would also undermine the flexibility that local authorities need to determine their priorities. However, I can give the hon. Lady some assurances, and my response does not mean that we do not consider radon to be a serious issue.
  My Department has already provided comprehensive guidance to local authorities and home owners on reducing radon levels in the home. We also propose to draw attention to the issue in the guidance that we shall provide to local authorities on the new grant regime. We shall urge authorities to consider giving grant assistance for that purpose.
  In addition, clause 12(1)(g) provides for the Secretary of State to specify that a dwelling complies with certain requirements with respect to construction or physical condition.
  Mr. William O'Brien: When action must be taken to deal with radon in line with the Secretary of State's guidance, will planning authorities have to apply conditions in planning approvals?
  Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman seems to be moving into slightly different territory. I am discussing the guidance that will be issued for existing properties. We propose to exercise the powers under clause 12 to provide for appropriate action to be taken according to the level of radon—discretionary renovation grant will be available above a certain level. We intend to make it clear in the guidance to local authorities that home repair assistance will also be available for that purpose to qualifying applicants.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch knows the limits of the home repair assistance grants. There are a number of ways to address the radon problem, many of which do not involve the outlay of a considerable amount of expenditure —and I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware of them. However, I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, that it may be a considerable amount of expenditure for someone with limited means. Generally, dealing with radon does not involve a large sum.
  I hope that what I have said about the way in which the Government will approach the problem, and the guidance that we will issue, will go some way towards allaying the hon. Lady's concerns. I hope that she will understand that we cannot accept the amendments, because they would cut across more fundamental principles. I hope that I have been able to persuade her that we are taking the issue seriously and that it is being dealt with appropriately within the framework of renovation grants.
  Mr. Raynsford: The Minister's response revealed the problems that the Government have got themselves into
  32
  with their approach to the Bill. Essentially, they are repealing the mandatory renovation grant framework that they introduced only seven years ago in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The Minister said that he could not accept the amendments of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) because there would not be many mandatory renovation grants in the future, so it would be wrong to give mandatory entitlement in only one category. That is the Government's problem—it is a problem of their making.
  I do not depart from the logic that the Minister adopted. If there are no mandatory renovation grants, it becomes illogical to single out one particular category that can receive mandatory awards rather than others. The hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Berwick-uponTweed (Mr. Beith) highlighted the serious risks—including the life-threatening risks—connected with radon. However, people who live in sub-standard houses face other serious risks to their health, some of which are life threatening.
  For example, people who live in multi-occupied houses risk death from fire or from carbon monoxide poisoning; people who live in particularly squalid and unfit accommodation suffer from respiratory illnesses; and elderly people who live in accommodation that is impossibly hard to heat in winter experience an above average risk of dying from hypothermia. It could be argued that many things are serious health risks and are potentially damaging and life threatening.
  For those reasons, there is a certain logic in what the Minister is saying—that it would be wrong to have a mandatory entitlement for people who seek a grant to deal with radon when there is no mandatory entitlement for people who are living in death traps, such as multi-occupied houses, or who are living in squalid conditions. However, that is the Government's problem. I believe that guidance from the Minister is not enough.
  The Minister distinguished himself in Committee. On many occasions, he was challenged from the Opposition Benches and he undertook to take matters away and reflect on them. Today, we have seen the fruits of some of that thinking. Clearly, the Minister has had time to reflect on the good sense of Opposition amendments and he has been convinced of their merits. The amendments that he will move today give effect to proposals that we advocated in Committee, and we welcome that.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch would do well to press the Minister on this issue. All hon. Members recognise that radon is a serious problem and that there is a need for effective action that goes beyond guidance. Without stretching it to the point of a mandatory obligation on local authorities to give grants in such cases, there is an overwhelming case for measures to deal with the radon problem to be included on the face of the Bill.
  I shall, therefore, offer the Minister a suggestion. The Bill commenced in another place and it will return to another place before it completes its passage through Parliament. However, their Lordships are not free to look at proposals that have not been amended in this House. If the Minister were willing to accept the amendments and to put them on the face of the Bill, with an agreement that they would be looked at more thoroughly in another place, it would be a way of ensuring that the issue was kept alive and that an appropriate framework was agreed. That would ensure that there was statutory recognition of the

  33
  importance of radon, but that there was not the anomaly of radon being given a fast track to renovation grants ahead of everything else. I believe that that is a helpful proposal for the Minister, and I hope that he accepts it.
  Mr. Clappison: The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) is sometimes helpful, but his helpfulness is often tinged with playfulness. On his general point about housing renovation grants, he is fully aware of the problems of a demand-led grant system and of the way in which we have tried to address those problems openly. In responding to the same problems, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that a Labour Government would propose no additional resources for the grant system.
  I cannot produce more resources—I could not even do so upon reflection. It does not matter how many times the Bill passes through the legislative process—sending it backwards and forwards between the House and the other place will not produce any more resources. During the passage of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman proposed no constructive ideas on using existing resources better. The only ideas that he advanced involved taking resources from those who are in the greatest need and giving them to those in less need. In this case, it could mean taking resources from those who need grants to deal with problems such as radon.
  4.15 pm
  Although the hon. Gentleman is very beguiling, I cannot go along with his suggestion. I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) will accept that we have made a real attempt to address the problem of radon and that I have gone some way towards addressing her concerns.
  Mr. Chris Davies: The borough of Oldham does not have high levels of radon gas emissions, but there are several hot spots. A constituent contacted me recently to say that she had learnt that work had been carried out that identified some properties at risk from the gas. Upon investigation, I obtained a copy of the report from the council. So as not to inflame public fears, it listed the few properties affected only by their postcodes. I am glad to report that my constituent's property was not among those listed, but mine was. That caused me some concern and I looked immediately to the leader of the council for a possible explanation for the gas emissions—perhaps it is simply because of the rock upon which my building is constructed.
  My constituent was concerned because her child has leukaemia and, not surprisingly, her distress was increased by the suggestion that a radioactive gas might be causing problems for certain properties. It is a serious matter; it hardly affects my borough, but it is a great concern in other parts of the country. Although the Minister has treated the debate seriously and has suggested that he is doing all that he can, perhaps he should consider the matter still further and do a little more.
  Mrs. Maddock: I listened to the Minister's remarks with interest—he always smiles pleasantly when responding to one's suggestions. It is interesting to note that local independence seems to depend upon whether the Government think that they have any money. I have said before that local authorities should be independent.
  34
  However, it is important to have national standards in certain areas. This is such an area—particularly as we are discussing saving money in the health service, which is funded nationally.
  I hope that the guidance notes to local authorities will stress the importance of the issue, so that they will treat it seriously. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) pointed out that a major problem with the Bill is that it does not increase resources for grants to deal with property renovations or anything else: it simply moves the goalposts. The Minister's reply demonstrated that clearly—I do not recall his exact words, but I think he said that he could not find any more money. The Government are not really prepared to provide funding even though they have highlighted the dangers. On the radio this morning, even though there has been no statement today, they highlighted the importance of the matter. They have said that it is important in their great scheme for considering people's health and environmental matters. The Minister says that it is so important that he is not going to give any money to deal with it. I am very disappointed.
  Will the Minister ensure that during the next year he considers how many grants are taken up, how much information is put out by local authorities and whether what the Government do, particularly in respect of the forthcoming statement on health, has any effect? We, too, will watch the matter and will question him again if we consider that what happens is unsatisfactory. It seems that it is down to money. It is dishonest to say on radio that they want to do something about the problem and then to tell the House that they will not put up any money for it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

  INELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 7, at end insert—
  '( ) a health authority, special health authority or NHS trust:'.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 119, 46, 121, 57, 59 and 60.
  Mr. Clappison: Under the current regime, NHS authorities and trusts are prevented from applying for grant by direction of the Secretary of State. In Committee, the hon. Member for Greenwich tabled an amendment that would have added such bodies to the list in clause 3(2) of applicants who cannot apply for grant. We agreed to consider that amendment, and, as a result of our deliberations, we have tabled amendment No. 16, which we believe achieves that.
  Amendment No. 46 ensures that such bodies are also excluded from participating in group repair schemes as assisted persons. Amendments Nos. 119 and 121 achieve the same effect for police authorities established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964. The lists of ineligible applicants in clauses 3 and 64 also include new town corporations and housing action trusts.

  35
  Clause 3 also refers to urban development corporations. However, clauses 141 to 143 provide for those bodies to be dissolved and successor bodies created. We have therefore tabled amendments Nos. 57, 59 and 60, which provide that references to such bodies in part I should also be construed as references to their successor bodies. These are sensible amendments, which will ensure that grant goes only to appropriate persons.
  Mr. Raynsford: As the Minister said, some of the amendments build on amendments that we moved in Committee and we welcome them. I congratulate him on the exemplary speed with which he lucidly explained so many technical amendments. I hope that he will follow that path during the remaining proceedings, and that he will continue to be as positive in accepting Opposition amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 119, in page 3, line 7, at end insert—
  '( ) a police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964;'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 3, line 15, at end insert—
  '( ) Regulations under subsection (3) may proceed wholly or in part by reference to the provisions relating to entitlement to housing benefit, or any other form of assistance, as they have effect from time to time.'.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 122 and 123.
  Mr. Clappison: In Committee, we debated the powers in clause 3 that enable the Secretary of State to make regulations excluding certain categories of applicant from grant entitlement. As I explained then, the purpose of clause 3(2) is to prevent public sector bodies from applying for grant.
  Clause 3(3) enables the Secretary of State to exclude applicants of certain descriptions. On commencement of part I, we intend to exercise clause 3(3) to exclude certain persons from abroad who have limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom while their applications to remain are dealt with. Under Home Office immigration rules, such persons are not to have recourse to public funds while they are in Britain. In previous debates, the hon. Members for Greenwich and for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) were concerned about the implications of the new provisions.
  It was suggested that references to those categories should be included in the Bill. I explained that there is no power in the legislation for the Secretary of State to specify certain applicants who are to be excluded from applying for grant. We have therefore been unable to make provision in the subordinate legislation to reflect changes in this area made to benefit regulations, which, as hon. Members know, the grant regulations mirror. Subsection (3) provides a regulation-making power to exclude certain categories of applicant. It is not appropriate that specific categories should be included in the Bill. The rules themselves may change, and it is appropriate that there is flexibility in the grants legislation to respond quickly to such change.
  36
  The purpose of the amendment is to reflect in the grants legislation a recent Court of Appeal judgment concerning the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996. The court ruled that the regulations were ultra vires in so far as they purported to deny benefits to certain persons pursuing immigration matters with the Home Office.
  The amendment inserts a reference providing for regulations made under clause 3 to refer to the provisions relating to entitlement to housing benefit and any other form of assistance that may have effect from time to time. In effect, it will ensure that those persons excluded in the regulations are people who are subject to immigration control who are not entitled to housing benefit. It will ensure that those who are covered by these controls but who are able to apply for benefit following the court ruling are not excluded from grant eligibility.
  We have already debated these provisions. It is unlikely that many of those who are covered by the relevant immigration controls would qualify for grants under part I.
  The purpose of the grant system is to ensure that people are given help with repairs and improvements, so that they may remain in fit homes. The legislation is therefore framed to meet that objective, with most applicants required to satisfy a prior qualifying period of ownership or occupation of the dwelling. It is unlikely that many persons covered by the immigration rules would be able to meet these and other requirements of the grants legislation. The amendment would ensure that no one who qualifies for housing benefit will be excluded from grant eligibility.
  Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 make similar provision in respect of a person's eligibility to participate in a group repair scheme or to receive home repair assistance. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Mr. Raynsford: As the Minister rightly conceded, it is not likely that many people who come to the United Kingdom seeking asylum will be in a position to apply for renovation grants. That of itself should cause us to pause for thought about the wisdom of the proposed measures, and of the way in which the Government are proceeding.
  Another cause for thought is that the Minister has stressed that the proposed legislation has been framed to ensure that anyone who qualifies for housing benefit will not be debarred from renovation grant. The Minister will be aware that the majority of home owners are those who qualify for renovation grants. By definition, they do not qualify for housing benefit. The reference to housing benefit will cause a great deal of confusion, but it is there because it is the test that is used for the definition of entitlement to welfare benefits, a test that may result in people being denied those benefits because they are asylum seekers.
  The Minister might like to reflect on a further area of confusion. There was a well publicised case recently of someone who, threatened with deportation from this country, sought refuge or sanctuary in church premises, from where he was seized by immigration officials. According to reports in the press, his seizure caused him a serious health problem.
  I do not want to go into the circumstances of that case, but I ask the Minister to reflect on the interrelationship of the amendments and the provisions in amendment No. 56,

  37
  which he will be moving later. He will know that amendment No. 56 would exempt charities and ecclesiastical residences from restrictions on participation in group repair schemes.
  It would at the least be curious if renovation grants or group repair financial assistance were available to premises in which immigrants were seeking sanctuary because of the draconian nature of the immigration procedures facing them. It seems that there would be no bar on payment of a grant to such premises under the provisions in the amendments. At the same time, in the very few cases in which an asylum seeker was in a position to seek the benefit of a group repair scheme, he or she would be debarred by the nature of the proposed provisions.
  The amendments are one further rather sad illustration of the Government's ill-conceived and mean-minded vendetta against asylum seekers, many of whom have a genuine fear of persecution and are in this country because of fear for their lives elsewhere. The fact that people are being treated in such a way by the Government constitutes one of the more shameful records in the annals of the Government. They will be remembered for it long after they have been forced out of office.
  Mr. Chris Davies: I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), but I welcome the slight clarification that has been inserted into the clause. Any limitation on the enormously open-ended freedom that was given to the Secretary of the State in the original clause—to determine at almost any time who should be entitled to grant aid—is to be welcomed.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4
  THE AGE OF THE PROPERTY
  Amendment made: No. 17, in page 3, leave out lines 16 to 21.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
Clause 7

  RENOVATION GRANTS: OWNER'S APPLICATIONS AND TENANT'S APPLICATIONS
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 4, line 35, leave out from 'State' to end of line 36 and insert—
  'References in this Chapter to tenants and other expressions relating to tenancies, in the context of a tenant's application for a renovation grant, shall be construed accordingly.'.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 19 to 21, 40, 45, 47, 48 and 58.
  Mr. Clappison: The Bill as drafted has sought to include in the scope of grant aid those residents who occupy their homes under licences. It is the intention of the Bill that such applicants be treated as tenants for the purposes of grant eligibility. That is achieved by virtue of clauses 7, 14 and 19, which provide for the Secretary of State to extend, by order, the ambit of qualifying tenant for the purposes of grants to include other tenants and licensees.
  38
  That, however, has consequences for terms of reference in the Bill which apply to tenants such as letting and tenancy. It is therefore necessary to ensure that the intention of such expressions can be applied to those licensees eligible for grant assistance. These are technical amendments to achieve that effect.
  Mr. Raynsford: As the Minister stressed, this is largely a technical group of amendments that seek to ensure that licensees are treated in exactly the same way as tenants for the purposes of grant applications. We welcome that. It is a sensible move. The only problem, however, is the lack of consistency.
  When we reach Government amendments Nos. 50 and 51, we shall discover that, far from treating licensees in the same way as tenants, the Government are adopting a quite different approach where the Bill deals with the entitlement to notification, where people live in properties affected by deferred action notices. I ask the Minister to reflect on the rather curious differential treatment in the Bill between licensees and tenants.
  Having said that, we welcome amendment No. 18. However, we are less keen about amendments Nos. 50 and 51. We welcome the amendment because it ensures that a licensee will not be treated differently from a tenant, and there are people who are licensees because of the nature of the agreement—which, in many cases, they were forced to sign—who should not be discriminated against if they seek a grant to assist in the renovation of their homes.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

  RENOVATION GRANTS: CERTIFICATES REQUIRED IN CASE OF OWNER'S APPLICATION
  Amendment made: No. 19, in page 5, line 7, at end insert—
  `(3A) In subsection (3) references to letting include the grant of a licence to occupy premises.
  References in this Chapter to tenants and other expressions relating to tenancies, in the context of a certificate of intended letting, shall be construed accordingly:.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 13

  RENOVATION GRANTS: APPROVAL OF APPLICATION
  Mr. Chris Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 8, line 40, at end insert—
  '(7) Subject to the provisions in this section, the local housing authority shall approve an application for grant to make a property fit where the property is occupied by—

  (a) people whose household contains one or more persons with a disability;

  (b) a person who is receiving services or grants for services from the local welfare authority as part of a care package;

  (c) people whose health is being adversely affected by the state of the disrepair of their home; or

  (d) people of pensionable age.'.

  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 102, in page 8, line 40, at end insert—
  '(6A) In considering whether to approve an application for a renovation grant the authority shall have regard to any existing local housing renewal strategies.'.
  No. 103, in page 8, line 40, at end insert—
  '(6A) When determining whether to approve applications for grant aid under this Part local housing authorities shall have regard to the local welfare authority's duties under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the local community care plan.'.
  Mr. Davies: The amendment seeks to target those who are in most need of assistance and whose quality of life is affected by the unfitness of the property in which they live.
  I remind the House that the Bill breaks all the promises and assurances that the Government made, as recently as 1989, when they established the current mandatory grant system. It is true, of course, that the Government's refusal then to put their money where their mouth was has brought the grants system into disrepute, creating long waiting lists that local housing authorities find it impossible to meet.
  The Bill takes away all hope, except for those who live in an area targeted as a specific renewal area by the local housing authority. It takes away all hope from those in the community whose properties are unfit. The Government have, in effect, abandoned the old, the sick and the disabled, by cutting the resources that the same Government made available a decade ago, and which they implied when they passed legislation in 1989 would continue to be made available. The Government have taken away hope from those people.
  The amendment seeks to restore a little of that hope, and recognises that it is important that such individuals be specifically targeted for assistance.
  Mr. Raynsford: Let me outline the purpose of amendments Nos. 102 and 103, and explain how they differ from amendment No. 5.
  The amendments seek to ensure that, in the approval of grants, special attention is given to two separate factors: local housing renewal strategies developed by local authorities, and those who are subject to a duty under either the community care policy or local authority obligations under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
  Unlike the Liberal Democrats, we do not seek to reinstate mandatory grants for certain categories of people, for reasons that I outlined in our earlier debate. I shall not go over that ground again. We do, however, believe that, in exercising their discretion, local authorities should pay special regard to certain factors. They should, for example, be encouraged to develop housing renewal strategies, and to focus attention on both particular areas and particular ways of responding to the need for renovation of older and sub-standard properties in their areas.
  We regret the Government's lamentable failure to produce a coherent strategy for home renovation: they are dismantling the mandatory renovation grant framework without replacing it with a suitable alternative. All local authorities should, however, consider the need for renovation in their areas, and devise strategies to deal with
  40
  the problems. When they do so, they should have the opportunity to give proper weight to the force of those strategies when determining renovation grants.
  In Committee, I raised questions about the extent to which local authorities would be free to do that. We queried whether a local authority could be challenged legally if it chose to give priority to, for instance, an applicant living in a renewal area, as against one living outside it, when assessing entitlement to a renovation grant. The point was that authorities would not be able to develop renewal area strategies if they felt nervous about legal action being taken because they had given preference to people within such areas.
  At that time, the Minister undertook to reflect on the matter. On 4 June, as can be seen from column 125 of the Hansard Committee report, he agreed to reflect on those points in order to ensure that there was no risk of legal action, and, in a letter to me dated 28 June, he wrote that he had
  "asked officials to confirm with Parliamentary Counsel that the Bill as drafted contains the necessary powers"—
  that is, the powers that were necessary for local authorities to ensure that they could not be challenged for giving priority to an applicant in a renewal area.
  I should be grateful if the Minister could assure us now that that is the case. If it is not, I hope that he will reflect further on the need for amendment No. 102. It would clearly be unsatisfactory if local authorities were inhibited from developing proper renewal strategies by the fear that they could not be implemented because of a risk of legal action.
  Our second concern is covered by amendment No. 103, which deals with entitlement to assistance for people who are either the subject of duties under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act or receiving assistance under the care in the community policy. Both policies are important, affecting disabled people. It is right for authorities to consider the implication of their policy, and its possible impact on those with disabilities or special needs. There is an obvious case for putting into statute an obligation for local authorities to have regard to those wider responsibilities when considering how to discharge their responsibilities. I hope that the amendments commend themselves to the House and to the Minister.
  Mrs. Maddock: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies). Disabled people, those who care for them and people who have been trying to formulate community care plans in recent years, were extremely concerned when they saw that the Bill did not provide mandatory grants for disabled facilities. I should like to bring home to the Minister how strongly people feel about that.
  I have an enormous number of elderly people in my constituency. I understand that a council division in my constituency has the highest number of over 85-year-olds in the country. Those people, those who care for them and the people who put together the community care plans are extremely worried.
  The Government keep hiding behind their statement that they want to give discretion to local authorities. That is fine, but the amendment leaves that final discretion with those authorities. It states that the local authority must take into account local community care plans and

  41
  strategies. Without that, many elderly people will not get the priority that they need for adaptations and changes in their homes.
  I hope that the Minister will think carefully about that. Many people outside are extremely concerned, and will be even more worried at the general election when they see what the Government have done. I hope that the Minister will have something favourable to say. I and other people have lobbied him on this matter, which is important to the most vulnerable people in society.
  Mr. George Stevenson: I support amendments Nos. 102 and 103. I underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford): that, in Committee, the Minister undertook to reflect on numerous amendments, of which No. 102 was one. If I remember correctly, he was not initially impressed by the amendment, but when he had listened to the arguments, he saw its merits; hence his undertaking to reflect. I hope that that reflection has convinced him, and that he will accept the amendment.
  The Government created the crisis in improvement grants, but they are now washing their hands and passing the problem to local authorities. When the Bill becomes law and local authorities are criticised and Ministers taken to task, they will tell the House, "It isn't our fault. People will need to go to their local authorities, because they have the power and the responsibility." I can already hear Ministers saying that.
  Secondly, emphasis, onus and responsibility will plainly be placed on local authorities, and that makes it that much more important to have local authority strategies taken fully into account. In Committee, the Minister had a great deal to say about strategy, although whether we can detect Government strategy in the Bill is a matter that we will not debate. I accept that there has to be a strategy, and that, if it has to be developed at local level, as the Minister tried to convince us, so be it. It is better to have a strategy at local level than to have none at all, as seems to be the case with the Government.
  Having impressed on local authorities, as the Minister did, the need to develop strategies, surely it cannot be right for him to give local authorities the opportunity to opt out of them. The Minister's arguments in Committee were that local strategies and discretion were important. I am not suggesting that authorities would want to opt out and ignore their strategies. However, if strategies are developed—the Minister says that they will have to be—not to include in the Bill a requirement for local authorities to take them into account when determining grant approvals is nonsense. I hope that the Minister has reflected positively on amendment No. 102.
  4.45 pm
  One of the points we tried to make in Committee when considering the substance of amendment No. 3 was the importance of developing further the relationships between the responsibilities of social services committees and the application and approval of grants. I accept that much has been done, but that is not to say that enough has been done. The amendment is important, to show clearly the intention of the Government and the House to see that the good work that has been done is developed.
  Time does not allow me to itemise the long list of improvements that would result if we addressed the issue of more co-ordination between the responsibilities and
  42
  duties placed on social services departments and house improvement grants. That is what the amendment seeks to do, and it would benefit the people who need these facilities and grants. More important, it would make better use of scarce resources. For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will accept amendments Nos. 102 and 103.
  Mr. Clappison: I have listened carefully to the debate. In moving amendment No. 5, the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth got a little carried away in his evaluation of the new system. It would be wrong to suggest that housing need will not be met through these provisions. Of course it will be met through the discretionary grants, the mandatory disabled facilities grants and home repair assistance, which will be an improvement of an already popular scheme—the minor works assistance scheme. A great deal of assistance will be provided by all those schemes.
  I do not want to go over old ground, but the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth knows that the scheme is a strategic one, and that the Bill's fundamental purpose is to replace the present system of mandatory grants with a discretionary grants system. The proposals in the amendment would cut across that, by specifying cases that should be treated as mandatory, while other cases that are equally worthy but are not spelt out in the Bill would be subject to discretion. The amendment would lead to the unsatisfactory halfway house of a discretionary and mandatory scheme. It would cut across important principles, and I am afraid that I cannot accept it.
  Amendment No. 102 is important, and deals with renewal areas. In Committee, the hon. Member for Greenwich feared that local authorities might be open to challenge if they gave priority to grant applicants in renewal areas over those whose properties might be in the same poor condition but were not in a renewal area, where that was in accordance with a local renewal strategy.
  My initial response in Committee was that the purpose of what we proposed was a strategic system. However, I have considered the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, and I am satisfied that the powers in clause 13(1) provide the scope for authorities to prioritise applications to achieve the aims of their renewal strategies. It can be argued that a permissive provision allowing local authorities to take local strategies into account is unnecessary, because in practice the general principle is that a local authority should take all relevant factors into account. Where it exists, a local renewal strategy must be such a matter.
  Mr. Raynsford: I should like to press the Minister on this issue. Will he state categorically that it is his considered view that there is no risk whatever for a local authority in giving priority to applicants within renewal areas of facing a legal challenge from applicants living elsewhere whose housing needs might be equally pressing, or even more severe?
  Mr. Clappison: Yes, we are satisfied that authorities will be able to prioritise applications to achieve the aims of their renewal strategies. If the amendment were accepted, inadvertently, there might be more of a risk of a challenge to local authorities. The amendment is not necessary. Authorities will be able to prioritise

  43
  applications to achieve the aims of their renewal strategies. That is the point that concerns the hon. Gentleman and we have met it.
  Amendment No. 103 would require authorities, when deciding whether to approve an application for a renovation grant, to take into account the duties of the welfare authority under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. and the local community care plan. Again, it is important that, in prioritising demand for grants, authorities take into account the housing needs and circumstances of the most vulnerable groups, such as elderly and disabled people. In doing so, they will be able to take into account any care package for the applicant provided by the welfare authority under the community care legislation or, where appropriate, the duty of that authority to assist under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.
  The current guidance, which recommends effective consultation between housing and welfare authorities on the special housing needs of people in their regions, already enables housing authorities to take into account all the relevant factors in determining grant applications, including the prioritisation of cases for the available resources. Where the person needs help with adaptations and applies for a disabled facilities grant, there is already provision for consultation with the social services authority on the adaptation needs of the disabled person.
  Mr. Stevenson: While he reflects on this point, will the Minister consider this relationship as it applies to care in the community, how the special transitional grant is used by local authorities in terms of providing the facilities for that care, and the interface between that grant and housing renovation grants?
  Mr. Clappison: The two grants are entirely separate. I believe that the special transitional grant is a ring-fenced grant. The disabled facilities grant is certainly a ring-fenced grant within the overall grants systems. Obviously, it is important that the two systems should be viewed in conjunction as they deal with similar issues, but I emphasise that the two systems are separate. My point is that it is important that there should be effective and appropriate consultation between social service authorities and housing authorities, a subject that we discussed at length in Committee.
  I do not believe, therefore, that the amendments are necessary.
  Mr. William O'Brien: On the Minister's last point about the consultation between the local authority's social services department, which is responsible for the care in the community programme, and the housing authority, with the current structure in local government, those two departments can be attached to different authorities. For instance, Selby district council is responsible for housing and North Yorkshire county council is responsible for social services. Unless we accept amendment No. 103, unless we ensure that the two authorities do come together, and unless there is this protection for people in need of grant, disputes could develop. This afternoon, we can ensure that there are protections for people who need consideration by accepting amendment No. 103.
  44
  Subsection (6) of clause 13 states:
  "In considering whether to approve an application for a renovation grant the authority shall have regard to the expected life of the building (taking account, where appropriate, of the effect of carrying out the works)."
  If the Minister accepts amendment No. 103, that will tidy up that subsection. Therefore, amendment No. 103 is important because it crosses the borders of local authorities. We need to have a provision in the Bill that will protect people in need. Amendment No. 103 does that. I therefore ask the Minister to reflect on the issue.
  Mr. Clappison: In response to that point, I have made it clear that we intend that there should be effective consultation between the housing and welfare authorities, whatever the structure of local government.
  Mr. Chris Davies: The Minister says that needs will be met, but he is simply whistling in the wind in making such a statement because he and his Government do not allocate sufficient resources to meet those needs—they do not allocate a fraction of the resources that are required. Of course I support the general principle that expenditure should be concentrated in renewal areas, where appropriate, because that makes the best use of the money that is available, but, with present funding to local authorities, the problems of unfitness will not be dealt with in the lifetimes of even comparatively young people living in some of the older properties, let alone the lifetimes of some of the more elderly who live in unfit properties. The Government are abandoning pledges that they made only six years ago, when the existing legislation was put on the statute book. Although it may be inappropriate to divide the House, I do not wish to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 14

  COMMON PARTS GRANTS: OCCUPATION OF FLATS BY OCCUPYING TENANTS
  Amendment made: No. 20, in page 9, line 14, at end insert—
  .'References in this Chapter to other expressions relating to tenancies, in the context of an application for a common parts grant, shall be construed accordingly.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 19

  DISABLED FACILITIES GRANTS: OWNER'S AND TENANT'S APPLICATIONS
  Amendment made: No. 21, in page 12, line 15, leave out 'related expressions' and insert—
  'other expressions relating to tenancies, in the context of an application for disabled facilities grant,'.—[Mr. Brandreth]

Clause 24

  DISABLED FACILITIES GRANTS: APPROVAL OF APPLICATION
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 14, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert—
  'and the authority shall take that into account in deciding whether it is reasonable and practicable to carry out the relevant works.'.

  45
  This amendment concerns the consideration of the fitness of a property where an application for disabled facilities grant has been made.
  In Committee, we debated this issue at length in the context of subsection (5) of clause 24, which provides authorities with discretion not to approve grant where it appears that the property is unfit. Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Greenwich, were especially concerned that, as drafted, the provision discriminates against people who live in unfit properties. It was suggested that the provisions in subsection (3) already provided the discretion for authorities to refuse an application where it is not practicable, and that that would cover where a property is unfit, making subsection (5) unnecessary.
  On that occasion, I assured hon Members that the provision's purpose was to ensure only that authorities, in considering whether to undertake proposed works, had the discretion to approve the application, where the property's condition was such that it would clearly be impracticable to undertake the proposed adaptation works, and where the disabled person refused to have the property made safe or improved. However, I said then that I would reflect further on the matter and, if necessary, table an amendment.
  Our amendment removes subsection (5), on which there was the debate in Committee and, for completeness, inserts a requirement for authorities to take into account the matters in subsection (4) in respect of the property's fitness, in deciding whether it is reasonable and practicable to undertake the relevant works, which stands alongside the other requirement for work to be necessary and suitable. There is no disagreement between us that we want disabled people seeking help with adaptations through isabled facilities grants to be left in good homes, which are fit following completion of the works. The amendment is a sensible measure that helps achieve that aim.
  Mr. Raynsford: In the Minister's words, this is a "sensible" amendment. In our words, it gives effect to amendments moved in Committee by the Opposition. We welcome the Government's acceptance or conversion, however people would put it. This will improve the Bill and avoid an anomaly that could have led to discrimination against some disabled people. It is a significant improvement and we welcome it.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27

  HMO GRANTS:PURPOSES FOR WHICH GRANT MAY BE GIVEN
  Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 15, line 38, at end insert—
  `(k) to comply with the requirements of a registration scheme made by a local housing authority under section 346 of the Housing Act 1985 (as amended by section 64 of the Housing Act 1996).'.
  The amendment would make facilitating compliance with a local authority registration scheme an explicit purpose of multi-occupation grant. Every hon. Member is aware of the extent of problems with multi-occupied properties. As I have already said, there are concentrations of poor and, in many cases, life-threatening conditions in such properties. There is an urgent need for action to
  46
  improve conditions and, during our debates on the Housing Bill, we stressed the importance of more effective measures to deal with multi-occupied houses.
  The Opposition believe that there is a case for a mandatory national licensing scheme which would apply in all areas and ensure more effective action. Regrettably, the Government do not accept that, and have opted for a more limited registration scheme. Although it is more limited, however, the scheme at least provides options for local authorities that choose to use it—the latter is an important issue—and they will be able to take action against properties in poor condition and try to ensure that the conditions are improved.
  5 pm
  In certain circumstances, the use of grant aid is an important tool in bringing such properties into good condition. Telling a landlord that the condition of his property is unacceptable is easier if one can also say, "If you apply for a grant, we may be able to assist you with the necessary renovation work." The scheme for grants for multi-occupied houses provides for such financial assistance in appropriate cases. That is all well and good, but what is extraordinary is that, in a long list in the Bill setting out what purposes can be served by grants for multi-occupied houses, action to facilitate compliance with the local authority registration scheme is not mentioned.
  The amendment would put that oversight right. I cannot believe that it is anything other than an oversight, or that it is Government policy not to support registration schemes when they have argued all year that they are the most effective way in which to deal with multi-occupied houses. If they believe that, surely they should give their beliefs full effect and accept this modest amendment, which simply reinforces the fact that the grants can be usefully employed to ensure compliance with the registration scheme.
  Mr. Clappison: There is some common ground between us on this issue, but I do not find it extraordinary or such an obvious case of oversight that we have approached it in the way that we have rather than through the inclusion of registration of houses in multiple occupation as one of the criteria in the Bill—as the hon. Gentleman would. As he said, the Bill sets out a long list and it would provide for any physical requirement necessary to bring a house in multiple occupation up to a fit standard for registration. The addition of a scheme-related purpose to a list covering specific types of work would not be appropriate in any case.
  It seems sensible for a local authority to have regard to the requirements of its registration scheme when considering an application for grant for a house in multiple occupation. A link between the requirements for registration and consideration of a grant application would be more appropriately provided for in the guidance that the Department will be issuing to local authorities on the implementation of the new legislation, and I shall ensure that the issue is fully covered.
  Mr. Raynsford: Being tossed a few crumbs when the Government choose not to accept an amendment is always welcome. The offer of a reference in guidance is at least a step in the right direction, so we will not press the

  47
  amendment any further. I trust that the guidance will correctly emphasise the importance of taking into account a local authority registration scheme.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 31

  DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF GRANT IN CASE OF LANDLORD'S APPLICATION
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 18, line 22, leave out from first 'be' to 'make' in line 35 and insert
  `determined by the local housing authority, having regard to—

  (a) the extent to which the landlord is able to charge a higher rent for the premises because of the works, and

  (b) such other matters as the Secretary of State may direct.

  ( ) The authority may, if they think it appropriate, seek and act upon the advice of rent officers as to any matter.
  ( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations'.
  The amendment provides for authorities to have regard to the extent to which the landlord is able to generate higher rental income on the improved property and, if they think it appropriate, to seek and act upon advice from rent officers on any matters concerning rents.
  Clause 31 provides authorities with discretion to determine the amount of grant in landlords' applications covered in subsection (1). It is important therefore that decisions taken by authorities on grant applications made by landlords are based on sound information. The scope for the landlord to charge a higher rent for the improved property will obviously have a bearing on the amount of grant that the local authority may award. We consider it appropriate, therefore, that express provision is made to ensure that authorities have regard to that in every case in determining grant.
  The amendment simplifies the current version of clause 31(4), allowing local authorities to obtain and take into account any relevant matters. A general provision of this kind is preferable to more detailed provisions, which are more appropriately placed either in departmental guidance or in guidance issued to rent officers by the Institute of Rent Officers. The amendment therefore provides also for authorities to obtain and take into account advice from rent officers on any matters that they consider relevant to an application.
  Those are sensible provisions which provide authorities with the flexibility that they need to reach sound decisions on such cases.
  Mr. Raynsford: Like the previous Government amendment, this is a partial move in the right direction by the Government, when a more extensive move would be welcome. It is a partial move because it recognises the importance of obtaining the best information on the likely increased rental income to a landlord when a property is renovated so that that income can be taken into account when determining the landlord's entitlement to grant. We approve of and endorse that provision, and we welcome the reference to the role of rent officers in that respect.
  We regret that the Government have not seen the need to go further and accept the proposal we made in Committee—that it should be possible for a local
  48
  authority to get a binding agreement from a landlord that the rent estimates taken into account in calculating grant entitlement will be honoured for a specified period. What happens if, after the grant has been calculated on the assumption that the landlord will obtain certain rental income after the property has been improved, the landlord secures a much larger rent and therefore obtains a much better financial return? Had that return been taken into account when the grant was assessed, the landlord would have qualified for a lesser grant.
  Seeking the best information when applications are assessed is one thing, but if one does so without having powers to require the landlord to be bound by those assumptions, or to recover grant if a landlord has broken such conditions, it is only a limited step. We regard the amendment as a step in the right direction, but only a modest one and we regret the fact that the Government have not gone further, followed the logic of our position—and probably the logic of their position, if they took the time to think the matter through—and agreed that there should be controls on the rents that can be charged subsequently as well on assumptions about what the rents would be.
  Mr. Clappison: We seem to have moved from talking about assumptions to talking about controls—something that rings warning bells.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34

  DECISION AND NOTIFICATION
  Amendment made: No. 24, in page 20, line 26, at end insert—
  '( )the amount of the costs which have been or are to be incurred as mentioned in subsection (2)(c) has increased,'. —[Mr. Clappison.]

Clause 36

  DELAYED PAYMENT OF MANDATORY GRANT
  Amendment made: No. 25, in page 21, line 7, leave out
  `by virtue of section 23(1)'
  and insert
  'under section 24(I)(a)'.—[Mr. Clappison.]
  Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in page 21, line 8, after 'so', insert 'in exceptional circumstances'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 61, in page 21, line 11, leave out from 'than' to end of line 12 and insert
  `six months after the date of the application.'.
  No. 106, in page 21, line 13, at end insert—
  '(3) The provisions of this section shall not apply if the disabled occupant is in hospital or residential care or a delay in adaptations would have a detrimental effect on the long term health or safety of the disabled occupant'.
  Mr. Raynsford: We now come to a very fundamental issue—the availability of grants to people who are disabled, and the provisions in clause 36 that allow delayed payment of such grants.

  49
  Most people who are familiar with the working of the current grant regime and with the availability of grants for people with disabilities are very conscious of the problems caused by delay. It takes a great deal of time, not only before applications are assessed, but there is often further delay while reports are obtained from relevant sources such as occupational therapists, people at social services and others qualified to make an assessment on the need for aids or adaptations to suit the needs of disabled people.
  Currently, delays of two years and more are not uncommon, so clause 36, which allows for a further 12-month delay from approval of the grant to its payment has—quite rightly—caused serious alarm and concern among those who suffer from disabilities.
  Disabled people's concerns have not been allayed by the Government's justification for that provision in clause 36. When challenged about it, Ministers accepted that there would be delays in some cases, but they said that they were necessary because the new framework allows some grants—such as the disabled facilities grant—to be mandatory, which in some cases will pose a serious problem for local authorities' finances. The discretion to postpone payment for 12 months was therefore necessary, they said, to enable local authorities to comply with the requirements.
  We noticed that the Government's proposed solution was not a possible alternative framework to ensure that local authorities were able to finance disabled facilities grants within a year; instead, they argued for this provision as a fail-safe mechanism.
  The Government also called in aid local authorities, arguing that they would find it difficult to comply with the obligations of a mandatory grant system without a framework allowing deferment. I must tell the Minister that local authorities are far from enthusiastic about clause 36. They know very well that it is an unpopular clause, that it will rightly lead to much anger and irritation among disabled people and that it will be resented very widely. Local authorities would much prefer a framework in which they can meet the need for disabled facilities grants within a reasonable timeframe.
  A second issue, which has been aired in Committee but to which the Minister has not given a satisfactory answer, is the position of the contractor. Applications for disabled facilities grants will be based on an estimate from the contractor who is to carry out the work. There is a requirement that competitive tenders be obtained for grants and, when there are two or more tenders, the most favourable—presumably the lowest—will be accepted. The contractor will have tendered on the assumption that the work will be carried out within a reasonable period of time, and most contractors specify that the tender will be valid for only a limited time.
  If grant payment is deferred for 12 months, the contractor will either try to honour a tender that is clearly out of time or—much more likely—seek to renegotiate the price because the tender period has passed. If that happens, the supposed beneficial effect of delaying implementation could result in a further claim on public funds when the contractor seeks an increase—it is not normal for contractors to seek reductions in tenders—because of the delay. That perfectly reasonable point was made in Committee, but the Minister had no answer to it.
  50
  Clause 36 is unpopular because it will cause anomalies and hardship to many people. It will also cause further increases in public expenditure. If disabled people have to remain in hospital, residential care or other similar accommodation because appropriate work has not been done to their homes so that they can live in them, the cost will almost certainly be far more than the cost of a renovation grant.
  The organisations concerned with assistance for disabled people have produced a series of estimates of the costs of keeping people in hospital. The figures with which I have been provided by disability organizations—particularly by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, which has done an excellent job throughout the Bill's passage on behalf of people with disabilities—show that Department of Health statistics estimate that a geriatric bed costs more than £700 a week. A delay of even a few weeks would therefore be very costly, and a delay of one year would be hugely costly—in the region of £40,000.
  It cannot make sense to incur substantial additional public expenditure by keeping in hospital people who want to return to their home simply because the payment of a disabled facilities grant to enable them to return home has been delayed due to the provisions of clause 36.
  5.15 pm
  We made all those points in Committee, and the Minister responded to them. On 6 June, he gave a very straightforward response. He said:
  "I can give some reassurance to the Committee. The power is discretionary and we envisage that local authorities will use it only in exceptional circumstances."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 June 1996; c. 178.]
  I hope that the Minister will remember those words, because they are precisely the words of our amendment. Our amendment seeks to put the words "in exceptional circumstances" in the Bill and to give effect to the expression of hope that the Minister gave the Committee.
  If the Minister opposes our amendment, he will owe it to the House to explain why his preferred solution in Committee is now not acceptable and why it is not reasonable to say that this provision should be available only in exceptional circumstances. If he does not accept our amendment, he will have a lot of explaining to do.
  Amendment No. 106 seeks to ensure that delay does not apply when people are awaiting a move out of hospital or in which delay in approving a renovation grant would have a detrimental effect on their long-term health or safety. Those are obvious requirements of any civilised society, and they are sensible in the interests of saving public money by not keeping people in hospital beds for longer than necessary.
  Amendment Nos. 105 and 106 make a great deal of sense and give effect to the proposal made by the Minister in Committee. I hope that the Government will accept them. If they do not accept them, I sincerely hope that the House will ensure that they are incorporated into the Bill.
  Mr. Chris Davies: I endorse many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Greenwich, particularly his remarks on the alarm and concern caused by delays. I am surprised, however, that he did not go further in his amendment. We have tried to impose tighter limits in

  51
  amendment No. 61. It obviously takes some time for local authorities to process applications for grant, but we believe that six months should be more than sufficient for the payment of this type of grant.
  I am not convinced that disabled facilities grants should be further delayed in the manner proposed by the Minister and as provided for in the Bill. We believe that the maximum period should be reduced, and we should have been very happy if the suggestion of a reduction to six months had been incorporated into the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Greenwich.
  I also seek the Minister's views on the subject, and an explanation of why the far too extensive period allocated to local authorities for payment of the grant should remain in the Bill. Surely he should have recognised by now that there is no justification for that provision. It is yet another example of the Minister giving disabled people a lower place in the queue than that to which they are entitled.
  Mr. Stevenson: I look forward to the Minister's response because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said, during our discussions in Committee, the Minister accepted the principle. He said that local authorities would use the power "only in exceptional circumstances", which is exactly what the amendment seeks to do. I hope that I am correct in assuming that we are not talking about the principle, but about the method of obtaining the result.
  Amendment No. 105 seeks to place the Minister's commitment on the face of the Bill. That is the best method to use for such an important subject. I hope that the Minister will agree and accept that that is the right thing to do. If he does not, we shall listen carefully to how he intends to deliver the commitment that he gave in Committee. The fact that the Government are attempting to strike the right balance between the available resources and expectations of what the Minister describes as a demand-led scheme is well documented.
  The Government's refusal to accept the amendment in Committee on the basis of the need to avoid causing local authorities considerable financial difficulty, is also well documented. My experience of local authorities is that they are pretty good at managing such matters, although resources present a considerable problem. I think that most of us agreed with the Minister when he said, as he did in Committee, that he would expect such applications to be processed in no more than six months. He was talking about the processing of the applications. As the amendment states, we are talking about further delays in the system in terms of payments.
  Let us not confuse the Minister's reassuring words in Committee—that he would expect applications to be processed in no more than six months—which we would all accept, with the amendment, which deals with when the payments begin. Clause 36 involves an inbuilt delay of 12 months in the vital matter of mandatory grants for disabled facilities. For the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, we believe that that is wrong, not only in principle but in practice. Given the Minister's commitment to the principle, I hope that he
  52
  will accept the need for the provision to be placed on the face of the Bill and accept amendment No. 105.
  Mr. Clappison: It is clear from the debate that the disabled facilities grant is important. It has been a successful grant and it will continue to be successful, providing many disabled people with facilities and modifications to make their life easier and safer—but it will be a demand-led system. As we said in Committee, clause 36 is an honest and open attempt to deal with the problems that sometimes arise from a demand-led system. I emphasise the word "sometimes" and I shall be more specific about that later.
  In respect of amendment No. 61, I must draw the attention of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth to the fact that the Bill already provides that all applications must be determined no later than six months after they were made and that a grant must be paid when the works have been completed. His amendment, which would reduce the period that local authorities would be able to delay from 12 to six months, would not give them much of the extra flexibility that we seek to give them to deal with some of the problems that can arise.
  Amendment No. 61 might provide authorities with a little flexibility, but not much, as they could inform an applicant shortly after the application was made—within one or two months—that it had been approved, but that they would not pay grant for another four or five months. It would not give authorities the flexibility that they will need. The purpose of our proposal is to enable authorities to exert some control over mandatory grant expenditure, including scheduling payments between financial years if necessary, to help them comply with the requirement placed on them to operate within an annual budget.
  Mr. Davies: Will the Minister confirm that his objective is to give local authorities flexibility on payment, but that the cost of that will be to slow down the payment of grants to disabled people who need them? Will he spell that out to the House?
  Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the purpose of the proposal is to give local authorities the flexibility that they need to deal with the problems that can sometimes arise. Those who are familiar with the grant system will be familiar with the sort of problems involved. The measure is an open and straightforward way of attempting to deal with those problems.
  The hon. Member for Greenwich showed a fondness for Shakespeare. His contribution would best be accompanied by the Shakespearean stage direction of alarum and excursion. The hon. Gentleman raised some alarms that were not necessarily appropriate in this context. We have made it clear throughout the Bill's passage that the provisions in clause 36 are for use only in exceptional circumstances.
  I am sympathetic to the point that lies behind amendment No. 105, but I do not believe that the amendment would be an appropriate way of achieving that objective. Placing the phrase "in exceptional circumstances" on the face of the Bill would only store up future problems of interpretation. The scope for judicial review would be potentially wider and the real

  53
  beneficiaries might be lawyers rather than grant applicants. The hon. Gentleman and I share common ground in that we both want to reduce the amount of work for lawyers arising from the provisions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to introduce anything that would increase that volume of work.
  I take the same view on amendment No. 106. I can foresee only lawyers arguing over the meaning of "detrimental effect". We are, of course, fully alive to the needs of disabled people and we do not want to cause any unnecessary hardship, but we do not think that the amendment resolves them. We have made clear on many previous occasions that the guidance that we shall be issuing to authorities is the more appropriate vehicle for putting across such messages—I continue to hold that view.
  Amendment No. 105 is a straightforward and honest attempt to deal with the problems. Provisions elsewhere in the Bill accommodate the sort of concerns about builders that the hon. Member for Greenwich described. We foresee the provision being used only in exceptional circumstances—it is the consequence of having a demand-led grant system. We have tried to face up to the sort of problems that can arise in an honest and straightforward way. All those who want to retain a demand-led grant system while—as the hon. Member for Greenwich said—remaining within the limit of present resources, have to face up to the same problems. We have done so in a straightforward way.
  Mr. Raynsford: It is pretty curious to be told by the Minister that the Government are acting in an honest and straightforward way when they are resisting a move to put words used by the Minister in Committee on the face of the Bill. Either he meant what he said in Committee, in which case there is no justification for resisting the amendment, or he did not mean what he said in Committee, in which case the Government are certainly not honest and straightforward. The Minister has to have it one way or the other. If he was speaking the truth in Committee when he said that the provision would be used only in exceptional circumstances, I shall remind him of the purpose of amendment No. 105. Clause 36 states:
  "Where the local housing authority are obliged to approve an application for a grant by virtue of section 23(1) (mandatory disabled facilities grant), they may do so on terms that payment of the grant, or part of it, will not be made before a date specified".
  The only change that amendment No. 105 would make is to insert the words "in exceptional circumstances" after the power given to the local authority. The clause would therefore state that
  "they may do so in exceptional circumstances on terms that payment of the grant, or part of it, will not be made before a date specified".
  That simply follows the undertaking that the Minister gave in Committee.
  If the Government resist the amendment, they must explain why the Minister's comments in Committee are not good enough to be included in the Bill. In the absence of an explanation, we shall draw the unfortunate conclusion that the Government speak with forked tongue: they say one thing in Committee but do something else on Report.
  54
  5.30 pm
  The Minister quoted Shakespeare. He gave the impression that we are expressing false concerns—alarums and excursions. In this context, I can think of only one Shakespearian quotation and it is from Macbeth:
  "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly".
  We believe that renovation grants for disabled people should be paid—and paid quickly. There should be no delay.
  We believe that the House should have an opportunity to vote on the matter, and I commend amendment No.105 to my hon. Friends and to all hon. Members who care about grants for disabled people.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 271.

  Division No. 173]

  [5.30 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davidson, Ian

  Adams, Mrs Irene

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

  Ainger, Nick

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Allen, Graham

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

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Denham, John

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dewar, Donald

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dixon, Don

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dobson, Frank

  Barron, Kevin

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Battle, John

  Dowd, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bell, Stuart

  Eastham, Ken

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Etherington, Bill

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Berry, Roger

  Fatchett, Derek

  Betts, Clive

  Faulds, Andrew

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradley, Keith

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

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

  Foulkes, George

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fraser, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caborn, Richard

  Gapes, Mike

  Callaghan, Jim

  Garrett, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Godsiff, Roger

  Canavan, Dennis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cann, Jamie

  Graham, Thomas

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chidgey, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clapham, Michael

  Gunnell, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hain, Peter

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hall, Mike

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Coffey, Ann

  Heppell, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Corston, Jean

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cummings, John

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

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  55

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Illsley, Eric

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Ingram, Adam

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jamieson, David

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Janner, Greville

  Radice, Giles

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rendel, David

  Jowell, Tessa

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rogers, Allan

  Keen, Alan

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

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

  Rowlands, Ted

  Khabra, Piara S

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lewis, Terry

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Short, Clare

  Litherland, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Livingstone, Ken

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Loyden, Eddie

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

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Soley, Clive

  McCartney, Ian

  Spearing, Nigel

  McKelvey, William

  Spellar, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McLeish, Henry

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McMaster, Gordon

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stevenson, George

  McWilliam, John

  Stott, Roger

  Madden, Max

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Maddock, Diana

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mahon, Alice

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Timms, Stephen

  Meacher, Michael

  Touhig, Don

  Michael, Alun

  Trickett, Jon

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Turner, Dennis

  Milburn, Alan

  Vaz, Keith

  Miller, Andrew

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Walley, Joan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wareing, Robert N

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Watson, Mike

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mudie, George

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Murphy, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wise, Audrey

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wray, Jimmy

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Olner, Bill

  Young, David (Bolton, SE)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pearson, Ian

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. Joe Benton.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Baldry, Tony

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Alexander, Richard

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bates, Michael

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Amess, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Ashby, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Body, Sir Richard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Booth, Hartley

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Boswell, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  56

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bowis, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Brazier, Julian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Hannam, Sir John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hayes, Jerry

  Burns, Simon

  Heald, Oliver

  Burt, Alistair

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Butler, Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Butterfill, John

  Hendry, Charles

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Cash, William

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Churchill, Mr

  Horam, John

  Clappison, James

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Congdon, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Jack, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Jessel, Toby

  Couchman, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Cran, James

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

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

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Key, Robert

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Day, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Knapman, Roger

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

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

  Dover, Den

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Duncan, Alan

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Dunn, Bob

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Legg, Barry

  Dykes, Hugh

  Leigh, Edward

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Elletson, Harold

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lord, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Luff, Peter

  Faber, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fabricant, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  MacKay, Andrew

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forth, Eric

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Madel, Sir David

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Major, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  Malone, Gerald

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Gallie, Phil

  Marland, Paul

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marlow, Tony

  Garnier, Edward

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mates, Michael

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Merchant, Piers

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mills, Iain

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  57

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Steen, Anthony

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stephen, Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Stem, Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stewart, Allan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Sumberg, David

  Norris, Steve

  Sweeney, Walter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Sykes, John

  Page, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Pawsey, James

  Thomason, Roy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  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

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Richards, Rod

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Riddick, Graham

  Viggers, Peter

  Rifkind Rt Hon Malcolm

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Walden, George

  Robathan, Andrew

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Waller, Gary

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Ward, John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Watts, John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wells, Bowen

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Sackville, Tom

  Whittingdale, John

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Willetts, David

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Wilshire, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Wolfson, Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wood, Timothy

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spring, Richard

  Dr. Liam Fox and

  Sproat, Iain

  Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 39

  PAYMENT OF GRANT TO CONTRACTOR
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 22, line 7, after second 'grant', insert
  '—

  (a) by payment direct to the contractor, or

  (b)".

  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 27 to 29.
  Mr. Clappison: Clause 39 currently allows authorities to make payment in the form of an instrument made payable to the contractor, or to pay contractors direct. They may do this only if the applicant is informed before approval of the grant that this will be the method of payment. Concerns have been raised about the necessity
  58
  for flexibility in such circumstances and about problems that may occur when an applicant has not been informed that payment will made in this way, so that subsequently problems arise between the applicant and the contractor. We have reflected, and have introduced the amendments to allow the necessary flexibility.
  The clause, as amended, will allow authorities to make payment direct to the builder or in the form of an instrument made payable to the builder, if the applicant has been informed before grant approval is given that this will be the method of payment or may be the method of payment.
  To safeguard the rights of applicants who may have disputes with the contractor, subsection (3) gives authorities the power, at the applicant's request, to withhold payment to the contractor in these situations and to make payment direct to the applicant instead.
  We believe that the amendments introduce the right balance between the rights of the applicant, the contractor and the authority, and I commend them to the House.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Raynsford: As the Minister said, the amendment responds to concerns voiced in Committee by the Opposition. We were worried about the possible abuse of the system when people try to pressurise contractors to provide them with additional benefits using the threat of non-payment of the renovation grant that the applicant has received from the authority. There have been a number of documented cases of such abuse, and it is right that local authorities should have the discretion to make payments direct to contractors so as to prevent such abuse.
  The Government amendment is therefore sensible; we welcome it and are delighted to find that yet another of Labour's ideas proposed in Committee has been accepted by the Government.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 27, in page 22, line 11, after `would', insert 'or might'.
  No. 28, in page 22, leave out lines 12 to 15.
  No. 29, in page 22, line 16, leave out from 'Where' to end of line.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Clause 44

  GRANT CONDITIONS: INTRODUCTORY
  Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 107, in page 26, leave out lines 30 to 33.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 108, in clause 45, page 26, leave out lines 40 and 41 and insert—
  'within the period of five years beginning on the certified date, he shall pay to the authority on demand the amount of grant reduced by one fifth for each complete year which has elapsed after the certified date and before disposal.'.
  No. 109, in page 27, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert—
  'within the period of five years beginning on the certified date, he shall pay to the authority on demand the amount of grant reduced by one fifth for each complete year which has elapsed after the certified date and before disposal.'.
  Mr. Raynsford: The amendment deals with the possibility that local authorities' powers to attach

  59
  conditions to grant aid might be inhibited. The issue was aired in Committee, and the Minister agreed to consider whether local authorities' powers in this respect might be cut across by the provisions of clause 44. He sent me a helpful letter on 28 June containing his response to most of the issues that we raised in Committee and undertook to reflect on them. He has not as yet let us know whether he thinks that there may be a problem.
  The purpose of the amendment is to raise the issue once again and give the Minister an opportunity to advise the House whether there is any risk, without the amendment, that local authorities' powers to attach conditions to grants may be prejudiced.
  The subsequent amendments deal with the process of reclaiming grant from people who have received it but have moved within the next five years. It seems perfectly fair that people who have moved on swiftly from a property that has been renovated with the aid of grant, whose value has probably increased as a result, should be liable to repay the grant. There are, however, obvious problems with a five-year cut-off, which could result in cases of hardship. We debated various options in Committee and the Minister agreed to look at the matter. He accepted the need for flexibility to ensure that local authorities can use their discretion to waive the repayment requirements in certain cases. All that is welcome.
  However, we still believe that there is merit in an alternative approach similar to that which applies in comparable areas, for example where individuals receive assistance under different headings. If they move within a set period they may be obliged to repay not in one fell swoop but a proportion depending on the time that has passed. For example, under the right-to-buy scheme, individuals who receive discounts on the value of their council property are obliged to repay if they move within three years, but are not obliged to repay the whole amount; they must pay a third for each year that falls short of that three-year period. That is a sensible approach and amendments Nos. 108 and 109 would apply a similar repayment obligation to this provision to ensure that a sliding scale operates over a five-year period rather than an obligation to repay the full amount if an applicant moves within that period.
  The amendments are sensible. They are designed to ensure that the system works fairly and without anomalies, and that no unreasonable limitations are placed on local authorities' powers to attach conditions to grants. I hope that the Minister will respond positively.
  Mr. Clappison: The hon. Member for Greenwich rightly said that I agreed to look again at how clauses 42 and 44 operate together. I first explained how the two clauses operate and, when he pressed me further, I promised to look at the matter again. I did so and came to the same conclusion as I expressed originally in Committee. So I shall explain once again how clauses 42 and 44 operate together, particularly in respect of grant-recoverable conditions.
  The section of the Bill that covers grant conditions is clearly titled and includes clauses 44 to 55. Clause 44 must be seen firmly in that context. It covers circumstances where an eligible applicant has undertaken grant-eligible works and received some or all of the grant
  60
  moneys. It enforces conditions that apply on approval of a valid grant application and require repayment of the grant if one of the conditions is breached. Such circumstances could arise if the house where works are undertaken is sold or not occupied.
  By contrast, clause 42 relates to the initial eligibility for grant. In practice, that means that where a local authority finds out after approval of grant that the application covers either applicants or works that were not eligible for grant assistance, they need not pay the grant or can recover any grant paid. The important point is that the clause applies the eligibility rule, not a grant condition. In such cases, the grant is being recovered because it was wrongly paid to an ineligible applicant or for ineligible works. The grant condition applies where a grant is rightly paid but the condition is breached at a later date. So I assure the hon. Gentleman that the two clauses operate properly together and cover different issues.
  Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 would delete the current requirement to repay grant in full, where grant is recovered in the case of relevant disposal of the property; before the certified date for completion of works; or on or after the certified date and within the five-year grant condition period. In their place, the amendments would introduce a taper reducing the repayment necessary by one fifth for each year.
  In Committee and again today, the honourable Member for Greenwich sought to draw parallels between the recovery provision for the right-to-buy scheme and that for house renovation grants. I do not accept that a direct comparison can be drawn between those two different regimes. Under the right-to-buy scheme, a property is priced at market value and a discount then offered in recognition of a lengthy period of tenure in the property. The repayment provisions are therefore set to recognise that the discount is offered because of those circumstances. A renovation grant, however, is a one-off payment to help a person improve and potentially increase the value of his or her property. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect an applicant to remain in the property for which he or she sought help for an agreed period after receiving the grant. The proposed repayment condition reflects that.
  It is perfectly acceptable for applicants to repay grant in full if they dispose of their property within five years, so long as they are made fully aware of that obligation before they accept grant assistance. We should not overlook the fact that a wide range of circumstances where grant may not be recovered is set out in clauses 45(5) and 54. I shall not go into those, but clause 54 sets out a range of exempt disposals where the issue does not arise and clause 45(5) sets out circumstances in which it is not necessary for the local authority to require all or any of the grant to be repaid.
  In addition, authorities may apply to the Secretary of State for consent to exempt cases of hardship. The honourable Member for Greenwich raised concerns over the possible number of such applications, particularly where applicants are required to move for employment reasons. I have written to him confirming that we shall introduce a general consent to cover not only cases where an owner must move for employment reasons but where the sale of a property is required by the lender or some such third party. That consent, coupled with the exemptions that I have already mentioned, will give the

  61
  right flexibility for local authorities without undermining the general principle that grant is given to applicants who intend to remain in their property for at least five years.
  Concern was expressed in Committee about whether the proposal had been the subject of consultation. I confirm that it was included in our discussion document, "The Future of Private Housing Renewal Strategies", issued last June, and that there was no widespread disagreement with the proposal to introduce repayment of grant in full for disposals within the five-year period.
  I hope that, on the basis that I have outlined, particularly the wide range of exemptions that I described, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Raynsford: The Minister does not do justice to his case, although he may do justice to ours. He argues that the analogy with the right-to-buy scheme is not fair because someone who qualifies for the right-to-buy scheme does so as a result of a lengthy period of residence in the accommodation. I remind him that the "lengthy period of residence" is exactly the same as the period of residence required under clause 10 before which people normally become eligible for a renovation grant, so the Minister's argument has reinforced the analogy. We do not accept his view. Mobility is often necessary for all sorts of reasons. I am surprised that he does not accept the fact that people must move for job reasons or changes in domestic circumstances. To block mobility where people have received a renovation grant will disadvantage not only the individuals concerned but the wider economy.
  Our alternative proposal would have been a more effective and less bureaucratic way in which to deal with the problem, and consistent with other policy. Incidentally, it would have helped to ease one of today's great housing problems, which the Government have exacerbated: negative equity. People with negative equity, who must also repay renovation grant within five years, will be totally unable to countenance a move. A sliding scale would have reduced the commitment to repay progressively year by year and thus helped to ease that problem.
  For all those reasons, it would have been sensible to incorporate the amendment in the Bill. We are surprised at the Government's reluctance to accept it. However, to make progress tonight, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 49

  CONDITION AS TO AVAILABILITY FOR LETTING: RENOVATION GRANTS
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 29, line 31 , leave out from 'fulfilled' to end of line 35.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 31 to 35.
  Mr. Clappison: These are technical amendments. Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 33 make clear our intention in clause 49 that repayment of a renovation grant will be triggered by a breach of the condition as to availability of
  62
  letting by the owner, not by the failure of a tenant or licensee to provide such information to the owner as may be required.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 31, in page 29, line 39, leave out from 'dwelling' to end of line 42.
  No. 32, in page 30, line 2, at end insert—
  `( ) The terms of any tenancy of the dwelling (or any part of it, or any property including the dwelling or part of it) shall be deemed to include a duty on the part of the tenant, if required to do so by the owner of the dwelling, to furnish him with such information as he may reasonably require to enable him to comply with a notice under subsection (2).'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Clause 50

  CONDITIONS AS TO OCCUPATION: HMO GRANTS
  Amendments made: No. 33, in page 30, line 21, leave out from 'fulfilled' to end of line 25.
  No. 34, in page 30, line 29, leave out from 'house' to end of line 32.
  No. 35, in page 30, line 39, at end insert—
  `( ) The terms of any tenancy of any part of the house shall be deemed to include a duty on the part of the tenant, if required to do so by the owner of the house, to furnish him with such information as he may reasonably require to enable him to comply with a notice under subsection (2).'.—[Mr. Clappison]

Clause 54

  MEANING OF EXEMPT DISPOSAL
  Amendments made: No. 36, in page 32, line 20, leave out from first 'of to end of line 24 and insert
  `any such order as is mentioned in subsection (2A);'.
  No. 37, in page 32, line 25, leave out from 'disposal' to end of line 26 and insert `(see subsection (2B));'.
  No. 38, in page 33, line 19, at end insert—
  '(2A) The orders referred to in subsection (1)(c) are orders under—

  (a) section 24 or 24A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (property adjustment orders or orders for the sale of property in connection with matrimonial proceedings);

  (b) section 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (orders as to financial provision to be made from estate);

  (c) section 17 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders or orders for the sale of property after overseas divorce, &c,); or

  (d) paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents).'.

  No. 39, in page 33, line 19, at end insert—
  '(2B) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d) a compulsory disposal is a disposal of property which is acquired compulsorily, or is acquired by a person who has made or would have made, or for whom another person has made or would have made, a compulsory purchase order authorising its compulsory purchase for the purposes for which it is acquired.'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Clause 59

  INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS: CHAPTER I
  Amendment made: No. 40, in page 36, leave out lines 50 to 52 and insert—

  'tenant (and expressions relating to tenancies)

  —in the context of a tenant's application for a renovation grant

  section 7(6)

  —in the context of a certificate of intended letting

  section 8(3A)

  —in the context of an application for a common parts grant

  section 14(2)

  —in the context of an application for disabled facilities grant

  section 19(5)'.

  —[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 60

  GROUP REPAIR SCHEMES
  6 pm
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 37, line 14, after 'works', insert `—(a)'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 42 to 44.
  Mr. Clappison: The amendments are in response to a proposal put forward in Committee to extend group repair to cover problems of structural instability as well as exterior repairs. As was said in Committee, group repair already allows structural works where they are necessary to give satisfactory effect to other repairs. However, I promised to look again at whether the provisions might be extended to enable the remedying of structural problems where they are not associated with poor repair. The example of a badly leaning chimney was given during the debate.
  Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 achieve this by expressly enabling group repair schemes to cover works to render a building structurally stable. Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 explain the sorts of works that can be carried out and make clear that works to render a building stable can include works to the foundations as well as any ancillary works necessary to give satisfactory effect to the main structural works.
  Mr. Raynsford: Once again, I welcome the Government's amendment No. 41 as it gives effect to proposals that Opposition Members made in Committee to ensure that problems of structural stability could be dealt with in group repair schemes. The Minister has rightly accepted that there was doubt about this under the previous provisions of the Bill. The amendment is necessary to ensure that group repair schemes can cover the necessary works that relate to the structural stability of the properties and to ensure that good value for money is achieved by such schemes. We welcome the Government's adoption of this amendment and we recognise that it will improve the legislation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 42, in page 37, line 15, at end insert `, or
  (b) to render the buildings to which the scheme relates structurally stable,
  or for both those purposes.'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Clause 62

  SCHEME WORKS
  Amendments made: No. 43, in page 37, line 32, at end insert
  `works of the following descriptions.
  ( ) In the case of works to put in reasonable repair the exterior of the buildings to which the scheme relates, the works must be'.
  No. 44, in page 37, line 37, at end insert—
  `( ) In the case of works to render the buildings to which the scheme relates structurally stable, the works must be—

  (a) works to the structure or to the foundations of the buildings to which the scheme relates, or

  (b) other works necessary to give satisfactory effect to such works,

  and must be such that on completion of the works the buildings will be structurally stable.'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Clause 64

  PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN GROUP REPAIR SCHEME
  Amendments made: No. 45, in page 39, line 12, at end insert—
  '(4A) In subsection (4) references to letting include the grant of a licence to occupy premises.
  References in this Chapter to tenants, and other expressions relating to tenancies, in the context of a certificate of intended letting, shall be construed accordingly.'.
  No. 46, in page 39, line 27, at end insert—
  ( ) a health'.authority, special health authority or NHS trust;
  No. 121, in page 39, line 27, at end insert—
  `( ) a police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964:'.
  No. 122, in page 39, line 31, at end insert—
  `( ) An order under subsection (6)(f) may proceed wholly or in part by reference to the provisions relating to entitlement to housing benefit, or any other form of assistance, as they have effect from time to time.'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Clause 75

  INDEX OF DEFINED EXPRESSIONS: CHAPTER II
  Amendments made: No. 47, in page 44, line 28, after `tenant', insert '(generally)'.
  No. 48, in page 44, line 28, at end insert—

  'tenant and related expressions (in the context of a certificate of intended letting)'.

  section 64(4A)

  —[Mr. Clappison.]

Clause 78

  ASSISTANCE IN RESPECT OF HOUSE-BOATS AND MOBILE HOMES
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 46, line 15, leave out from `has' to 'on' in line 16 and insert
  'for that period had its only or main mooring in the same locality'.

  65
  Amendment No. 49 arises out of reflection that we gave to the provision of the Bill that concerns the mooring of houseboats. We now accept that the Bill, as drafted, unintentionally restricted the mobility of a houseboat in seeking to define the prior qualifying period for grant assistance. The amendment allows houseboats and their owners to moor happily.
  Mr. Raynsford: In Committee, I urged the Minister to look sympathetically at the amendment. I reminded him that floating voters would not be amused if the Government failed to act on this. We are delighted that the Government have recognised the need for a change to ensure more effective help to houseboat owners. We will ensure that houseboat owners know the origin of the amendment: it is the result of a Labour amendment in Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 79

  POWER TO MAKE FURTHER PROVISION BY REGULATIONS
  Mr. Chris Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 47, line 2, at end insert:—
  '(e) the period from its receipt within which an application for a home repair assistance grant shall be determined; the giving of written notice of determination; and the provision of reasons for any adverse determination.'
  Amendment No. 2 ensures that the regulations provide a fair and open method of handling grant applications. The amendment requires local authorities to determine applications promptly, to give written notice of their decisions and, in particular, to give reasons in writing if they refuse assistance. The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to provide for the manner of making an application for home repair assistance, the content of such an application, the procedure for dealing with applications and the method of determining the amount of payment. The procedures have been laid down so definitively that it seems entirely reasonable and modest to me that provision be made for applicants to be given the courtesy of prompt attention and written responses from local authorities. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to my simple plea.
  Mr. Clappison: I have some sympathy for the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. The amendment has worthy aims in that it seeks to ensure that the applicant for home repair assistance has his application determined in good time by a local authority and is given any reasons for decisions reached on the application. These circumstances are already provided for in relation to mainstream grants, and we believe that local authorities should operate in a similar manner for home repair assistance. However, we do not believe that an extension to the scope of the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers—as proposed in the hon. Gentleman's amendment—is necessary.
  Clause 79(1)(b) already provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to the procedure for dealing with applications. We intend that this will be used to provide that an authority shall inform an applicant in writing and within six months of the receipt of an
  66
  application whether it proposes to give assistance and the reasons for a refusal. I hope that this meets the concerns of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Davies: I am almost shocked to hear that relatively pleasing response from the Minister, and I thank him.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 123, in page 47, line 6, at end insert—
  '( ) Regulations under subsection (2) may proceed wholly or in part by reference to the provisions relating to entitlement to housing benefit. or any other form of assistance, as they have effect from time to time.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 81

  DEFERRED ACTION NOTICES
  Mr. Chris Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 47, line 42, at end insert—
  '(6) A local housing authority shall not serve a deferred notice action notice in respect of a dwelling—house or house in multiple occupation which is occupied by one or more households containing a child under the age of 16.'.
  The introduction of deferred action notices is one of the most disreputable provisions of the Bill. They provide a legitimate means for the local authority to avoid all its responsibilities towards the improvement of unfit properties and they take away the moral pressure that should be felt by councillors and Ministers. Nothing will be done, and no one will be held responsible either legally or politically. Local authorities will have been provided with the legal step of issuing a deferred action notice and, once that is done, they need look no more at the problem on their doorstep. These notices can be renewed annually and action can be postponed indefinitely. Frankly, it is a disgrace.
  The amendment seeks to mitigate the harm caused by the proposal by saying that the need for remedial action shall not simply be swept beneath the carpet and hidden from view in each and every case. Where properties are inhabited by children under the age of 16, deferred action notices of this kind should not be issued. The responsibility for dealing with the problem should not be ignored by local authorities and by Ministers.
  Mr. Clappison: A local authority, when deciding whether to serve a deferred action notice, should have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the interests of the occupants. We believe that the way in which we have approached this involves a degree of flexibility, and that the hon. Gentleman's amendment would cut across the flexibility that we regard as important.
  I point out to the hon. Gentleman that clause 81 follows closely the standard terminology used for the exercise of the existing fitness enforcement options of repair, closure and clearance. We consider it important to retain such consistency. In particular, an important principle of fitness enforcement is that of a local authority having to satisfy itself that taking a particular enforcement option represents the most satisfactory course of action. That principle is enshrined in clause 81

  67
  The most satisfactory course of action is a broad term, the purpose of which is to enable a local authority to take into account all the relevant circumstances. It is not simply a bricks and mortar consideration. The occupants—be they households with or without children—will be an important consideration. I would be concerned if local authorities were restricted in the way sought by amendment No. 3.
  Under clause 85, provision is made for the Secretary of State to give guidance on the most satisfactory course of action in connection with the service of deferred action notices. I have made clear on more than one occasion that we fully intend to issue such guidance. Furthermore, by virtue of the terms of clause 85, local authorities will be required to have regard to the guidance.
  Before its issue, the guidance will be subject to the usual consultation with local authority associations and others. That will help to ensure that it is balanced and appropriate and that it provides local authorities with the leeway that they need, given the many varied circumstances that they inevitably encounter in the course of their enforcement activities. The approach has the advantage of being consistent with the other fitness enforcement options, which is important. It allows also for a degree of flexibility that is essential in all areas of fitness enforcement, but local authorities must exercise that flexibility sensibly having regard to clear guidance from the Secretary of State. In those circumstances, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. Davies: There is no greater flexibility than giving local authorities the option of opting out of their responsibilities entirely—which is what the Bill is all about. The Minister speaks warm words and seeks to provide reassurance. However, he does not go far enough and I do not wish to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 47, line 42, at end insert—
  `(6) Where a local housing authority has served a deferred action notice, they shall consider the provision of appropriate professional, technical and administrative services, as provided under section 169 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to the person on whom the notice has been served.
  (7) Local housing authorities shall have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State with regard to action under (6) above.'.
  With this amendment, we offer a positive proposal to mitigate the effects of the deferred action notice. As the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) pointed out, the deferred action notice is an unsatisfactory feature of the Bill—it is, in effect, a counsel of despair. Under the deferred action notice, the local authority will say to the individual, "We have inspected your house and it is unfit for human habitation, but we don't intend to do anything about it". That is clearly an entirely unsatisfactory and inadequate response to poor housing conditions.
  Amendment No. 110 seeks to provide an alternative option, which can help in certain cases, to ensure that something is done. It does not seek to reverse the process—we have argued that point and we do not agree
  68
  with the Government. In this amendment, we seek simply to mitigate some of the worst consequences of the legislation as drafted. Amendment No. 110 states:
  "Where a local authority has served a deferred action notice, it shall consider providing appropriate professional. technical and administrative services … to the person on whom the notice has been served."
  In other words, local authorities shall provide advice and assistance to help people learn what can be done to remedy the problem. There are excellent staying-put projects in many areas—they are sometimes called by different names—that are designed to assist people living in bad housing conditions. They identify renovation options and assist people in going through the process— for example, they provide assistance in applying for grants where they are available and in dealing with builders. They enable people to obtain the technical help and support that they need in order to have their homes improved.
  Referral to one such agency—whether they are called care and repair or home repair agencies—and assistance from that source could be the solution for many people. It is much more positive than simply serving a deferred action notice. During the Committee's consideration, the Minister spoke some warm words. He said that he was sympathetic to our argument. On 11 June he said that he had "some sympathy" with the intention behind the amendment that we moved at that stage. He said that he would be
  "happy to consider including in the guidance that we shall issue encouragement to authorities to consider the desirability of using their powers … to make available the sort of assistance envisaged."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 11 June 1996; c. 235]
  We are pleased to hear that and our amendment is designed to give effect to the Minister's comments. The first subsection says that it is appropriate for the authority to consider providing such services and the second subsection says that the local authority
  "shall have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State".
  We are once again giving effect to the Minister's words and we hope—perhaps it is an unreasonable expectation—that he will want to see the provisions that he advocated in Committee on the face of the Bill. I fear that he will disappoint us, but I live in hope. The amendment has a great deal to commend it.
  Mr. Clappison: The hon. Member for Greenwich said that in earlier exchanges we recognised that it might be desirable for local authorities to consider making available, through their powers under section 169, the assistance that is envisaged under amendment No. 110. I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman a bit, because we differ about the need to impose it as a duty upon local authorities. Considering whether to make available such assistance should properly be a matter for each local authority to decide in the light of what are inevitably varied circumstances in each case.
  Some circumstances might point to the desirability of making available the assistance envisaged. However, there might be circumstances in which it would inappropriate for a local authority to spend time and resources considering whether to make assistance available. The key point is that local authorities will be best placed to make such judgments. We do not believe that they will be helped in that process by being placed under the duties that amendment No. 110 would impose.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Clive Betts: Does the Minister accept that the amendment places no obligation on local authorities other than to consider whether help should be given? It does not force local authorities to provide any assistance: it merely states that they should go through the process of considering whether assistance is appropriate. Surely that is not too much to ask when someone is living in an unfit property and cannot afford to improve it.
  Mr. Clappison: I have just covered exactly that point. I described how it could be onerous to require local authorities to consider the matter in each case. I dealt with that point and I hope that the hon. Gentleman was listening.
  I have already given an undertaking that our guidance to local authorities about the new private sector renewal regime will encourage them to consider the desirability of using their section 169 powers to provide assistance of the sort envisaged when serving a deferred action notice. That guidance will be subject to consultation with local authority associations and others. That will help to ensure that a sensible balance is achieved. I do not believe that we should shackle authorities unnecessarily by going further than that. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Raynsford: The Minister anticipates our disappointment. He once again finds it difficult to agree in the House to a formulation that is based on his comments in Committee. We believe that it is appropriate for Government to encourage care and repair agencies and the amendment would assist that process in a positive way without burdening local authorities unduly. It is a modest amendment that is designed to ease a thoroughly undesirable and retrograde measure: the introduction of deferred action notices. We regret that the Government have responded in such a negative manner but, in order to make progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 82

  SERVICE OF DEFERRED ACTION NOTICES.
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 48, line 12, at end insert `—(a)'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 51.
  Mr. Clappison: Clause 82(4) requires a local authority to serve a copy of a deferred action notice on any person who has an interest in the premises concerned, whether as a freeholder, mortgagee or lessee. I undertook in Committee to consider whether that requirement should apply also to tenants and licensees.
  I can confirm that the provisions in clause 82(4) already cover tenants—they are embraced by the terms of the Housing Act 1985. On the question of licensees, we think that it would impose an unreasonable burden on local authorities to require them to serve a copy of a deferred action notice on licensees. They do not have an interest
  70
  in land—technically, many visitors to a property can be licensees. It would obviously not be sensible, and local authorities could face difficulties if they were required to serve a copy of a notice on such people.
  Therefore, we think that a sensible balance in the case of licensees is for local authorities to have the power to serve a copy of a notice rather than be placed under a duty to do so. On the basis of that sensible proposal, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich will accept the amendment.
  Mr. Raynsford: The Minister will recall that when we considered an earlier group of amendments, including amendment No. 19, I highlighted the fact that the Government thought it right at that stage to put on the face of the Bill an amendment that said that references to a "tenancy" should include the grant of a licence. In other words, in that context, licensees are treated in the same way as tenants. I gave the Minister advance notice that I would ask him why the same principle does not apply to amendments Nos. 50 and 51.
  Many licensees live in dangerous, substandard accommodation, and if despite their properties being unfit, the local authority intends to do nothing about them, it is only reasonable that they should be formally notified of the fact rather being left in the lurch. The fact that the properties that licensees occupy are death traps is of as much concern to them as it is to tenants. The right to notification should apply in all cases to licensees as well as to tenants. Ruling rule out licensees because they do not have a property interest shows a wrong sense of priorities.
  Mr. Clappison: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about this. The earlier circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman referred concerned eligibility to apply for grants. In such cases, the identities of the people applying for grants are known, whether they are tenants or licensees. The problem in this case is the practicability of requiring local authorities to serve notices on licensees which, as I have already described, can involve a wide range of people in relation to the property. That would put a burden on local authorities.
  Mr. Raynsford: The Minister does not respond to the crucial point that licensees who live in substandard accommodation in which their lives are at risk because of defective fire precautions or gas appliances have every right to be treated on a par with tenants in the same position. To discriminate between them on the basis that tenants have a technical financial interest in the property is an appalling failure to give proper priority to individual lives and public health considerations. We greatly regret the Government's failure to look after the interests of licensees in the same way that they are prepared to look after the interests of other people. This matter will need to be addressed again.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 51, in page 48, line 15, at end insert `, and
  (b) they may serve a copy of the notice on any person having a licence to occupy the premises.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 83

  APPEALS AGAINST DEFERRED ACTION NOTICES
  Mr. Chris Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 48, line 18, after 'aggrieved', insert
  '(including any occupier of the premises)'.
  Clause 83(1) gives the person aggrieved by a deferred action notice the right to appeal to the county court. That is welcome, but I suspect that its positive effects will be limited. However, let us be grateful for small mercies. The amendment would allow not only the owner but the occupier of an unfit property to challenge the issue of a deferred action notice. I invite the Minister to give one substantial reason why the occupier should not have that right. Better still, I ask him to accept the amendment.
  Mr. Clappison: Amendment No. 4 would broaden the right of appeal against a deferred action notice to include any occupier of the premises. It is right that there should be a right of appeal against any fitness enforcement action. That is why we have included a right of appeal against deferred action notices. However, the right of appeal against the various fitness enforcement options should be consistent. The right of appeal in the case of a deferred action notice is consistent with that conferred on the other fitness enforcement options of repair, closure and clearance.
  As I said in responding to amendment No. 3, in serving a deferred action notice, a local authority will be required to satisfy itself that such an approach is the most satisfactory course of action. In reaching that decision, the occupants will clearly be one of the important considerations. We shall make that point clear in the guidance to which I referred and to which local authorities will be required to have regard. It will provide an added safeguard against local authorities acting recklessly. Coupled with the consistency that I mentioned, that argues strongly for the right of appeal under clause 83 remaining unchanged. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. Davies: Deferred action notices are a new concept. I see no need for consistency. The other proposals that the Minister highlighted suggest that local authorities will take action; the whole purpose of deferred action notices is to give them a chance not to take action. This case should be judged differently. However, I recognise that I am unlikely to succeed in a Division, so I will not press the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 84

  REVIEW OF DEFERRED ACTION NOTICES
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 49, line 2, leave out 'twelve months' and insert '2 years'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 53 to 55.
  Mr. Clappison: We undertook in Committee to reflect on the maximum period for reviewing a deferred action
  72
  notice. Bearing in mind the need to strike a sensible balance between the duty of formal enforcement action and the burdens that that can place on local authorities, we have concluded that 24 months is an appropriate period.
  Mr. Raynsford: It falls to me only to note that this is yet another Labour amendment in Committee that has been accepted in full by the Government. They may have changed the words but the effect is exactly that of our amendment. We regard this as another way in which we have helped to improve the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 53, in page 49, line 4, leave out 'twelve months' and insert '2 years'.
  No. 54, in page 49, line 4, at end insert—
  'The Secretary of State may by order amend this subsection so as to specify such other period or periods as he considers appropriate.'.
  No. 55, in page 49, line 5, leave out 'They' and insert `The authority'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 95

  PARSONAGES, CHARITIES, &C.
  Amendment made: No. 56, in page 54, line 39, leave out from `schemes)' to end of line 2 on page 55 and insert
  ', in section 64(2) (persons eligible to participate in group repair scheme as assisted participants), the requirement in paragraph (a) that a person give an owner-occupation certificate or a certificate of intended letting does not apply if—

  (a) the person concerned is a charity or the trustee of a charity, or

  (b) the dwelling is the residence house of an ecclesiastical benefice;

  and the requirement in paragraph (b) that a person give a certificate of future occupation does not apply if the person concerned is a charity or the trustee of a charity.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 101

  MINOR DEFINITIONS: PART I
  Amendments made: No. 57, in page 57, line 5, at end insert
  'and includes any body established by order under section 88 of the Housing Act 1988'.
  No. 58, in page 57, line 7, leave out from first "introductory' to 'Chapter' in line 8 and insert
  'tenancy" and "introductory tenant" have the same meaning as in'.
  No. 59, in page 57, line 14, at end insert
  'and includes any body established by order under paragraph 7 of Schedule 9 to the New Towns Act 1981'.
  No. 60, in page 57, line 41, at end insert
  'and includes any body established by order under section 165B of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 102

  TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
  Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 58, line 6, leave out from 'after' to end of line 14 and insert
  'the commencement of this Part.'.

  73
  This is the last amendment to part I and deals with the timetable for the implementation of its provisions. As hon. Members know, the Bill ends mandatory renovation grants and there is a malign implication because it will have a retrospective effect. Provided that the Bill receives Royal Assent before 2 August, anyone who has applied for a mandatory renovation grant since 2 February this year will be deemed to be ineligible for one. That will apply even though such people applied in good faith when the existing legislation stated that they were entitled to mandatory grants. That right is being taken away. The dismantling of mandatory grants without replacement is bad enough; taking away the entitlement retrospectively is unacceptable.
  We will vote on the amendment if the Government do not accept it not only to show our disapproval of the withdrawal of such grants without a coherent alternative to replace them but, above all, because it demonstrates the Government's untrustworthiness in taking away from people a statutory right months after they should have been entitled to receive it. The provisions are objectionable but their retrospective application is deplorable. The amendment seeks to remedy that serious defect in the Bill.
  Mr. Clappison: We are, of course, putting in place an effective system for dealing with renovation grants. In the circumstances it was appropriate to set a clear date for the new arrangements to come into operation. That is achieved by the present wording of clause 101.
  My Department wrote to all local authorities on 2 February this year to inform them of the changes proposed and of the transitional arrangements for each type of grant under the house renovation grant system. We drew to their attention the fact that they should inform grant applicants of the details and time scale of the proposed changes. That has given the maximum possible notice to local authorities and applicants of how the provisions of part I will be implemented. The proposals give local authorities the best opportunity to organise their work load and manage their resources and allow all grant applicants to be treated on the same basis.
  By retaining the availability of mandatory grant for all applications made up to the commencement of part I, amendment No. 111 would encourage a rush of applications from applicants hoping to beat the deadline. That would create work load problems for local authorities and many other difficulties. The arrangements proposed are fair to local authorities because they allow them to programme their expenditure and use resources to the best effect and fair to applicants because they allow all applicants to be treated on the same basis.
  Mr. Betts: The Minister says that all applicants will be treated equally and fairly. Surely everything depends on the progress that each local authority makes in processing the grants. Where processing is conducted more quickly, applicants might find that the same date is treated differently in different parts of the country.
  Mr. Clappison: No. Applicants will be treated in the same way because after 2 February all applications will be dealt with as applications for discretionary grant unless a six-month period of consideration has already elapsed. There is consistency and clearness.
  74
  The proposed provisions allow for any valid application for mandatory grant submitted more than six months before commencement of the new provisions to be dealt with under the 1989 legislation. That will apply to all those who have submitted valid mandatory grant applications. Grant eligibility will not be removed from any potential applicant. Local authorities will still be required to consider any valid grant application made to them and may give a discretionary grant where that accords with their strategy and priorities for the area.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Raynsford: The Minister has confirmed in his concluding remarks that the Government are engaged in a policy that is discreditable and one of despair. The Government are abandoning the mandatory renovation grant framework because it was inadequately funded. Queues of applicants were waiting for a grant that could not be delivered under the system that the Government put in place only seven years ago. They are abandoning that system and that is an admission of failure.
  Even worse, the Government are abandoning the system retrospectively. They are removing a statutory right to a mandatory grant. They are removing entitlement retrospectively from 2 February. That is not a principle that commends itself to the House. It is not a principle that commends itself to the Labour party. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Government by supporting amendment No. 111.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 273.

  Division No. 174]

  [6.31 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chidgey, David

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Ainger, Nick

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Clelland, David

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Barron, Kevin

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Battle, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Bayley, Hugh

  Connarty, Michael

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bell, Stuart

  Corston, Jean

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cousins, Jim

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cummings, John

  Berry, Roger

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Betts, Clive

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blunkett, David

  Darling, Alistair

  Boateng, Paul

  Davidson, Ian

  Bradley, Keith

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

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

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

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

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Denham, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Dewar, Donald

  Caborn, Richard

  Dixon, Don

  Callaghan, Jim

  Dobson, Frank

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Canavan, Dennis

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Cann, Jamie

  Eastham, Ken

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Etherington, Bill

  75

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fatcnett, Derek

  McLeish, Henry

  Faulds, Andrew

  McMaster, Gordon

  Fisher, Mark

  MacShane, Denis

  Flynn, Paul

  McWilliam, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Madden, Max

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Maddock, Diana

  Foulkes, George

  Mahon, Alice

  Fraser, John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fyfe, Maria

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Galloway, George

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Gapes, Mike

  Meacher, Michael

  Garrett, John

  Michael, Alun

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Milburn, Alan

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Miller, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morley, Elliot

  Graham, Thomas

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mudie, George

  Gunnell, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Hain, Peter

  Murphy, Paul

  Hall, Mike

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hanson, David

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Olner, Bill

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Neill, Martin

  Heppell, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Hodge, Margaret

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hoey, Kate

  Pike, Peter L

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Pope, Greg

  Home Robertson, John

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

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

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hutton, John

  Raynsford, Nick

  Illsley, Eric

  Reid, Dr John

  Ingram, Adam

  Rendel, David

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jamieson, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Janner, Greville

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Jowell, Tessa

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Keen, Alan

  Short, Clare

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Skinner, Dennis

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

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lewis, Terry

  Spellar, John

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Litherland, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Livingstone, Ken

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Stevenson, George

  Loyden, Eddie

  Stott, Roger

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McAllion, John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McCartney, Ian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Timms, Stephen

  McKelvey, William

  Tipping, Paddy

  76

  Touhig, Don

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Trickett, Jon

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Turner, Dennis

  Winnick, David

  Vaz, Keith

  Wise, Audrey

  Walker Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Walley, Joan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watson, Mike

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mr. Joe Benton and

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Ms Janet Anderson.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Devlin, Tim

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alexander, Richard

  Dover, Den

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Duncan, Alan

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Amess, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Ashby, David

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Elletson, Harold

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evennett, David

  Bates, Michael

  Faber, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bendall, Vivian

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fishbum, Dudley

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Eric

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Booth, Hartley

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Boswell, Tim

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  French, Douglas

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Bowis, John

  Gale, Roger

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gallie, Phil

  Brazier, Julian

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Garnier, Edward

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Burns, Simon

  Gorst, Sir John

  Burt, Alistair

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Butler, Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Cash, William

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hannam, Sir John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Churchill, Mr

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Clappison, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hayes, Jerry

  Coe, Sebastian

  Heald, Oliver

  Colvin, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Congdon, David

  Hendry, Charles

  Conway, Derek

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Couchman, James

  Horam, John

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

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  77

  Hunter, Andrew

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Key, Robert

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

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

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Legg, Barry

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Leigh, Edward

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lidington, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lord, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Luff, Peter

  Stephen, Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stern, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Allan

  MacKay, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Sumberg, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sweeney, Walter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sykes, John

  Madel, Sir David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Marland, Paul

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Thomason, Roy

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mates, Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Merchant, Piers

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Mills, Iain

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tredinnick, David

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Trend, Michael

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Viggers, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Moss, Malcolm

  Walden, George

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Ward, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Watts, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Page, Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Paice, James

  Whittingdale, John

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Pawsey, James

  Wilkinson, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Willetts, David

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wilshire, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'id)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wood, Timothy

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Richards, Rod

  Riddick, Graham

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Mr. Roger Knapman and

  Robathan, Andrew

  Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 2

  LIABILITY OF ADJUDICATOR
  `. Neither the adjudicator nor any employee or agent of the adjudicator shall be liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of their functions as adjudicator or employee or agent of the adjudicator, unless the act or omission is in bad faith.'.—[Mr. Rarnsford.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 24—Liability of adjudicator (No. 2)—
  'Neither the adjudicator nor any employee or agent of the adjudicator should be liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of their function as adjudicator or employee or agent of the adjudicator, unless the act or omission is in bad faith.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 88 and 90.
  Mr. Raynsford: We now reach part II of the Bill, which deals with proposals for changes in the contractual arrangements in the construction industry. Hon. Members will be aware of the background to the proposed legislation and the important study carried out by Sir Michael Latham into the construction industry, resulting in the report entitled "Constructing the Team", which was published some two years ago.
  The report, which has been widely welcomed, set a series of objectives to tackle problems and to lay the foundations for a more successful, less confrontational industry in the future. We all owe a great debt of gratitude to Sir Michael for his work, both on the report and on the follow-up. On behalf of the Opposition, I pay tribute to him for the way in which he addressed key issues and sought to lay the foundations for a better future for an industry which is extremely important to our national life but which has gone through some hard times in recent years.
  One of the most crucial of Sir Michael's recommendations was a new approach to dispute resolution, and in particular to the role of adjudication as a means of providing a fast track for tackling disputes that might otherwise threaten to halt work on a construction contract. We all know—from our constituency experience and from knowledge of the industry—that, all too often, such disputes have been ruinously damaging to the industry, in terms of the financial implications, its credibility and morale. We have to find a way to ensure a better future for it and a better way forward without the parties rushing into court at the first opportunity. The concept of fast-track adjudication as a means of providing a quicker and better route to dispute resolution at an early stage of proceedings is therefore widely welcomed by the entire industry.
  The Latham recommendations have in theory been endorsed by the Government, but the process of putting them into effect has been somewhat tortuous. When the

  79
  Bill was presented in another place, it was accompanied by a draft scheme that aroused widespread concern in the industry, because it was based on arbitration procedures rather than adjudication. As a result of the outcry that greeted the scheme, and as a result of the efforts of many noble Lords, the Government agreed to withdraw it and think again. However, uncertainty has remained about whether the Government would move forward in the right way with a proper scheme that allowed adjudication to be put on the statute book.
  Considerable progress was made in Committee. A series of amendments were made to ensure that the definitions were clarified and procedures sharpened, and to try to give effect to Sir Michael's recommendations as expeditiously as possible. In many respects we succeeded: the Bill is improving. That is not to say that there is no scope for further improvement, but it is much better than it was when it was introduced in another place. There is, however, one important unresolved issue, relating to the immunity to be enjoyed by the adjudicator.
  If adjudication is to work, it is essential for the adjudicator to enjoy immunity from litigation. Otherwise, he will not be able to act quickly and expeditiously, but will be constantly looking over his shoulder, worrying about the prospect of a writ being issued by one of the parties who is aggrieved by the way in which he is proceeding. If we want swift adjudication, the adjudicator must have immunity. That is accepted as a principle: the Government recognise it. As originally presented, the Bill provided for immunity as part of the contract between the contracting parties—the contract that would be the subject of adjudication. There is a problem, however.
  The problem is that immunity given only by contract is binding only on the contracting parties. That is fine in terms of the two parties whose dispute is being resolved, but it does not extend to other parties who may also be involved. As the industry has pointed out, there is still scope for problems, because other parties will be unhappy at the outcome—or even the procedure—of adjudication, and will seek to challenge it. If that possibility exists, and the adjudicator feels nervous about the prospect of being sued, the whole process may be jeopardised. It might well be impossible to get an adjudicator to serve in the first place, and, even if one is appointed, he will inevitably be inhibited by worries about the possibility of litigation.
  In an industry that is not agreed on every aspect of the legislation, there is almost complete unanimity on the issue of immunity for the adjudicator. The Association of Consulting Engineers writes:
  "The Government do not seem to understand the problem. If the immunity is contractual, it only binds the parties to the adjudication. However, others—third parties—may say in law that they relied on the adjudicator's decision. If an adjudication takes place between a main contractor and a client, it is certainly possible that consultants (the architect or engineer administering the contract) or sub-contractors, for example, will rely on that decision, or will allege that they have. On the basis of reliance"—
  the association then cites the case of Hadley Bryne v. Heller—
  "a third party can sue in tort. It is not known what the courts would make of such claims, but there is no question that adjudicators should not be vulnerable to the possibility of claims being made against them in this way."
  80
  The Construction Industry Council reinforces the point, writing:
  "It is pleasing that the Government has recognised that the adjudicator requires immunity. Having recognised this need, it is idiosyncratic that the immunity is then limited. As stated earlier, third parties will be affected by adjudicator's decisions. The adjudicator cannot be protected from the actions of a third party by a contractual immunity."
  In its list of key priorities for amendments on Report, the Institution of Civil Engineers stresses the need for a
  "statutory immunity for adjudicators and employees or agents, save for acts of bad faith".
  The Association of Consultant Architects writes that it has
  "seen the final version of the amendments dated 2nd July which in general seem satisfactory apart from the fact that the Adjudicator will only have immunity under contract and not statutory immunity.
  The ACA believe that this will affect his ability to make a rapid and effective decision knowing that he could be sued by third parties who are affected by that decision."
  There we have it: clear, unanimous evidence from the industry that statutory immunity is required. Contractual immunity is not sufficient.
  In Committee, we tabled an amendment to remove contractual immunity, which was carried. Unfortunately, a parallel amendment to institute statutory immunity was not. The purpose of new clause 2 is to remedy that defect. The new clause establishes a statutory immunity applying to adjudicators, preventing them from being sued by any party. It is modelled on procedures that apply equally to arbitrators. I see no possible objection to the existence of statutory immunity; indeed, I can envisage many problems for the industry without it. This is a commonsense new clause, which gives effect to the recommendations of the Latham report. It has the backing of the industry, and would make the adjudication system work in principle. I strongly commend it to the House.
  The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): Our debate on part II began with some scene-setting by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). I do not dissent from the scene that he set, but I wish to colour it in a little on the basis of my experience of working in the construction industry before I came to the House.
  The curse of that industry, which makes it not only controversial but less competitive than it might otherwise be, is a tendency to spend a good deal of time arguing, and to spend more time on litigation than on research and development. That is what these measures aim to put right, in so far as it can be put right. Not all the Latham process consists of legislation; much of it has been addressed to the industry, and we expect the industry to play its part in reforming itself in order to deliver a much better service in future.
  Let me associate myself with the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Greenwich to Sir Michael Latham, which is wholly appropriate. When this process is over, he may have not only helped to reform the industry in which he, too, spent a good deal of time, but added to the English language: I have no doubt that such words as "Lathamisation" will eventually appear in the dictionary.
  It appears from what the hon. Member for Greenwich has said—and, indeed, from what is said outside the House—that an adjudicator should enjoy immunity in regard to actions taken, or not taken, during adjudication

  81
  proceedings, as long as he has performed his duties in good faith. That almost goes without saying. The dispute is about the extent of that immunity. We believe that, as adjudication is a contractual process, the adjudicator's immunity should be restricted to the contract in question, and that any protection from actions taken by third parties should be a matter for contracting parties.
  We have been over this ground at some length in Committee, and I do not wish to detain the House for longer than necessary. However, I shall briefly state the reasons why I cannot accept new clause 2 or new clause 24—which would give the adjudicator statutory immunity—and why I support amendment No. 88, which would require him to be given immunity under the contract. Amendment No. 90 is consequential on that.
  Adjudication is not practised nearly enough in the construction industry, but it is not unknown. It is a recognised dispute resolution procedure, which is employed on hundreds of contracts each year. To say that such procedures cannot take place without statutory immunity must therefore be nonsense: they have worked perfectly well so far.
  Let me also remind the House that the adjudicator is a creature of the contract. Interests from all sides of the construction industry have stressed throughout our proceedings on the Bill that the adjudicator should not be confused with an arbitrator, whose quasi-judicial role is spelt out at length in statute. That point was laboured by the hon. Member for Greenwich. It strikes me as entirely appropriate that a statutory arbitrator should enjoy statutory immunity, but that an adjudicator—whose existence is to be almost entirely governed by the contract—should look to the contract for protection from third parties. In a nutshell, we do not want the adjudicator to wear a wig and gown, or to behave as if he did. That could happen in a number of ways, the most obvious of which is that parties could indemnify the adjudicator. He might simply decide to rely on insurance, the premiums for which would be reflected in his fees.
  7 pm
  My main concern about statutory immunity is the impact that it could have on third parties. It would not be right for people to be able to make contracts that took away the rights of third parties. Plainly, they must be allowed to seek redress for actions that were taken under a contract to which they were not party and which had affected them adversely. We think that it would be difficult for someone to establish that an adjudicator had a general duty of care to third parties and that a third party would do better to pursue any claim against the parties to the main contract. We would not wish the main parties in those circumstances to be able to shelter in some way behind the statutory immunity of an adjudicator.
  I am aware that some construction professionals from whose ranks it is likely that adjudicators will be drawn have been pressing for statutory immunity, but the position is perhaps a little more complex than the hon. Member for Greenwich has been prepared to admit. The hon. Gentleman cited the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Construction Industry Council, which have also written to me at some length about the need to protect the rights of third parties. I am sure that the professionals would agree that third parties will be far less inclined to pursue an adjudicator if his decisions are only ever of
  82
  temporary effect. That, of course, is what the House accepted when it agreed to amendment No. 87. When I met representatives of the CIC recently, they were good enough to confirm that that amendment made much difference to the strength with which they were pursuing the argument.
  I hope that what I have said will be enough to persuade the hon. Member for Greenwich that the matter is being taken too far and that he should not press his new clause.
  Mr. William O'Brien: The Minister said that he had consulted the Construction Industry Council. Page 4 of the CIC's letter dated 2 July, which has been sent to hon. Members, refers to the architect as the third party. The architect plays a major part in many construction projects, but he would not be included in the adjudicator's programme if the new clause was not accepted. Will the Minister comment on that paragraph about the architect in the letter and say how it would apply under his proposals?
  Mr. Jones: I am a little puzzled as to what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. The behaviour of the contractor or the contractee can have consequences for third parties. For example, an adjudication could stop work on a project, leaving a road totally closed to a third party such as a company or a farm. If the farmer or the company choose to pursue legal action, they will be unlikely pursue it against the adjudicator because his is only a temporary binding ruling. They are much more likely to pursue a case against the contractor or contractee. That is why we think that third-party rights are extremely important and why, despite the eloquence of the hon. Member for Greenwich, we do not think that there is as much of a problem as he suggests.
  Mr. David Chidgey: I, too, should like to express my appreciation of the work of Sir Michael Latham and of the construction industry over the past few years in trying to tease out and produce a workable construction contract. The construction industry is concerned about the limiting of immunity to the contract rather than to the statute. I was involved in the construction industry—I was a professional engineer for some 26 years and dealt with construction contracts of all sizes, from multi-million-pound motorways to small housing refurbishment. On the basis of that experience, I am concerned that the Bill is likely to be unworkable.
  The Minister should reflect on three matters. An unworkable situation could arise because of the difficulties of appointing an adjudicator; because of the vulnerability of small firms; and because of the risk of third-party claims. I shall deal first with the difficulty of appointing adjudicators. The Minister said that adjudicators were likely to seek some form of indemnity to protect their interests. If an adjudicator is liable to claims outside the contract and if he does not have immunity in law, how will we find people who are prepared to take that considerable risk?
  In the context of the vulnerability of small firms, unless adjudicators have immunity in law, they will want to be indemnified for the risks that they will have to carry. That could be extremely costly for the small firms, the sub-contractors that we are trying to protect in this contract relationship from the heavyweights, the main contractors who tend to call the shots. When an adjudicator demands recompense for the high indemnity

  83
  costs that he will have to bear, small firms may find themselves unable to afford to go to him and will not be able to pursue the adjudication process against the main contractor. Does not that negate the whole process that we are trying to establish?
  Finally, I am concerned about the risk of third-party claims. The Minister spoke eloquently about his concern for the contractual relationship and for third parties. If the adjudicator has no immunity from third-party claims, there will be a distinct possibility or probability that he will become liable for the actions of others within the contract because he has had to adjudicate on a claim within it. I shall give a simple example from my professional experience.
  A design failure may result in the collapse of a structure, causing public injury. The Minister may know from his experience that, during the design process, the construction drawings for any project must be signed by a chartered engineer who is responsible in law for the accuracy and viability of the design. If the design fails, the engineer is personally liable and may be guilty of criminal negligence. The adjudicator may try to resolve a dispute over, for example, a design condition in a design-and-build contract. If there is a failure after his decision, is the adjudicator liable for consequent third-party claims that would previously have been the responsibility of the design engineer?
  For those reasons, I ask the Minister to reconsider and to provide statutory immunity to adjudicators to make the contract work.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I can see no reason why there should be any difficulty in appointing an adjudicator. My postbag is full of letters from people who, as individuals or professionals, state that they are admirably suited to be adjudicators. Not all of them were Liberal Members. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) will appreciate, they would not be very well qualified, because adjudicators have to make a decision.
  The insurance market will be perfectly capable of developing a scheme to cover adjudicators. However, it is most unlikely that anyone would bring a case against an adjudicator.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about the vulnerability of small companies because of the high costs if insurance were taken out. Of course, there will be many parties to contracts. Sometimes they will be of considerable financial means and sometimes of less financial means, depending on the size of the service that they provide and the complexity of the contract. Normally, the contract's overall costs will be apportioned between the parties on a recognisable basis. It is most unlikely that all the costs will fall, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, on one small company that is party to those contracts.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a point about liability for what others do. In the example that he gave, where a building had collapsed or something else had gone drastically wrong, and the incident caused death, injury or various other serious consequences, and where the adjudicator had ruled on the matter, surely the most likely action would be to pursue the person who was thought to be guilty of that particular fault in the contract. Why
  84
  should the adjudicator be pursued? It is an improbable circumstance, but I see that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene to reinforce his point.
  Mr. Chidgey: I thank the Minister for giving way and for asking me to comment. My concern is that, by not providing the adjudicator with indemnity, we could visit on him the responsibilities of others, because he has had to be involved in making a judgment on the design process as part of the contract.
  Mr. Jones: I go back to what I said in my opening remarks about having to prove the adjudicator's responsibility. Before a third party could succeed in a claim against an adjudicator, he would first have to establish that the adjudicator owed a duty to him, and not to the contracting parties. That would be extremely difficult to prove. The adjudicator has taken on a duty to the parties, but that is different from having a general responsibility to third parties.
  All in all, therefore, the fears that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) expressed are not real. What is a real fear, however, is that we could end up, not with adjudication, but with arbitration by the back door, with the adjudicator promoted to being an arbitrator, with all the legal paraphernalia that go with that. That is not what the industry wants, but it is the unintended consequence of the direction for which the hon. Members for Greenwich and for Eastleigh have been arguing. That is why, in my discussions with the CIC and others, the point has softened somewhat, as we have moved away from a long-term, binding adjudication towards the short fix—sorry, the dirty fix—that the industry asked for. I hope, therefore, that I have reassured both hon. Gentlemen. It is an important point, but their worries are misplaced.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am not in the least convinced by what the Minister said. He has conjured the image that we are seeking to bring in arbitration by the back door. The opposite is the case. We have consistently argued for adjudication to be separated from arbitration and for its distinct role to be recognised. We are delighted to have made much progress in that direction. The new clause is designed to go a little further.
  The Minister prayed in aid the Construction Industry Council. May I remind him of what the CIC told Members of Parliament in its most recent letter, dated 2 July? After describing the reasons that I alluded to, it says:
  "There is only one solution to this conundrum and that is to provide a full statutory immunity for adjudicators."
  That is what it wants. That is what we want. It makes sense.
  The Minister argued that the adjudicator was a creature of the contract, so it would be inappropriate to give the adjudicator statutory immunity. That is not so. The Minister will know that clause 108(3) clearly states:
  "If the contract does not comply with the requirements of subsections (1) and (2), the adjudication provisions of the Scheme for Construction Contracts apply."
  A statutory basis for adjudication is provided for in the Bill and there is no justification for not giving statutory immunity to adjudicators.
  The Minister said that he did not want adjudicators having wigs and gowns. I could not agree with him more. We do not want that, but he will be aware that, if we do

  85
  not pass the new clause, the adjudicator will be constantly worried that he will be pursued by gentlemen or ladies in wigs and gowns because he will be liable to be sued by third parties, a point made forcefully in the debate.
  7.15 pm
  The Minister's final line of defence is to say, "What is all the fuss about? The adjudicator is doing something only of a time-limited nature and the matters will all be sorted out by arbitration or litigation later." That may be the case, but while there are fears that people will not serve as adjudicators because they are nervous about being sued, or while they will serve only if they are covered by highly expensive insurance policies, the benefit of quick, fast-track and relatively cheap adjudication as an alternative to lengthy, cumbersome and expensive litigation or arbitration will not be achieved. In the new clause, we are arguing for simple, fast-track adjudication, with proper statutory immunity. That is what we and the industry want. I urge colleagues to vote for that in a Division, which we will most certainly now seek.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 275.

  Division No. 175]

  [7.15 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cohen, Harry

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Connarty, Michael

  Anger, Nick

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Allen, Graham

  Corston, Jean

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cummings, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Battle, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bayley, Hugh

  Darling, Alistair

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Davidson, Ian

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

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

  Bell, Stuart

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bennett, Andrew F

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

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Denham, John

  Berry, Roger

  Dewar, Donald

  Betts, Clive

  Dixon, Don

  Blunkett, David

  Dobson, Frank

  Boateng, Paul

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bradley, Keith

  Dowd, Jim

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

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

  Eastham, Ken

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Etherington, Bill

  Byers, Stephen

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Caborn, Richard

  Fatchett, Derek

  Callaghan, Jim

  Faulds, Andrew

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foulkes, George

  Cann, Jamie

  Fraser, John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Chidgey, David

  Galloway, George

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gapes, Mike

  Clapham, Michael

  Garrett, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clelland, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Coffey, Ann

  Gordon, Mildred

  86

  Graham, Thomas

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morley, Elliot

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Gunnell, John

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hain, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hall, Mike

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hanson, David

  Mudie, George

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Mullin, Chris

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Murphy, Paul

  Heppell, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hodge, Margaret

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Olner, Bill

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Parry, Robert

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

  Pearson, Ian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Pendry, Tom

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pike, Peter L

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hutton, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Illsley, Eric

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ingram, Adam

  Purchase, Ken

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Radice, Giles

  Jamieson, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Janner. Greville

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Keen, Alan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

  Salmond, Alex

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

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Khabra, Piara S

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lewis, Terry

  Short, Clare

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Skinner, Dennis

  Litherland, Robert

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Soley, Clive

  Loyden, Eddie

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Spellar, John

  McAllion, John

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McCartney, Ian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Macdonald, Calum

  Stevenson, George

  McKelvey, William

  Stott, Roger

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McLeish, Henry

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McMaster, Gordon

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  MacShane, Denis

  Timms, Stephen

  McWilliam, John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Madden, Max

  Touhig, Don

  Maddock, Diana

  Trickett, Jon

  Mahon, Alice

  Turner, Dennis

  Mandelson, Peter

  Vaz, Keith

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Walley, Joan

  Meacher, Michael

  Wareing, Robert N

  Meale, Alan

  Watson, Mike

  Michael, Alun

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Milburn, Alan

  Wlliams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Winnick, David

  87

  Wise, Audrey

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wright Dr Tony

  Ms Janet Anderson and

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr. Joe Benton.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Dunn, Bob

  Alexander, Richard

  Dykes, Hugh

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Eggar, Fit Hon Tim

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Elletson, Harold

  Amess, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Ashby, David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evennett, David

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Faber, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Fabricant, Michael

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bates, Michael

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forth, Eric

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  Booth, Hartley

  Gallie, Phil

  Boswell, Tim

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bowis, John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorst, Sir John

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burns, Simon

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burt, Alistair

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butler, Peter

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Cash, William

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hendry, Charles

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Clappison, James

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Congdon, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

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

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Devlin, Tim

  Kellet-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dover, Den

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Duncan, Alan

  Knapman, Roger

  88

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

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

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Legg, Barry

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lidington, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Luff, Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spring, Richard

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sproat, Iain

  MacKay, Andrew

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  Madel, Sir David

  Stern, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Stewart, Allan

  Mans, Keith

  Streeter, Gary

  Marland, Paul

  Sumberg, David

  Marlow, Tony

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sykes, John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Merchant Piers

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mills, Iain

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thomason, Roy

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Thurnham, Peter

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tracey, Richard

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Trend, Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Trotter Neville

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walden, George

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Page, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Paice, James

  Ward, John

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pawsey, James

  Watts, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wells, Bowen

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Whitney, Ray

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Whittingdale, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Willetts, David

  Richards, Rod

  Wilshire, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wood, Timothy

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Mr. Derek Conway and

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Dr. Liam Fox.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 21

  BINDING NATURE OF PROVISIONS
  'The provisions of this Part have effect notwithstanding any agreement which seeks to set aside these provisions.'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  This is a simple clause, and it has been tabled with a sole purpose—to ensure that there is no risk of the provisions of the Bill being set aside or overridden by contractual agreements that would deny the intentions of Parliament.
  I am advised by people who follow closely matters in the construction industry that debate is already beginning among some parties about the possibility of framing contracts that would set aside the provisions of the legislation. That would be unacceptable, and I hope that the Minister can assure us that there is no way in which that can take place. If he cannot do so, I hope that he will accept new clause 21, but he may be able to short-circuit the process.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill and established case law already give statutory rights to parties to construction contracts, which they cannot agree to give away in advance. I think that that is the point that he is getting at. New clause 21 is therefore unnecessary.
  In any event, there is a problem with this new clause, because the position on rights after the event is rather different. I should like to give the hon. Member for Greenwich an example. Suppose that two contracting parties decide after a dispute arises that, in that case, it is not desirable to call in an adjudicator. Perhaps they recognise that the dispute concerns a point of law that is fundamental to the interpretation of the contract, and that it is sensible to take the dispute straight to court. There is no reason why they should not be allowed to make and rely on an agreement to that effect.
  I think that what the hon. Member for Greenwich is worried about is people signing away their rights in advance, and I can give him my assurance on that point.
  Mr. Chidgey: I am very pleased to hear the Minister's remarks, but I should like to have some further reassurances, if possible. I think that the Minister understands that it is often the case in construction contracts that the main contractor employs a host of smaller and often financially much weaker firms. Sadly, competition is currently fierce in the construction industry, and sub-contractors are extremely vulnerable to pressures to give away the rights that they would normally have under the contract. A very important point is that they can be protected under statute regardless of the financial pressures that might be placed on them to win projects to stay in business.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I can certainly assure the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on that, because clearly they would not be able to give away those rights.
  Mr. Raynsford: May I press the Minister on one simple point? I entirely accept that there will be cases in
  90
  which it is appropriate to avoid the adjudication procedure, because the issues simply require handling by a different arbitral procedure. However, it would be totally unacceptable if it were possible for parties to be bound in advance not to take up their opportunity and their right to an adjudication procedure.
  If the Minister can assure me that there will be no possibility of an agreement being reached in advance that will deny people the right to adjudication, but which will also allow them to decide in the event to set it aside if they wish to do so, I shall seek to withdraw the motion.
  Mr. Jones: I thought that that is exactly what I had said, first, at the start of the debate on this new clause to the hon. Member for Greenwich, and then, secondly, to the hon. Member for Eastleigh—but, for a third time, that is the position.
  Mr. Raynsford: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, and clause, by leave withdrawn.

New clause 22

  EXCEPTION OF PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE FROM ADJUDICATION
  'The adjudicator may not consider disputes relating solely to allegations of professional negligence.'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 23—Exemption from adjudication of professional negligence—
  'The adjudicator will not consider alleged matters of professional negligence.'.
  Mr. Raynsford: New clause 22 is concerned also with the remit of adjudication. Opinions have been expressed to us that it would be inappropriate for the adjudicator to become involved in matters relating to claims of professional negligence, partly because they would be outside the normal remit of adjudication, and partly because they would involve matters of legal complexity that would be difficult to resolve within the adjudication procedure.
  The parties that have been in touch with us on this matter have proposed wording which I see in the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). Our new clause 22 sought a rather tighter definition, simply to restrict disputes relating solely to allegations of professional negligence, recognising that professional negligence may arise in wider disputes that could well be appropriate for adjudication. I should be happy to hear the Minister's views on whether the adjudication procedure will normally exclude disputes that are related solely to matters of professional negligence.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I suspect that this matter arose because professionals were a little worried about judgments being made on their professional competence

  91
  by laymen. I think that much of that worry will have ceased in the move from permanently binding to temporarily binding adjudication.
  There seems to be almost a contradiction between these two new clauses. One matter that I certainly worry about with new clause 23 is that it might open a very big loophole, because, to avoid adjudication, one could simply couple it with allegations of professional negligence. I can see that becoming a great industry for those who want to destroy this legislation, and that is why I reject the Liberal "loophole charter".
  On the point made by the hon. Member for Greenwich, obviously it is right to take professional negligence into account in some cases, but if it were purely a matter of professional negligence, surely it should be pursued with the relevant profession.
  Mr. Chidgey: My main concern is that we should not broaden the Bill so that it includes matters that could make it cease to work properly and in the manner in which we want it to work. Disputes over professional negligence are extremely complicated and lengthy, and are usually a matter of law rather than of building practice. I should like to have some reassurance—the Minister may already have met me halfway on this issue—that the intention is not for matters of professional negligence to be a part of this process. I have no doubt that that would be the wrong road to take.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful for the Minister's response. I share his view that it would be inappropriate for complex matters relating solely to professional negligence to be considered under the adjudication procedure. For reasons that he will understand, in framing this new clause I took care to ensure that it did not open up the possibility of what he rightly identified as a "loophole", that could allow adjudication to be set aside. This issue concerns people in the industry. Hopefully, a problem will not arise, and the adjudication procedure will remain focused on the matters for which it is appropriate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, and clause, by leave withdrawn.

Clause 104

  CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 58, line 32, leave out from 'agreement' to end of line 33 and insert
  'with a person for any of the following—

  (a) the carrying out of construction operations;

  (b) arranging for the carrying out of construction operations by others, whether under sub-contract to him or otherwise;

  (c) providing his own labour, or the labour of others, for the carrying out of construction operations.

  (1A) References in this Part to a construction contract include an agreement—

  (a) to do architectural, design, or surveying work, or

  (b) to provide advice on building, engineering, interior or exterior decoration or on the laying-out of landscape,

  in relation to construction operations.
  92
  (1B) References in this Part to a construction contract do not include a contract of employment (within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996).
  (1C) The Secretary of State may by order add to, amend or repeal any of the provisions of subsection (1), (1A) or (1B) as to the agreements which are construction contracts for the purposes of this Part or are to be taken or not to be taken as included in references to such contracts.
  No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each of House of Parliament.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 75, 80, 81 and 101.
  Mr. Jones: Our aims here are merely to improve the clarity of the Bill's wording and, at the same time, to include non-professional design and consultancy work. That objective reflects the debate and undertakings in Committee, as well as the representations that we have received. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 75, in page 58, line 36, at end insert—
  'An agreement relates to construction operations so far as it makes provision of any kind within subsection (1) or (lA).'.—[Mr. Robert B. Jones.]
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I beg to move amendment No. 117, in page 58, line 40, at end insert—
  '(3A) This Part shall not apply to any—

  (a) joint venture or partnership agreement entered into for the purpose of carrying out construction operations for a third party;

  (b) loan agreement, mortgage, charge or debenture entered into for the purposes of financing construction operations; or

  (c) agreement which relates to construction operations and other matters where the consideration for the construction operations is included in—

  (i) any amount payable in respect of the grant or transfer of an interest in land made or agreed to be made under the agreement, or

  (ii) any amount payable in respect of the operation or management of the asset created by the carrying out of the construction operations;

  which could otherwise be construed as a construction contract.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 82 and 83.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: This amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who unfortunately has an inescapable parliamentary duty elsewhere in the Palace.
  I need not rehearse the arguments for this amendment to my hon. Friend the Minister. We have been struggling to find the right definition of construction contracts, and we have tried to move the boundary to here on one occasion and to extend it to there on another occasion. Despite the silent eloquence of my hon. Friend. I think that there are still many items that should not be in the Bill, and it would be agreeable that they should not be in it.

  93
  Amendment No. 117 seeks to ensure that loan agreements, development agreements, and lease and concession agreements under the private finance initiative, for example, should be excluded from the definition of construction contracts.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: First, perhaps I should say that Government amendment No. 82 is to block the so-called "penthouse" loophole. I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome that provision, although I do not think that the loophole was likely to arise.
  As for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) on amendment No. 117, of course our intention is not to catch matters that are not related to construction. We are considering ways in which we can help with the concerns expressed by him and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill).
  I must bear in mind, however—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet will understand—the need not to create loopholes in construction work that can be wriggled through. On that basis, perhaps he will accept the assurance that I should like to meet the substance of his concerns, but that I must have a very careful look to ensure that we are not creating some unintended consequence.
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Committee, although I had been active in promoting the idea of a construction contracts Bill for many months before it appeared. Since it has been produced, the one matter of concern to those involved in the many multifarious activities that come under the heading of contracts has been that the Bill should be related specifically to what those in the construction industry regard as construction contracts.
  Although I strongly support the two Government amendments grouped with amendment No. 117, and the clarification that the Minister has been able to offer, can he say whether the Government amendments meet the requirements of the Constructors Liaison Group, as that would be a great confidence booster for the industry.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 105

  MEANING OF "CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS"
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in page 59, line 4, leave out 'structures or any works' and insert 'or structures'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 77 to 79.
  No. 13, in page 59, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 36.
  No. 73, in page 59, leave out lines 37 to 44 and insert—
  `( ) manufacture or supply of:—

  (i) building or engineering components or equipment,

  (ii) materials, plant or machinery, or

  94

  (iii) components for systems of heating, lighting, air-conditioning, ventilation, power supply, drainage. sanitation, water supply or fire protection, or for security or communications systems,

  under contracts of sale, hire or lease.'.
  Mr. Jones: The amendments are intended to tidy up the maintenance amendment that was carried in Committee, including the undertakings given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). His amendments, which relate to the process engineering industry, go too far, and I would certainly not want them to be passed by the House.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am grateful to the Minister for tabling the Government amendments. I thank him for his decision to include maintenance in the definition of the industry, as we had a long debate on that subject. I also thank him for tabling amendments Nos. 78 and 79, which pick up minor points. I also thank him for Government amendment No. 74 on construction design, which again picked up points raised in debate.
  I am sorry that the Minister does not feel that he can include the process industries, as we had a long debate on the subject in Committee—we might even have voted on it had it not been for a technical hitch involving the amendment paper. I like to think that, had we had a vote, we might have been able to correct the matter.
  I can see no good reason why the process industries should be excluded. We rehearsed all the arguments, and the letters that I have received from Mr. Dunlop of the Process Industries Latham Group do not seem to have given any reasons. Mr. Dunlop says that, if things are left as they are, there could be confusion in the industry, so we should include it.
  There is no more reason to exclude the process industries than to exempt drivers who have never had an accident from obeying the highway code. This is a good Bill, and we should include all the industries that are relevant to construction, not leave out the process industries because they have largely been able to manage their affairs reasonably well in the past. There can be problems, and the industries would benefit from the legislation.
  I was disappointed that Mr. Dunlop said that he thought the legislation could harm the industries' operations. When I asked him to spell out in what way it might be harmful, he was unable to come up with any illustrations. We should have been able to include the process industries, and I am sorry that we are not able to go further.
  Amendment No. 73 deals with manufacture off site. As we discussed in Committee, it is a growing practice, which leads to greater efficiency within the industry. Bespoke items can be produced off site, where they can be produced as accurately as possible, under factory conditions, and lead to greater productivity on site.
  There is a danger in the Government's measure, although it is a great improvement on what we had before, and largely satisfies most requirements. There is a danger that it could result in the splitting of contracts so that the installation aspect is left out. My amendment is worded as it is so that the easily understood contracts covering the sale, hire and lease of goods would apply to those

  95
  components to which the Bill does not apply. Where we want the Bill's provisions to help the industry, it would be perfectly possible for it to do so under the terms set out in the amendment.
  I am grateful to the Constructors Liaison Group for its help in drawing up the amendment, but I am sorry that the Minister does not feel able to accept it. I hope that he will take on board the arguments involving the clause. I hope that any anxieties that we still feel will be allayed when we see the scheme of contracts.
  I thank the Minister for the help that he has given with the other amendments, and I hope that he will continue to give further consideration to amendments Nos. 13 and 73, which address valid points.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Raynsford: We welcome Government amendments Nos. 76 and 77, which build on the changes made in Committee, particularly including reference to maintenance works within the overall definition. We still remain a little doubtful about whether it was necessary to include the long illustrative list of works in the second part of amendment No. 77. It would have been neater simply to set out the principles in the Bill, without the illustrative examples. However, the Government have moved positively in response to our amendment, in the same way as they moved over the penthouse loophole to which the Minister referred in our earlier debate. We welcome those moves, and the inclusion of such provisions in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 77, in page 59, line 5, at end insert—
  `( ) construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, extension, demolition or dismantling of any works forming, or to form, part of the land, including (without prejudice to the foregoing) walls, roadworks, power-lines, telecommunication apparatus, aircraft runways, docks and harbours, railways, inland waterways, pipe-lines, reservoirs, water-mains, wells, sewers, industrial plant and installations for purposes of land drainage, coast protection or defence;'.
  No. 78, in page 59, line 11, after `(c)' insert 'external or'.
  No. 79, in page 59, line 17, at end insert maintenance or dismantling'.
  No. 80, in page 59, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 60.
  No. 81, in page 60, line 7, leave out (2) or (3)' and insert 'or (2)'.—[Mr. Robert B. Jones.]

Clause 106

  PROVISIONS NOT APPLICABLE TO CONTRACT WITH RESIDENTIAL OCCUPIER
  Amendments made: No. 82, in page 60, line 11, leave out from 'apply' to "'dwelling"' in line 15 and insert
  '—

  (a) to a construction contract with a residential occupier (see below), or

  (b) to any other description of construction contract excluded from the operation of this Part by order of the Secretary of State.

  (2) A construction contract with a residential occupier means a construction contract which principally relates to operations on a dwelling which one of the parties to the contract occupies, or intends to occupy, as his residence.
  In this subsection'.
  No. 83, in page 60, line 22, leave out 'such order' and insert 'order under this section'.—[Mr. Robert B. Jones.]

Clause 108

  RIGHT TO REFER DISPUTES TO ADJUDICATION
  Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 133, in page 61, line 5, after first 'under', insert 'or in connection with'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 84, in page 61, line 8, at end insert—
  '( ) enable a party to give notice at any time of his intention to refer a dispute to adjudication;'.
  Amendment (a) to amendment No. 84, leave out 'at any time' and insert
  'within the time period prescribed in the contract'.
  Amendment (b) to the amendment, after 'time', insert
  'within the period prescribed in the contract.'
  Government amendment No. 85.
  Government amendment No. 86, in page 61, line 13, at end insert—
  '( ) allow the adjudicator to extend the period of 28 days by up to 14 days, with the consent of the party by whom the dispute was referred;'.
  Amendment (a) to amendment No. 86, leave out '14' and insert '28'.
  Amendment (b) to the amendment, leave out from `days' to the end.
  Mr. Raynsford: Amendment No. 133 relates to a small point, but one that may have considerable significance. It simply seeks to insert the words "or in connection with" after the reference to construction contracts in clause 108.
  The technical issue that has prompted the amendment was raised by a barrister with considerable experience in construction matters, who regularly writes for one of the best-read magazines in the industry. He has written to me—he also wrote to the Minister—to express concern that the Bill's wording might leave a loophole. He said in his letter:
  "The reason is that the words 'arising under a contract' have been held by the Court of Appeal"—
  he quotes the case of Fillite Runcorn Ltd. v. Aqua-Lift in 1992—might be construed
  "to exclude jurisdiction for such matters as negligent misstatement and misrepresentation.
  'Arising under a contract' is not an all encompassing phrase."
  If there is a risk that the wording of the legislation is defective and it is necessary to include the words "or in connection with" in order to remedy that defect—as the barrister recommends—that is a modest change that will ensure that the purposes of Parliament are not frustrated. I hope that the Minister can give a response to the matter, as he has also received the letter to which I referred.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I distinctly remember the hon. Member for Greenwich beginning his speeches on this

  97
  part of the Bill in Committee by saying that he wanted to keep lawyers out of the matter, but he is now citing barristers in support of his argument.
  Amendment No. 133 would widen the scope of adjudication from disputes under the contract to disputes under or in connection with the contract, which would be a huge step. The adjudicator is appointed under the contract and must be guided by its terms. He cannot turn his attention to matters that are not covered by the contract or that are the subject of other contracts, even between the same parties. The amendment would give the adjudicator an horizon different from the one that has been subject to debate in the past few months, and we cannot even begin to consider such a change at this stage.
  Even if we could be persuaded that such a dramatic adjustment were necessary, it would be a major task to give him the new powers to tackle his new role. He would need statutory powers, and he might ultimately become almost an arbitrator. The industry is keen to avoid that, so I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich will think again.
  The hon. Gentleman should be happy with the Government amendments in the group, and I commend them to the House.
  Mr. Raynsford: The Minister said that he thought that we wished to keep lawyers out of the matter. We do wish to keep lawyers out of the matter—but once the legislation has been decided. At that stage, we want the adjudication procedure to be so smooth, swift and clearly advantageous that people will prefer it to the more time-consuming and expensive procedures of litigation. We certainly do not want to allow any opportunities for lawyers to get in on the act after the Bill has been enacted, but in the meantime we want to take the best advice.
  I hear what the Minister says about the possibility of widening disputes to an extent that would undermine adjudication. I am concerned, however, that loopholes may emerge if the concerns that have been expressed prove to be better founded than the Minister believes. If it transpires that the procedures simply cannot cope with a range of issues because of the Bill's technical definition, we shall have to reconsider the matter. Many issues arising from the Latham report have not been covered by the Bill and may need to be reconsidered by a future Government.
  Amendment (b) to Government amendment No. 84 deals with the time period for matters referred to adjudication. It has been brought to our attention that the wording of Government amendment No.84, which enables a party to give notice at any time of his intention to refer a dispute to adjudication, could be very open-ended—a fear that the Minister expressed in opposing amendment No. 133.
  For that reason, amendment (b) seeks to add the rider
  "within the period prescribed in the contract"
  to avoid any such open-ended commitment. Perhaps the Minister will see merit in that restriction, to ensure that we avoid loopholes in the legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 84, in page 61, line 8, at end insert—
  '( ) enable a party to give notice at any time of his intention to refer a dispute to adjudication;'.
  No. 85, in line 10, at end insert 'of such notice'.
  No. 86, in line 13, at end insert—
  '( ) allow the adjudicator to extend the period of 28 days by up to 14 days, with the consent of the party by whom the dispute was referred;'.
  No. 87, in line 16, at end insert—
  '(2A) The contract shall provide that the decision of the adjudicator is binding until the dispute is finally determined by legal proceedings, by arbitration (if the contract provides for arbitration or the parties otherwise agree to arbitration) or by agreement.
  The parties may agree to accept the decision of the adjudicator as finally determining the dispute.'.
  No. 88, in line 16, at end insert—
  '(2B) The contract shall also provide that the adjudicator is not liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of his functions as adjudicator unless the act or omission is in bad faith, and that any employee or agent of the adjudicator is similarly protected from liability.'.
  No. 89, in line 18, after '(2)' insert 'and (2A)'.
  No. 90, in line 18, after '(2)' insert 'and (2B)'.
  No. 91, in line 19, at end insert—
  '( ) For England and Wales, the Scheme may apply the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 with such adaptations and modifications as appear to the Minister making the scheme to be appropriate.
  For Scotland, the Scheme may include provision conferring powers on courts in relation to adjudication and provision relating to the enforcement of the adjudicator's decision.'.—[Mr. Brandreth]

Clause 109

  ENTITLEMENT TO STAGE PAYMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 92, in page 61, line 23, leave out from 'unless' to end of line 24.
  No. 93, in line 26, leave out '60' and insert '45'.
  No. 94, in line 28, leave out '60' and insert '45'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 110

  DATES FOR PAYMENT
  Amendments made: No. 95, in page 61, line 41, at end insert—
  '(1A) Every construction contract shall provide for the giving of notice by a party not later than five days after the date on which a payment becomes due from him under the contract, or would have become due if—

  (a) the other party had carried out his obligations under the contract, and

  (b) no set-off or abatement was permitted by reference to any sum claimed to be due under one or more other contracts,

  specifying the amount (if any) of the payment made or proposed to be made, and the basis on which that amount was calculated.'.
  No. 96, in page 62, line 1, after 'provision' insert
  'as is mentioned in subsection (1) or (1A)' —[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 111

  NOTICE OF INTENTION TO WITHHOLD PAYMENT
  Amendments made: No. 97, in page 62, line 3, leave out subsection (1).
  No. 98, in line 9, leave out from `due' to `under' in line 10.
  No. 99, in line 11, at end insert—
  'The notice mentioned in section 110(1A) may suffice as a notice of intention to withhold payment if it complies with the requirements of this section.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 113

  PROHIBITION OF CONDITIONAL PAYMENT PROVISIONS
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in page 63, line 3, leave out
  'which has the effect of'.
  The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the prohibition on the pay-when-paid system operates without disrupting the principal payment mechanisms used in the construction industry, of which the most important is certification.
  The concern that Sir Michael Latham was asked to address was where the payment chain was becoming so extended that small construction companies at the bottom of the chain were having to wait months for their money. They were doing so because of the pay-when-paid system, whereby payments made by a main contractor would await payment to it by its client, and the subcontractors would, in turn, not pay the next contractor in the chain until they had received payment—and so on down the contractual hierarchy. At each stage, payment had to arrive with the payer before he considered payment to the payee—possibly up to 30 days later.
  That was the abuse that Sir Michael Latham addressed. Effectively, it was about each contractor in the chain holding on to cash for as long as possible to receive the benefit of interest payments or to put the money to use elsewhere before making payments for work done. The intention of clause 113 is to prevent contractors from pursuing this practice. That is what the industry agreed to under the Latham process—specifically, clients, main contractors and subcontractors—and that is what the Government are now seeking to deliver.
  The amendment accepted by the Committee significantly changes the effect of the clause. It seeks to prevent any linkage between a subcontract and a main contract, which could have an impact on payment. That represents a considerable moving of the goalposts and significantly undermines the agreed industry position.
  The process of construction of a major project depends on a series of interlocking contracts. Ascertaining what payment becomes due is not as simple as the system to which we are all accustomed whereby payment is exchanged for goods received. Construction is a process. Sums due may be established by a number of mechanisms. For example, an architect or engineer may establish what work has been properly executed by the main contractor and his subcontractors and issue a certificate on the main contract, which triggers payment. That certification process not only serves to show what is due to the main contractor but will be the basis of valuation of the work done, and therefore the sums due to the subcontractors as well. This is the system that is regularly used in standard construction contracts.
  100
  There are other ways of establishing the need for payment. Sir Michael Latham recommended the milestone system, whereby payment is triggered when a professional adviser to a client reports that the work done by a contractor and his subcontractors passes an agreed milestone or benchmark.
  I draw out two points from those examples: first, that the certification or assessment procedure is central to the workings of many construction contracts and, secondly, that the work assessed under the main contract comprises not only that done by the main contractor and his work force, but that done by the subcontractors. The assessment process on the main contract values the package as a whole.
  The wording of clause 113 would disable the certification system. That would have very serious implications for construction contracts. It would invalidate one of the regularly used forms of subcontract—the JCT nominated form—that subcontractors have strongly advocated. I also want to make it completely clear that it is outside the industry consensus. It is not in keeping with what Latham recommended, and I am not even aware that it has ever been discussed by the industry. That is why I have proposed amendment No. 100 to restore clause 113 to its original purpose.
  Mr. Raynsford: This subject was debated at length in Committee. Some progress has been made and the Government are proposing a move that, in a number of respects, is retrograde.
  The clause as originally drafted dealt with contracts or terms that purported to make payment dependent on third-party action. That wording was clearly unsatisfactory and was amended in Committee. The clause now refers to provisions that have the "effect of making payment" dependent on a third party.
  That clearly is the purpose of the move to outlaw pay-when-paid clauses, which have been a huge problem to subcontractors and which have led to unacceptable practices. The move to get rid of pay-when-paid clauses was very much part of the Latham committee's recommendations.
  I hear what the Minister says about certification. He will know that, in Committee, with that point precisely in mind, we moved an amendment to ensure that nothing would cut across the normal procedures for certification. The Minister assured us that that was not necessary, so the amendment was not incorporated in the Bill. Now he says that the provision in the Bill will be hugely damaging and will cut across certification procedures.
  I am not convinced, but if the Minister is right he has a simple remedy to hand: to advise his colleagues in another place to accept the amendment that we tabled in Committee. That would make it clear that the outlawing of pay-when-paid provisions should not cut across certification procedures. The Minister, meanwhile, proposes severely to damage the effectiveness of the legislation when it comes to outlawing pay-when-paid provisions. That will be regarded with horror by most of the subcontractors, who will see the door being left open, once again, to unscrupulous contractors so to manipulate arrangements as to deny payments—on the tenuous basis of pay-when-paid clauses.

  101
  This is a very serious clause. I hope that the Minister will think again. If he does not, I trust that hon. Members will vote against the Government amendment.
  8 pm
  Mr. Thurnham: I am disappointed with the Government amendment. I felt that the Committee was right to change the original shape of the clause, which included the words "purporting to make payment". That was changed to
  "which has the effect of making payment".
  Now, the Government want to remove the words
  "which has the effect of".
  There seems to be a great deal of heat over five words, but they go to the heart of the Bill. We are discussing where the balance of risk should lie; whether with the small subcontractors, who have to pay for wages and materials irrespective of whether they receive payment from contractors above them in the chain, or whether with the larger contractors.
  I am sorry that the Government seem to have moved in favour of the larger contractors. The smaller ones are the weaker partners to the contract, so if the balance is to be tipped one way or the other, it should be towards the smaller subcontractors. The Minister has had the right balance in mind throughout the Bill's proceedings; that is what has made it such an excellent Bill. I am sorry that he has been unable to maintain the balance at this point.
  The constructors' liaison group has put out a parliamentary briefing headed "Just Five Words", because it feels so strongly about the issue. The Minister says that the Committee amendment undermines the agreed industry position, but I find that difficult to follow. Sir Michael Latham's report, "Constructing the Team", states in recommendation 8.10:
  "Clauses with the effect of introducing pay-when-paid conditions should be specifically declared unfair and invalid".
  That is exactly the point. It is why I feel so strongly that the words "the effect of should be retained.
  Since the publication of "Constructing the Team", the Government have continually stressed the necessity of prohibiting the pernicious pay-when-paid tactics adopted by many main contractors. The whole process of reforming payment procedures depends on a satisfactory resolution of such tactics.
  Ministers have consistently supported the line that pay-when-paid tactics must be ended. That was restated by the Minister in the Committee debates. It is therefore strange to find that the Government amendment would weaken the pay-when-paid prohibition. In the DTI publication, "Your Business Matters", the Government's policy on the banning of pay-when-paid clauses in construction contracts is once again restated, and it is clearly a cornerstone of Government policy. Such clauses transfer the risk of funding requirements for construction operations to the lowest level of construction contracts—the subcontractors. They are exposed to the greatest financial risk, through late or non-payment or insolvency. Incidentally, the insolvency waiver has already been agreed. They also make the greatest contribution to the funding capital required by a project.
  The effect is that smaller companies prop up the larger companies higher up the contractual chain. Clients are required to pay the costs of such bottom-up funding
  102
  through increased tender prices. It is by amending these processes that the savings sought in "Constructing the Team" will be achieved.
  The amendment seeks to delete the five words
  "which have the effect of',
  but that leaves the redrafted clause restrictive and limited to payment provisions only. It also makes it a simple matter for a determined main contractor to bypass the provisions. The Government amendment weakens the Bill and allows back-door tactics to defeat the objective of the clause; it also allows pay-when-paid provisions to be introduced through procedural links to head contracts.
  The Government amendment amounts to the pay-when-paid system under another guise. It would allow the creation of a payment dependence at one level on an event or procedure occurring at another level in the contractual chain. As such, it interferes with privity of contract and creates an unnecessary linkage, to the disadvantage of those lower in the contractual chain.
  Each construction contract needs to have a stand-alone payment procedure which is in no way linked with or dependent on activities occurring, or not occurring, in contracts above them. Any form of linkage to events in other contracts is a back-door pay-when-paid system. What has been allowed in the case of insolvency goes far enough, I believe, in terms of transferring risk.
  What are the Government's views on how the clause as drafted affects certification? The purpose of a certificate at main contract level is to indicate the amount due under that contract. When payment is due is a matter for the adequate mechanism, and these issues should not become linked or confused. Clause 113 does not inhibit or contradict the process of third-party certification in main or nominated contracts.
  Payment certificates issued under the industry standard contract are not linked to domestic subcontract payment conditions regarding the amount or timing of payments, and payment procedures are unlinked between contracts. The certification process in relation to payments is concerned with establishing the amount that is due. It operates on main contracts and only a small number of subcontracts. Establishing when payments are due has to be satisfied through the adequate mechanism. Nothing in the current draft of clause 113 affects the ability of the certifying process to work under existing contracts.
  It is not acceptable to dilute such a key provision. Certification relates to one commercial transaction, and the procedure should not apply down the contractual chain. At subcontract level, a totally different commercial transaction exists. The standard form of contract used by the industry confirms that normal practice is not to have any such linkages between contracts; and payment procedures at different contracting levels operate on totally separate payment cycles.
  The existing payment procedures at domestic subcontract level preserve the privity of contract arrangements, and clause 113 reinforces that. The Government amendment would interfere with the process and would offer the potential to interfere with established practice. The Government should therefore withdraw the amendment. If they persist with it and it is agreed to, I hope that the measure will be given a thorough examination in the other place.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: There is no question but that we want pay-when-paid clauses banned, and we have already

  103
  tilted the balance in favour of smaller companies—that is precisely where the shoe pinches, as my hon. Friend says. It was no part of Sir Michael Latham's proposals, or of the Government's, to outlaw certification. That would be absurd.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: rose—
  Mr. Jones: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has been particularly concerned about how the scheme payment procedures might work out in practice. They are what would be required to operate if a contractual payment mechanism was inadequate. Details are a matter for consultation once the Bill has received Royal Assent, but my hon. Friend has my complete assurance that we will not allow scheme procedures to be vulnerable to the sort of abuse that he has described.
  Mr. Nicholls: If the certification procedure were used as a way of avoiding what the Government intend, would the adjudicator be able to disapply the clause?
  Mr. Jones: The adjudicator would have to judge whether there was any relevant link between the two. If the certification procedure allowed money not to be paid because work had not been done, and the main contractor then blamed the subcontractor, the latter would be able to go to the adjudicator if he did not think that that was fair.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 246.

  Division No. 176]

  [8.09 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Alexander, Richard

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Burns, Simon

  Amess, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butler, Peter

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baldry, Tony

  Carttiss, Michael

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cash, William

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bates, Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Batiste, Spencer

  Churchill, Mr

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clappison, James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Body, Sir Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Congdon, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Conway, Derek

  Boswell, Tim

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bowis, John

  Couchman, James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Cran, James

  Brandreth, Gyles

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

  Brazier, Julian

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Day, Stephen

  104

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

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

  Devlin, Tim

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Laft, Mrs Jacqui

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Dover, Den

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Duncan, Alan

  Legg, Barry

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Leigh, Edward

  Dunn, Bob

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Lidington, David

  Elletson, Harold

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lord, Michael

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Luff, Peter

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Evennett, David

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Faber, David

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Madel, Sir David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Forth, Eric

  Malone, Gerald

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Mans, Keith

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Marland, Paul

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Marlow, Tony

  French, Douglas

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gale, Roger

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gallie, Phil

  Mates, Michael

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Garnier, Edward

  Merchant, Piers

  Gill, Christopher

  Mills, Iain

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Gorst, Sir John

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Norris, Steve

  Hannam, Sir John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Ottaway, Richard

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Page, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Paice, James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hayes, Jerry

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Heald, Oliver

  Pawsey, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hendry, Charles

  Pickles, Eric

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Horam, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Richards, Rod

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jack, Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  King, Fit Hon Tom

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  105

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Tredinnick, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Trend, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Trotter, Neville

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Viggers, Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Spring, Richard

  Walden, George

  Sproat, Iain

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Waller, Gary

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Ward, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stephen, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stern, Michael

  Watts, John

  Stewart, Allan

  Wells, Bowen

  Streeter, Gary

  Whitney, Ray

  Sumberg, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sykes, John

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thomason, Roy

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Mr. Roger Knapman and

  Tracey, Richard

  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clelland, David

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ainger, Nick

  Coffey, Ann

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cohen, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Connarty, Michael

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Corston, Jean

  Ashton, Joe

  Cousins, Jim

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cummings, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Battle, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bayley, Hugh

  Darling, Alistair

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Davidson, Ian

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

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

  Bell, Stuart

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

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Denham, John

  Benton, Joe

  Dewar, Donald

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dixon, Don

  Berry, Roger

  Dobson, Frank

  Betts, Clive

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Blunkett, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Boateng, Paul

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bradley, Keith

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Eastham, Ken

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Etherington, Bill

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

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Byers, Stephen

  Faulds, Andrew

  Caborn, Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Callaghan, Jim

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Fraser, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fyfe, Maria

  Cann, Jamie

  Galloway, George

  Chidgey, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Garrett, John

  Church, Judith

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clapham, Michael

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  106

  Gordon, Mildred

  Miller, Andrew

  Graham, Thomas

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gunnell, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Hall, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hanson, David

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Heppell, John

  Mudie, George

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hinchliffe, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Hodge, Margaret

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hoey, Kate

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hood, Jimmy

  Olner, Bill

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Neill, Martin

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

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Parry, Robert

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Simon (Southward)

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Hutton, John

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Illsley, Eric

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Ingram, Adam

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jamieson, David

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Janner, Greville

  Randall, Stuart

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rogers, Allan

  Keen, Alan

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

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

  Rowlands, Ted

  Khabra, Piara S

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lewis, Terry

  Short, Clare

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Skinner, Dennis

  Litherland, Robert

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Livingstone, Ken

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

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Soley, Clive

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Spearing, Nigel

  McAllion, John

  Spellar, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McCartney, Ian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Macdonald, Calum

  Stevenson, George

  McKelvey, William

  Stott, Roger

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McLeish, Henry

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McMaster, Gordon

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  MacShane, Denis

  Thurnham, Peter

  McWilliam, John

  Timms, Stephen

  Madden, Max

  Tipping, Paddy

  Maddock, Diana

  Touhig, Don

  Mahon, Alice

  Trickett, Jon

  Mandelson, Peter

  Turner, Dennis

  Marek, Dr John

  Vaz, Keith

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Walley, Joan

  Meacher, Michael

  Wareing, Robert N

  Meale, Alan

  Watson, Mike

  Michael, Alun

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Milburn, Alan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  107

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Winnick, David

  Wise, Audrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mr. Peter Hain and

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 120

  REGISTRATION
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 67, line 11, leave out 'such' and insert
  'the bodies representative of architects which are incorporated by royal charter and such other'.
  The Bill, as it stands, requires the board to consult professional and educational bodies as it thinks appropriate. We believe that it would be unreasonable for the board to fail to consult the Royal Institute of British Architects—the professional organisation to which 70 per cent. of architects belong.
  The amendment requires the board to consult the Royal Institute of British Architects and its equivalents in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. The obligation to consult the chartered bodies implies a duty to have due regard to their views. As hon. Members will be aware, the Royal Institute of British Architects is the main body responsible for the education of architects and, therefore, it is entirely appropriate that its views should be taken into account.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: As with all the amendments in relation to architects in this part of the Bill, the Labour party is happy to accept the amendment. We believe that other bodies should be consulted.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 121

  DISCIPLINE
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 69, line 1, after `(b)' insert 'serious'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 64 to 71.
  Mr. Clappison: The amendment deals with disciplinary procedures for architects. The Bill creates the new offence of professional incompetence and we believe that it is appropriate to add the word "serious" because we wish to protect the profession from trivial and vexatious allegations. We know that the profession is concerned about this. We believe that the amendment will afford that protection and, at the same time, not undermine the benefit of increased consumer protection. We believe that the word "serious" fits the bill.
  Mr. Vaz: I am delighted that the Government have accepted the spirit, if not the letter, of the amendments that were put forward in Committee. Although the Minister has not gone all the way and accepted both the words that we wished to insert, he has gone half way, and we are happy to accept the amendment.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I declare a possible interest: I am a registered and chartered architect, but I have not
  108
  practised for years and, therefore, I have no financial interest. I have no objection to Government amendment No. 63 or to the allied amendments. However, as I said in Committee, if an allegation is made against a member of the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom or the Royal Institute of British Architects, a prima facie case has to be established before the case is taken forward—in other words, the allegation is investigated. At that stage, the committee would decide that there was no case to answer, unless there was a serious case of professional incompetence. The word "serious" will be added to the Bill, but there will be arguments about what it means. I believe that there is no need for the amendment, but I will go along with it as we seek consensus on this matter.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 64, in page 69, line 12, after 'or' insert 'serious'.
  No. 65, in page 69, line 15, after 'or' insert 'serious'.
  No. 66, in page 69, line 28, at end insert 'serious'.
  No. 67, in page 69, line 36, at end insert 'serious'.
  No. 68, in page 70, line 7, after 'of insert 'serious'.
  No. 69, in page 70, line 15, at end insert `serious'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 122
  CODE OF PRACTICE
  Amendment made: No. 70, in page 71. line 38, after `or' insert 'serious'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
Clause 123

  OFFENCE OF PRACTISING WHILE NOT REGISTERED
  Mr. Vaz: I beg to move amendment No. 136, in page 72, line 8, at end insert—
  '( 1B) Subject to the provisions of this Act a person who (whether expressly or by implication) takes or uses any name, title, addition or description falsely implying that he is a registered architect in the course of business is guilty of an offence.'. As hon. Members know, part III of the Bill deals with architects and with registration. Judging by the way in which the debate went during the Committee stage and by the speed at which we are going through the Report stage, this would be a model for the registration and the formalisation of other professions should they ever be the subject of a debate in the House.
  I have omitted to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman). It is rare to have an architect in the House. He kept the Committee amused and entertained with his knowledge of architecture, even though he has not practised for some time.
  The amendment seeks to repair a serious omission in the Architects Registration Act 1938. The defect has had, and continues to have, adverse consumer implications. Clause 1 of the 1938 Act specifically makes it an offence to practise or to carry on the business of an architect under any name, style or title containing the word "architect" unless the person concerned is a registered architect. However, the clause as currently drafted does not cover the frequent practice of people implying that they are an architect, while being careful not to use that title. The courts have held that unless the word "architect" is

  109
  specifically used, the imposter—the person who claims to be an architect but who is not—can walk free, which violates the spirit and the letter of the 1938 Act.
  The consumer of architectural services is at risk and the public is being misled. There is no monopoly of architectural services in Britain and all design work is open to competition—and rightly so—but the title "architect" is protected. However, unless the amendment or something similar to it is tabled, the limited consumer protection offered by the 1938 Act will have no effect. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. If he cannot accept it, will he at least give hon. Members an assurance that when the matter goes to the other place his colleagues will look at it again and ensure that the spirit of what we want is incorporated?
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) for his kind and generous remarks. I have a great deal of sympathy with amendment No. 136. As the hon. Gentleman said, architects do not have a design monopoly: anyone can call himself a building designer or an architectural designer. That is perfectly legal. In short, anyone can design a building—obviously prudent people will go to a registered or a chartered architect for building design work.
  There has been considerable abuse of the system. For example, people can advertise openly as architects but spell the word "arkitects" and nothing can be done about it. I hope that my hon. Friend is minded to accept the amendment. If he is not, I must tell him that I shall not vote on the amendment because, in my humble opinion, it could be viewed as pleading on my own behalf as the measure might benefit me in the future—although I may never go back to the drawing board, as they say. In those circumstances, I think it appropriate not to vote on the matter.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Clappison: This has been an interesting but brief debate. I join the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman). I share the sentiment that he expressed that it will be a long time before he is required to go back to the drawing board—if that ever happens.
  I join my hon. Friend also in expressing some sympathy with the intention of the amendment. I understand the hon. Gentleman's analysis and the concern that he expressed. He knows—I think it is common ground—that an important aim of the legislation is to protect the public and I understand his desire to increase protection against possible misrepresentation. There will always be unqualified persons who would like to pass themselves off as architects by using similar titles or designations.
  The amendment, as drafted, partly duplicates what is already on the face of the existing Architects Registration Act 1938. It is an offence for a person to describe himself as an architect in the course of business if his name does not appear on the register of architects. However, the amendment's intention of expanding the scope of the protection of title to include anyone who implies falsely that he is a registered architect is clear.
  110
  At first, that might appear to be a sensible suggestion. However, there are serious drawbacks that we must consider and that lead us to conclude that it would not be right to accept the amendment. It would introduce a grey area concerning what title is being protected and whether it is necessary to prove an intention to mislead. As hon. Members will know, a number of perfectly legitimate designations are currently used by other construction professionals—for example, architectural technicians and technologists. I am sure that Labour Members would not expect them to be covered by the amendment.
  Other designations are less clear-cut. What about "architectural consultants", "architectural designers" and those who provide "architectural services"? Some might try to give the false impression that they are registered architects. However—I remind hon. Members that we are talking about designations as the function of an architect is not protected—most will continue to provide perfectly legitimate services in the general field of architecture and no one will be misled as to their status. It is not in the public interest to weaken the distinction between those sorts of designations and the title "architect"; nor would it be fair to prevent persons from using designations that describe accurately the work that they carry out legitimately.
  For those reasons, expansion of protection of title was never part of the package of reforms that the Government, the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Architects Registration Council agreed upon—nor was it the subject of the consultation that the Government conducted subsequently. It would be unreasonable to introduce any change in the scope of protection of title without fully consulting all those who might be affected. I do not believe that such an exercise would ultimately serve the interests of either registered architects or the general public.
  It is fundamentally important that the public should be given as precise and clear a definition as possible as to who is registered and who is not. The architects registration Acts achieve that by requiring that any person using the title "architect" in the course of his or her business must be registered. That is a simple and easy-to-understand definition and does not allow any room for confusion or misinterpretation. The Government wish to retain it.
  I hope that I have persuaded the hon. Gentleman that any expansion of protection of title is not a straightforward matter and that it could create as many problems as it solves. I understand his concerns and those of my hon. Friend, but I do not believe that it is appropriate for the amendment to become part of the Bill. Therefore, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
  Mr. Vaz: I have listened carefully to the Minister's comments—neither he nor I were architects in our previous lives. However, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) was, and the profession is concerned that the legislation does not cover the serious points that he raised. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to consult the Royal Institute of British Architects before the Bill goes to the other place to see whether an acceptable form of words may be inserted. On that basis, I shall not press the amendment to a vote.
  Amendment negatived.

Schedule 2
  ARCHITECTS
  Amendment made: No. 71, in page 95, line 42, after 'or' insert `serious'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
New clause 18

  REGENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT: WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
  '.—(1) In the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975, after section 10 insert—
  "Financial assistance for regeneration and development
  10A.—(1) The Secretary of State may appoint the Agency to act as his agent in connection with such of his functions mentioned in subsection (2) below as he may specify.
  (2) The functions are—

  (a) functions under sections 126 to 128 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (financial assistance for regeneration and development), so far as they relate to—

  (i) financial assistance which the Agency has power to give apart from this section; or

  (ii) financial assistance given under that Act in pursuance of an agreement entered into by the Secretary of State for Wales before the coming into force of this section, or

  (b) functions of the Secretary of State in relation to financial assistance given by the Secretary of State for Wales under sections 27 to 29 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986.

  (3) An appointment under this section shall be on such terms as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may specify; and the Agency shall act under the appointment in accordance with those terms.
  (4) The Agency's powers in relation to functions under an appointment under this section include the powers it has in relation to functions under subsection (3) of section I by virtue of subsections (6) and (7) of that section."
  (2) In section 2(8) of that Act, after "declared that" insert ", except as provided by section 10A below,".'.—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 118.
  Mr. Jones: New clause 18 allows my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to appoint the Welsh Development Agency to act as his agent in connection, first, with his functions relating to regeneration and development under clauses 126 to 128 of the present Bill where those functions fall within the agency's powers; and, secondly, in connection with the administration of financial assistance for urban investment grant agreements entered into under sections 27 to 29 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986. The effect of amendment No. 118 is that the new clause will come into force the usual two months after Royal Assent.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 133

  RELOCATION GRANTS: AMOUNT
  Mr. Chris Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 77, line 11, after 'dwelling', insert
  'and making any improvement, having regard to the size of the applicant's household, including any person living with him or intending to live with him and any person on whom he is dependent or who is dependent on him'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Amendment No. 139, in page 77, line 11, after 'dwelling', insert
  'and making any improvement or undertaking any work that may be reasonably required, having regard to the size of the applicant's household, including any person living with him or intending to live with him and any person on whom he is dependent or who is dependent on him.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 115 and 116.
  Amendment No. 10, in page 77, line 34, at end insert—
  ' "improvement" includes alteration and enlargement;'.
  Mr. Davies: The amendment aims to widen the scope of the useful relocation grants so that consideration may be given not only to the purchase price of property but to its improvement, and particularly to its enlargement, in particular circumstances.
  I shall illustrate that for the House by referring to the hypothetical case of a northern city in which there is a clearance area that consists largely of older terraced homes, which perhaps suffer from subsidence, which are occupied mainly by Asian householders whose families are larger than average. Those families wish to stay in the area, but the properties surrounding the clearance area are not big enough to accommodate their needs.
  Local authorities face real difficulties in such circumstances as they may not be able to find alternative housing for residents. The result may be that a few families remain in a clearance area for longer than might be expected, living virtually alone in an otherwise derelict street. That is not good for the local authority, whose clearance programme is delayed, and it is not good for the families affected.
  I raised the matter with the Minister in Committee with a similarly worded amendment. At the time, the Minister said that repair grants provided an alternative that might meet the target. However, in practice, given the limitations on the budgets allocated to them and the size of the grant that may be allocated, repair grants could not meet the costs involved with enlarging a terraced property or some other large property around the clearance area so as to accommodate the needs of a large family.
  I believe that the amendment is a useful extension to a generally welcome principle. I hope that the Minister has considered the matter since we discussed it in Committee and that he will look upon it favourably.
  Mr. Clappison: We turn now to the subject of relocation grants. They are a new form of grant which are widely welcome and which will assist many people whose homes have been cleared. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth has rehearsed some of my arguments. As he said, we discussed the matter fairly fully in Committee. We said then why such amendments were unnecessary and undesirable.

  113
  It is undesirable to confuse the purpose of relocation grants by extending them to cover work such as improvements, alteration and enlargement, which are quite different. We propose to prescribe in regulations that dwellings qualifying for relocation grants should be of suitable size, type and condition to meet the reasonable needs of the grant applicant and that authorities should decide such questions. To the extent that an authority is sympathetic to the idea of someone buying a property that needs works of improvement and so forth to make it suitable, the proper recourse, having regard to the available resources and the authority's priorities, would be, as the hon. Gentleman anticipated, for it to consider giving an appropriate renovation grant. It would need to consider whether the works warranted one and, if so, it would need to be able to give people a commitment in principle to giving them an appropriate renovation grant soon after purchase. The authority would also need to exercise its discretion under clause 10(3) to waive the three-year qualifying period for renovation grants.
  On amendments Nos. 115 and 116, although we do not support the amendments to paragraph (a) of clause 133(5), we have noticed a problem with the wording of paragraph (b) which we wish to correct to ensure that grant is not paid to acquire an unnecessarily expensive property. Our intention was to base the cost of acquisition on the lower of the actual cost or the amount that the local authority considered to be the reasonable cost of acquiring a comparable property in the same area. As currently worded, however, the provision refers to the cost of acquiring a property of the same sort, which might be interpreted rather narrowly. Amendment No. 113 corrects that and will ensure that all the factors that affect market value, such as age, condition, size and character, are taken into account in determining the reasonable cost.
  Finally, amendment No. 160 enables the regulations governing the means test for relocation grants to make provision for authorities to check the information provided by grant applicants by requiring information or evidence from prescribed persons. This is to bring the powers into line with those for renovation grants in clause 30. On that basis, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. Davies: I am sorry that the Minister has not used the time since Committee to come to a different view. I remain unconvinced by his arguments. My case has merits and I suspect that it will be taken up by the local government associations in their discussions with the Department of the Environment in the months and years to come. These useful relocation grants may be adapted by one of his successors to accommodate my points. Until then, and in that hope, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 115, in page 77, line 13, leave out
  `in the same area a dwelling of the same type'
  and insert
  `a comparable dwelling in the same area'.
  No. 116, in page 77, line 33, at end insert—
  `(8A) Regulations may make provision requiring any information or evidence needed for the determination of any matter under this section to be furnished by such person as may be prescribed.'—[Mr. Brandreth.]

New clause 19

  EXISTING HOUSING GRANTS: MEANING OF EXEMPT DISPOSAL
  '.—(1) Section 124 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (relevant and exempt disposals for purposes of housing grants) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (3) (exempt disposals), for paragraph (c) substitute—
  "(c) a disposal of the whole of the dwelling in pursuance of any such order as is mentioned in subsection (4A) below;".
  After subsection (4) insert—
  "(4A) The orders referred to in subsection (3)(c) above are orders under—

  (a) section 24 or 24A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (property adjustment orders or orders for the sale of property in connection with matrimonial proceedings),

  (b) section 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (orders as to financial provision to be made from estate),

  (c) section 17 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders or orders for the sale of property after overseas divorce, &c.), or

  (d) paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents);".'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 6

  HOME ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCHEME (No. 1)
  '. In section 15 of the Social Security Act 1990 (grants for the improvement of energy efficiency in certain dwellings, &c.) for subsection (3)(a) substitute—
  "(a) may, subject to subsections (IA) and (1B), specify or make provision for determining the amount or maximum amount of any grant under this section; and".'.—[Mrs. Maddock.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  8.45 pm
  Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 9—Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (No. 2)—
  '. In section 15 of the Social Security Act 1990 (grants for the improvement of energy efficiency in certain dwellings, &c.) for subsection (2)(c) substitute—
  "(c) the descriptions of person from whom an application for a grant under subsection (1)(a) or (b) above may be entertained additional to those specified in subsection (1A);".'.
  New clause 15—Availability of funds for grants—
  `( ).—In section 15 of the Social Security Act 1990 (grants for the improvement of energy efficiency in certain dwellings, &c.) add new subsection (1B)—
  "(1B) Each year the Secretary of State shall publish his estimate of the expected number of qualifying grant applications under this section over the next 12 months and of the likely cost of the work, based on demand in previous years and on reports produced by local authorities under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, and he shall ensure that

  115
  sufficient resources are available that this amount of work can be carried out within 12 months of the application or as soon after as is reasonably practicable.".'.
  New clause 17—Persons entitled to full grant—
  '. In section 15 of the Social Security Act 1990 (grants for the improvement of energy efficiency in certain dwellings, &c.) after subsection (1) insert the following subsection—
  "(1A) Persons who shall be automatically entitled to a grant in value worth 100% of any maximum amount specified under subsection (3)(a) below for the purpose of this section shall include—

  (a) all persons aged 60 years or over; and

  (b)all persons in receipt of—

  (i)family credit,

  (ii)council tax benefit,

  (iii)housing benefit,

  (iv)disability living allowance,

  (v)disability working allowance,

  (vi)income support,

  (vii)industrial injuries disablement benefit,

  (viii)jobseeker's allowance, or

  (ix)war disablement pension.".'.

  Amendment No. 113, in clause 140, page 81, line 22, after 'domestic', insert 'heating'.
  Mrs. Maddock: Hon. Members know that energy conservation is a subject close to my heart. Many hon. Members accept that it makes environmental sense and sense for the health of individuals and families. That is why I proposed the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 and the new clause.
  The background to the matter is the changes that were made last year to home energy efficiency grants. I and many other hon. Members have been photographed helping engineers installing insulation measures. I was photographed with two of my constituents, an elderly couple who benefit substantially from such work. Hon. Members who escaped that cannot have escaped the anger of constituents and other groups, such as Age Concern and Neighbourhood Energy Action, at the Chancellor's cuts in the home energy efficiency scheme in last year's Budget.
  Earlier in the year, many people had been pleased when the Paymaster General said in January 1995 that the scheme would receive £100 million a year over the next three years. The Minister reiterated that commitment soon afterwards. However, in December last year, the Chancellor slashed the budget by almost a third—£31 million. Many Conservative Members—though few are here tonight—have joined with other parties to criticise that unjustifiable cut which was a blatant breech of a promise.
  Fifteen Conservative Members signed early-day motions 470 and 702, both of which could reasonably be interpreted as calling on the Government to reverse the cuts. That is not surprising because not only would 200,000 fewer homes be insulated but Neighbourhood Energy Action, which deals with the scheme, estimated that 1,000 jobs would be lost in the small insulation industry. Many of us received letters on the matter. In addition, it reckoned that 500 jobs would be lost in manufacturing and retailing. On the usual assumption that each lost job costs the Exchequer £9,000 in lost tax revenue and benefit paid out, this will lose the Government £13.5 million of the saving, apart from the health and environmental consequences.
  116
  It would be nice to reverse the cuts, but unfortunately the amendments that I tabled on that were not selected. However, the amendments that I have tabled to deal with the problems of pensioners to ensure that they will get 100 per cent. grants and that we have a reasonably sustainable way of ensuring that the grants go on from year to year were selected.
  Many hon. Members were lobbied by people who work in the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) had a letter soon after the cuts from a company based in Poole which operates HEES in Devon. It was in no doubt about the cuts' effects. The points made by its managing director are pertinent. He was especially scathing about the decision to remove the entitlement to full HEES grants for people over the age of 60 who were not in receipt of means-tested benefit. In the area where he was operating, it meant that more than 90 per cent. of his company's HEES work was for people in that category. He maintains that such people were not wealthy but were being penalised for having small amounts of life-earned savings. He wrote:
  "Many people we see day in, day out are living on the breadline and without comforts such as insulation and draughtproofing and can suffer from hypothermia, illness and misery. The HEES grant enables us to provide them with valuable energy advice and refer them to caring organisations if further help is needed. This service is now to be taken away from thousands of needy householders who already are struggling with paying fuel bills with the addition of VAT."
  Of course, the Government removed entitlement to pensioners who now get only 25 per cent. of the cost of insulation work on their homes. Ministers have made several claims about the cuts that deserve to be challenged. Firstly, they claim that their initial decision to extend eligibility for HEES to all pensioner households and to increase the scheme's budget to £100 million were linked to the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. As the second stage of VAT was defeated, there was no case for continuing with the concessions. Let us consider those claims in turn.
  The extended eligibility for HEES was introduced with the first phase of VAT on home fuel and was at no point linked to increasing that to 17.5 per cent. Now the Government argue that that was the case, but that argument does not hold water. Pensioners throughout the country are suffering from the current 8 per cent. VAT levy yet, for the reasons that I have outlined, they have special heating needs and deserve special treatment.
  The argument that the cut in funding is the result of the rejection of VAT stage 2 is even more spurious. The Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed that after stage 2 of VAT on fuel had been defeated, he would not claw back the Treasury's £30 million. Indeed, he made a virtue of that. The cut cannot be blamed on the failure of the House to accept the Government's proposal for the full rate of VAT to be levied on domestic fuel.
  Ministers have tried to claim that cutting pensioner eligibility to 25 per cent. of the level of grants will not significantly affect take-up. The availability of evidence goes against that assertion. Neighbourhood Energy Action states that in its experience grants would need to be about 70 per cent. to stimulate take-up by elderly people. But the Minister of State has said that lower-income households will be protected from the cuts. He is on record as claiming that the total number of home energy efficiency scheme jobs this year may exceed that of last year.

  117
  The two assertions appear to be rather contradictory. If we were to exceed the 600,000 jobs which were undertaken last year, given the financial resources available to the companies concerned, that would require about half of the work to be done for people receiving only 25 per cent. of grant. Apart from the fact that that is unrealistic, only slightly more than 300,000 jobs would be carried out for low-income households. That would represent a cut of about 1,000 a quarter when compared with the jobs carried out last year. That can hardly be described as protection.
  New clauses 17 and 19 would have the effect of re-entitling all people over the age of 60 years to 100 per cent. grants for improving the energy efficiency of their homes up to the standard of Government maximums for all eligible people. The list of entitling benefits would ensure that everyone currently included in the scheme would continue to be included.
  Given the background that I have set out, we have long waiting lists for the HEES. The new clauses and amendment are designed to deal with that. The cut has exposed huge demand for the scheme. Ministers guaranteed—they could not have done otherwise—that all claimants over the age of 60 years registering for the scheme before April would retain entitlement to 100 per cent. grant aid, even if they were not on means-tested benefit. That led to huge demand in the early months of the year.
  There is now a waiting list of 372,000 households. It is expected that well over half the HEES work done this year will be for applicants who do not meet the new criteria. That has been a good thing in some respects. Many of us encouraged our elderly constituents to take up grants before 31 March. At the same time, however, there will be considerable delays, which will continue.
  Neighbourhood Energy Action is extremely concerned about delays. In its view, there is urgent need for transitional funding to restore the scheme's budget, to reduce delays and to avoid an undermining of public confidence, which is extremely important.
  New clause 15 would tackle the waiting list by placing a duty on the Secretary of State to estimate annually the number of qualifying applications for HEES grants expected over the next 12 months. The obvious basis on which to make such an estimate would be the number of successful applications in previous years. The new clause would oblige the Secretary of State to estimate the likely cost of the work over the year. That could be largely undertaken on the basis of the previous year's figures along with the information that is being gathered from local authorities under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995.
  The Secretary of State would be obliged to ensure that sufficient resources were available so that the expected level of demand could be met and that no one would have to wait for more than 12 months. I accept that much depends on the success of new clause 17.
  Amendment No. 13 relates to domestic appliances. It would have the effect of clarifying the prevention of waste of energy in the use of domestic appliances in terms of the legitimate use of HEES grants. I am aware of the amendment that was tabled in Committee. The purpose behind amendment No. 113 is to ensure that only domestic heating appliances would be considered. There
  118
  will always be a limited budget and there will always be problems in targeting HEES moneys in the most effective ways to conserve energy.
  I have been told by representatives of the energy conservation industry that they are concerned that domestic appliances will be taken to include non-heating appliances such as refrigerators. There is some capacity for energy savings in that area but such appliances would not represent an effective use of the limited funds that are currently available.
  If the Minister is not willing to accept the amendment—given the limited resources, it is sensible—I hope that he will at least put on record the official Government interpretation of the phrase "domestic appliance" for future reference.
  I am conscious of the late hour. I am not quite as fast as the Minister in getting through notes. I hope, however, that the House will bear with me. I intend to push for a Division on new clause 9, which is designed to deal with pensioners. I think that there is a great deal of support for it.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: This group of new clauses and an amendment might be described as a modest little number. It is designed to scrap cash limits, to wreck other energy-efficiency programmes and to ban the technology that might serve poor people best. It is not surprising, therefore, that I have come to the conclusion that the new clauses and amendment, taken together, are not a good idea.
  The proposed new clauses and amendment would require an open-ended funding commitment to home energy efficiency schemes so that, regardless of demand, all applications for grant would be dealt with in a year, or as soon as reasonably practicable afterwards. That unlimited allocation would be based on a published annual assessment of estimated demand and cost, based on previous years' experience and local authorities' assessments drawn from their Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 reports.
  We already have a published allocation of expenditure in the form of the Department's annual review. Of course, I hope, and expect, that local housing authorities, as energy conservation authorities, will take full account of the availability of grants such as those available under HEES in drawing up their reports under the 1995 Act. They will be an additional and useful tool in assessing the likely demand for grants and setting budgets. However, the allocations to particular programmes cannot be driven by such reports, as the new clauses require.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) referred to the backlog that has arisen from our commitment, as simple equity required, to honour at the old rates all grant applications made before the recent change in the rules, which introduced contributions from better-off claimants. Given that 372,000 people pre-registered their interest in having a grant by 1 April, the reduction of the waiting list is a matter of simple mathematics. By the end of June over 140,000 grants had been paid, which is a commendable performance. About 27 per cent. of these grants were paid to people on the pre-registration list.
  After three months of working through the transitional effects of the recent changes, experience clearly shows that low-income households are not being disadvantaged. Those involved in administering and delivering the scheme are doing an excellent job in dealing fairly with

  119
  all claimants for grants. As the number of pre-registrations held centrally diminishes, the proportion of grants paid to claimants referred to the scheme through the conventional local channels will increase, helping installers to plan their work even more efficiently and thus reducing waiting times to a minimum.
  I understand the hon. Lady's desire to look for a quick-fix solution to the present queues for grants, but her new clause would not be helpful. The lack of a cash limit to the scheme would make it almost impossible to plan the allocations to regions and to individual installation companies, which would in turn suffer uncertainty about the investment, training and employment needed for grant schemes. Without the discipline of a fixed budget, the incentives to achieve efficiency gains disappear and costs would inevitably rise. Outside the scheme, the realities of Government finance mean that other equally worthy programmes, many with a strong social dimension, would suffer as their budgets were raided to support unchecked demand in the home energy efficiency scheme. That would not be a good solution to the problem.
  The hon. Lady asked about amendment No. 113. It might be helpful if I explain why the clause contains the provision on appliances. We looked carefully at measures that have the potential to give greater benefits to households that are in most need of help, and best overall value for money. We concluded that better domestic heating systems are important, but the existing power does not contain provision for tackling waste of energy in the heating of dwellings. There is some doubt about whether the power is sufficient to permit expenditure on replacing or supplementing elements within a system already installed, by, for example, substituting a more efficient boiler or adding an electronic hot water and heating control system. The phrase "domestic appliances" does not cover plug-in devices such as television sets and vacuum cleaners. Although there is scope for significant gains in energy efficiency in such devices, there are other ways of doing that, such as better labelling.
  The hon. Lady has not made a good case for her amendments, and I ask the House to reject them.
  Mrs. Maddock: I thank the Minister for his comments on amendment No. 113, but I am disappointed, as I understand that the Government are about to make a statement on the connection between good health and various environmental matters. Yet today we have seen just how shallow that commitment is. These amendments would definitely help to ensure that people do not suffer from diseases that are brought about by homes that are inadequately heated and damp. The Government had an opportunity to prevent that today. Indeed, they had an opportunity to restore rights to pensioners.
  The Minister expressed his view, but it does not accord with that of many of the organisations involved in these matters outside, which will be as disappointed as the pensioners and I that the mean-minded move that was made last year will continue. When you consider the huge budget of £31 million, it is nothing but mean spirited. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 9

  HOME ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCHEME (No. 2)
  ' In section 15 of the Social Security Act 1990 (grants for the improvement of energy efficiency in certain dwellings, &c.) for subsection (2)(c) substitute—
  "(c) the descriptions of person from whom an application for a grant under subsection (1)(a) or (b) above may be entertained additional to those specified in subsection (1A);".'.—[Mrs. Maddock.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 273.

  Division No. 177]

  [9.01 am

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Macdonald, Calum

  Anger, Nick

  McKelvey, William

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Bennett, Andrew F

  MacShane, Denis

  Betts, Clive

  Madden, Max

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Maddock, Diana

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Mahon, Alice

  Callaghan, Jim

  Marek, Dr John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Mullin, Chris

  Chidgey, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Cohen, Harry

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Corston, Jean

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

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

  Pike, Peter L

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Rendel, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Rogers, Allan

  Etherington, Bill

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Flynn, Paul

  Rowlands, Ted

  Fraser, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Galloway, George

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gapes, Mike

  Soley, Clive

  Gerrard, Neil

  Spearing, Nigel

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Stevenson, George

  Graham, Thomas

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hanson, David

  Timms, Stephen

  Hoey, Kate

  Tipping, Paddy

  Home Robertson, John

  Trickett, Jon

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Watson, Mike

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Winnick, David

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Wise, Audrey

  Khabra, Piara S

  Wray, Jimmy

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Mr. Don Foster and

  McAllion, John

  Mr. Simon Hughes.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Baldry, Tony

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Amess, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bates, Michael

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Batiste, Spencer

  121

  Bellingham, Henry

  Garnier, Edward

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gill, Christopher

  Beresfond, Sir Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Body, Sir Richard

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Booth, Hartley

  Gorst, Sir John

  Boswell, Tim

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bowis, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Brazier, Julian

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hannam, Sir John

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hawksley, Warren

  Burt, Alistair

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butcher, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Butler, Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Butterfill, John

  Hendry, Charles

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Cash, William

  Horam, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Howard, Fit Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Clappison, James

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Congdon, David

  Jack, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jessel, Toby

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Couchman, James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Cran, James

  Key, Robert

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

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Knapman, Roger

  Day, Stephen

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Devlin, Tim

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

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dover, Den

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Duncan, Alan

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Legg, Barry

  Dunn, Bob

  Leigh, Edward

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Elletson, Harold

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lord, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Luff, Peter

  Faber, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fabricant, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  MacKay, Andrew

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fishburn, Dudley

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Forth, Eric

  Madel, Sir David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Malone, Gerald

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Mans, Keith

  French, Douglas

  Martand, Paul

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Gale, Roger

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gallie, Phil

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mates, Michael

  122

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Merchant, Piers

  Spring, Richard

  Mills, Iain

  Sproat, Iain

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Steen, Anthony

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Stephen, Michael

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Stem, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stewart, Allan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Streeter, Gary

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Sweeney, Walter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Sykes, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Norris, Steve

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Page, Richard

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Paice, James

  Thomason, Roy

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Pawsey, James

  Thurnham, Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pickles, Eric

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Tracey, Richard

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tredinnick, David

  Portillo Rt Hon Micheal

  Trend, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Trotter, Neville

  Rathbone, Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Richards, Rod

  Viggers, Peter

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Riddick, Graham

  Walden, George

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Waller, Gary

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Ward, John

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Watts, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wells, Bowen

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Whitney, Ray

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Whittingdale, John

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Willetts, David

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Wilshire, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Wood, Timothy

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mr. Simon Burns and

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Mr. Richard Ottaway.

  Question accordingly negatived.

IMPROVEMENT OF ACCESS AND FACILITIES FOR DISABLED PEOPLE WITH RESPECT TO NEW BUILDINGS
'.—The Secretary of State shall, within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, introduce under his powers in section 1 of the Building Act 1984 such extension to the Building Regulations 1991 as he considers reasonable to ensure that in the construction of new dwellings provision is made for disabled people to gain unimpeded access to and use of the dwelling and its facilities, in line with the purposes outlined in section 23(1) above.'.—[Mr. Thurnham.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Thurnham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

123
I am supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who has long been associated with this excellent cause, having held a conference in 1989 on lifetime homes. He has strongly advocated the cause since then. I congratulate the Government on issuing a consultation paper a year ago, which gave the impression that the Government wished to act promptly.
The consultation paper was excellent and called on house builders and designers
"to examine the consequences of the proposals for their current designs."
The Government seem to have been held up since then, because it is more than 12 months since the consultation process finished. I guess that the cause of the delay is the opposition by the House Builders Federation; I shall deal briefly with the federation's case.
The House Builders Federation was misguided in thinking that the proposals were unnecessary and too costly. To have said that they were unnecessary goes against all the representations that I have received. I am pleased to see the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People in his place. One of his predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), spoke on the issue in 1992. He said that he was strongly in favour of the proposals and that they should go ahead without delay. He continued:
"we should ensure that all new houses are built so that they are properly accessible to disabled people. That would be a minimum cost compared with the cost of adaptation at some later stage."—[Official Report, 31 January 1992: Vol. 202, c. 1254]
The Select Committee on the Environment reported in February. The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency will recall his time on the Select Committee and his general support at that time for similar proposals at an earlier stage. I hope, therefore, that the Government will fully consider those points and the representations from Age Concern, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and 30 other organisations that represent not just disabled people—such bodies as the National Federation of Housing Associations and the Chartered Institute of Housing, which are in favour of the regulations, which will allow access to new homes for disabled people. It is only sensible.
The House Builders Federation said that the proposals were too costly. Again, it was misguided. In saying that they were unnecessary, it was also misguided. It was looking perhaps to the past rather than to the future. In the next 50 years, there will be twice as many 75-year-olds as there are now. It is important that the houses that we build today are built for the future, and not according to some dim and distant past, when wheelchairs did not exist.
9.15 pm
The House Builders Federation was mistaken to say that the proposals were too costly. The Government's figures suggest approximately £200 per house. If we take the figure of 140,000 new private homes being built every year, the cost would be £28 million a year, compared with the £350 million a year that is being spent to adapt old houses. If we take the federation's figure of £2,000 to
£3,000 to cover the costs of part M of the regulations—which is far too high—even that would come out at no more than £300 million or £400 million a year.
124
I compare that with the cost of land, because that is the greatest burden on house builders in providing houses at low cost, not the extension of part M of the regulations. The latest figures for the cost of land show that, in the second half of 1994, on average, building land cost £400,000 per hectare. If we take an average of 23 units per hectare, the cost of land per plot is £17,350. If the cost of part M of the building regulations puts up the cost of building a house, without any change in the price at which those houses can be sold, the residual value of the land will take the brunt of the expenditure, which will not, in any case, be that great. If we take even the high average figures of the House Builders Federation, it is only one seventh of the amount spent on land every year.
The federation's figures suggest that it would cost only £300 million or £400 million per annum to cover the cost of part M of the building regulations, but house builders are spending £2.5 billion a year on buying land, so I ask the Government where their priorities lie. In holding up part M of the building regulations, all they are doing is bolstering the price of land. It would not affect the cost of constructing a house, other than the fact that the extra cost would come from the cost of land, because it is the builders who bid up the price of land, based on the price at which they can sell a house.
Mr. Alan Howarth: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has tabled the new clause. Does he agree that it is fine for house builders to assess the cost to them, but it is for the Government to assess the costs and benefits to society as a whole? The costs of adaptations, of people having to move home and of hospitalisation must be weighed in the balance when we consider this policy's merits. Does he agree that it is more than high time that the Government carried through what they have already encouragingly proposed?
Mr. Thurnham: It is far too high a price to pay not to act. On the Government's figures, to act would cost merely £30 million a year, whereas it costs £350 million a year to adapt existing houses, so it is madness not to act. There is huge popular support to act.
It is mistaken of the House Builders Federation to resist the proposal. It does so because it thinks that it will add to the costs of building a house, without paying regard to the amount by which it bids up the price of land. The price of land would fall, therefore, to cover the costs of making modern houses properly accessible to disabled people. The Government should not take the side of landowners against disabled people.
Mr. Vaz: I will not detain the House for long, but I must pay tribute to the hon. Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) for tabling the new clause. Had they not done so, I can assure the House that the Opposition would have.
The new clause is modest and has enormous popular support. Many organisations have written to hon. Members on both sides of the House to urge them to accept the proposals. We shall vote with the hon. Members for Bolton, North-East and for Mid-Kent in support of the new clause.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I have three short comments. First, the new clause is by no means directed

125
purely at the convenience of disabled people. I have been to a host of different housing estates and asked people whether they find steps up to the front door, narrow entrances and the absence of a lavatory on the ground floor helpful. They all say that those are unhelpful, whether it is because they have a small child and a buggy, a shopping trolley, an elderly relative staying with them, or whatever. Undoubtedly, those are disadvantages for people of all ages. Let us consider having to take a 17-year-old who has damaged his hip playing rugger and who is in plaster from hip to ankle up the often steep stairs of a house every time he needs to go to the lavatory. It is absurd that modern houses are still designed in the same way as they were many years ago.
Secondly, a substantial part of the alleged costs of the changes stems from the fact that we are talking about non-standard equipment. Were it normal to make doors a few centimetres wider, which is all that is required to allow wheelchair access, to place windows at such a height that people lying in bed could see out of them, rather than a few feet above the floor for no valid reason, and to put electric sockets on the wall where anyone, however unfit, can reach them, instead of where they are at the moment, where only toddlers, who are told to keep away from them, can reach them easily, we would discover—as has been proved in the rather limping Rowntree developments in Hull and York—how useful those changes are to the ordinary able-bodied family as well as to disabled people, and they are relatively inexpensive.
Finally, builders are anxious because they say that young couples, in particular, do not want to be reminded that one day they might not be fully fit, but I can tell them that experience shows that, on estates where they have done away with steps up to the front door—to take the most important example—people do not even notice if it is a standard entry.
Builders are saying that they do not want the change because they do not want to be the first to do it, as they might be at a competitive disadvantage. The essential reason for including the provision in the regulations is that everyone will be starting from a level playing field— good phrase in this context.
Two of my constituents are in wheelchairs. They live in the only bungalow on an estate that was built less than 10 years ago; it is the only dwelling on the estate to which they can gain access. Should they wish to talk to neighbours other than in the street, the neighbours have to come to them and they have to carry the cost of the coffee, tea and all the rest of it—and they are the poorest couple on the estate.
These regulations should be introduced and I welcome this opportunity to tell my hon. Friend the Minister, who is carrying out a consultation exercise, that that is what the public want.
Sir John Hannam: I endorse the objectives of the new clause. Having been engaged for about 15 years in the parliamentary campaign to get access provision for disabled people and having seen the Government make substantial progress in 1985 with the introduction of part M regulations for public and commercial buildings, I am anxious that residential accommodation should also be made fully accessible.
The Government's consultation paper in January 1995 provoked a massive response from more than 1,000 organisations and individuals. It is now more than a year
126
since the consultation period ended in April 1995. I can understand my hon. Friend the Minister's desire to consider carefully the ramifications of such changes to building regulations. They always have far greater effects than one imagines when one sets out on that path.
If we do not pass the new clause today, we need to be reassured by my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government are not only merely sitting on their hands on this important issue. Bringing all homes into line with those built by many housing associations would create more flexible and more accessible housing for the next 100 years. This is not a question of doing something on a temporary basis, because what we do now will last for a very long time and will result in considerable savings in public expenditure and public funds in coming years.
The Government have themselves proposed to extend building regulations to improve access for disabled people to domestic dwellings. Therefore, all we are really talking about is the timing of the changes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can today provide us with the necessary assurance that, with the powers that he already has in his possession, the new clause will not be required, and that he will soon be able to make the progress that we want on this very important matter for disabled people.
Mr. Chris Davies: I support the new clause. I remind the House that there are more than 6 million registered disabled people in this country, 4 million of whom have mobility problems. It is now a demographic fact that the number of elderly people in society is likely to grow as a proportion of the total population, and, inevitably, the number of people with mobility problems will also grow.
The current situation is that we cannot afford to make the necessary adaptations to the homes of people with mobility problems. But if we do nothing now and if we do not alter the regulations, we shall never be able to afford to make the necessary changes. I argue that the price for doing nothing is simply too high.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for his kind comments about the consultation paper, "Ending Discrimination Against Disabled People", because, as he knows, I was responsible for it during my previous existence as Under-Secretary of State for the Environment.
While in that role, I also had several opportunities to visit lifetime homes in different areas—such as in south London and, most particularly, those built by the Rowntree Trust near York. I pay tribute to those organisations for the impressive work that they have done. I know that the people who live in those homes are extremely happy and very impressed with the design of their homes.
The consultation paper, if anything, has been too successful—at least to the extent that it has provoked an enormous number of responses. Many of those have been contradictory, as I am sure hon. Members will understand, but the interest is certainly there.
The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East seeks to impose a duty on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to extend the scope of building regulations regardless of the outcome of the consultation required under the Building Act 1984. It also seeks to impose an arbitrary time limit and to establish an

127
entirely inappropriate link between building regulations and the purposes of disabled facilities grants. For those reasons, the Government cannot accept the new clause.
The Building Act 1984 requires my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consult the Building Regulations Advisory Committee and other representative organisations with an interest in the matter before making such changes, and that is already being done. The new clause seeks to impose change by decree, regardless of the outcome of that consultation. I think that there would be every chance of judicial review if it were done by decree.
In the White Paper, the Government undertook to consult widely on proposals to extend building regulations to help disabled people with access to or in domestic dwellings. That undertaking has been honoured. However, as I said, the consultation that has been conducted reveals conflicting views on how best to implement any changes. There are also practical and costing issues that need to be addressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) highlighted those issues, but he rightly said that he wants something that will last for many years—as do I. Therefore, we must get it right. For those reasons, it would be entirely inappropriate to require the making of regulations within the arbitrary time limit proposed.
The new clause goes far further than the proposals envisaged by the White Paper and the consultation. It fails to recognise that a clear distinction should be drawn between the minimum acceptable requirements required in regulations to assist disabled people in remaining in their own homes and in visiting friends and relatives, and the quite separate concept of a grant regime that is designed to enable a person with a particular disability to make specific adaptations to enable him to live in a particular dwelling.
I can appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East is anxious to see the matter of extending part M to dwellings settled, and he is certainly not alone in that. But the approach proposed in his new clause is neither helpful nor relevant to the Bill, and I ask him to withdraw it.
My hon. Friend suggested that extending part M to dwellings will save expenditure on disability facilities grants, but that suggestion does not stand up to examination. Certainly, the £350 million that he mentioned is not correct—the figure is nearer £90 million. Part M would apply only to new dwellings, which add only some 1 per cent. per annum to the total housing stock. The greater problem by far is adaptations to existing dwellings, and DFGs will continue to be needed for those. The DFGs are also used for adaptations and appliances beyond the type of structural features that can be dealt with through building regulations, so DFGs will still be required for those. Of course, in the fulness of time, there will be some benefit on some types of DFG expenditure, but it will be small, very long term and, for the foreseeable future, imperceptible.
9.30 pm
I have already explained that this is not a straightforward issue. We have received more than 1,000
128
responses to the consultation. Opinions differ on both the form of the proposals and the costs. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said that some builders argued along one line, other builders advance a different argument—some of them certainly would not accept the argument that he advanced. The proposals affect every future new home, not just disabled people, and raise fundamental issues about future home design and the role of regulations in influencing those designs. Those are not matters that can be judged to a tight timetable. I can say no more than that we shall look at the matter and deal with it as expeditiously as circumstances allow. That is a practical response to a practical series of problems.
Mr. Thurnham: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will deal with the matter as expeditiously as possible, but the Government have had plenty of time—more than 12 months—so there should be no further delay. I call on the House to support the words of the Environment Committee, when it called on the Government to implement the measures forthwith. I wish to press new clause 10 to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 270.

Division No. 178]

[9.31 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Clelland, David

Ainger, Nick

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Coffey, Ann

Allen, Graham

Cohen, Harry

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Connarty, Michael

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Ashton, Joe

Corston, Jean

Austin-Walker, John

Cousins, Jim

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cummings, John

Barron, Kevin

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Battle, John

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Bayley, Hugh

Dalyell, Tam

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Darling, Alistair

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Davidson, Ian

Bell, Stuart

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

Bennett, Andrew F

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Benton, Joe

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

Bermingham, Gerald

Denham, John

Berry, Roger

Dewar, Donald

Betts, Clive

Dixon, Don

Blunkett, David

Dobson, Frank

Boateng, Paul

Donohoe, Brian H

Bradley, Keith

Dowd, Jim

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Dykes, Hugh

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

Eagle, Ms Angela

Byers, Stephen

Eastham, Ken

Caborn, Richard

Etherington, Bill

Callaghan, Jim

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Fatchett, Derek

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Faulds, Andrew

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Fisher, Mark

Campbell-Savours, D N

Flynn, Paul

Canavan, Dennis

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Cann, Jamie

Foster, Don (Bath)

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Foulkes, George

Chidgey, David

Fraser, John

Chisholm, Malcolm

Fyfe, Maria

Church, Judith

Galloway, George

Clapham, Michael

Gapes, Mike

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Garrett, John

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Gerrard, Neil

129

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Michael, Alun

Godman, Dr Norman A

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Godsiff, Roger

Milburn, Alan

Golding, Mrs Llin

Miller, Andrew

Gordon, Mildred

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Graham, Thomas

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Morgan, Rhodri

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Morley, Elliot

Grocott, Bruce

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe

Gunnell, John

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hall, Mike

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Hanson, David

Mowlam, Marjorie

Harman, Ms Harriet

Mudie, George

Heppell, John

Mullin, Chris

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Murphy, Paul

Hinchliffe, David

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hodge, Margaret

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hoey, Kate

O'Hara, Edward

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Olner, Bill

Home Robertson, John

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hood, Jimmy

Parry, Robert

Hoon, Geoffrey

Pearson, Ian

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

Pendry, Tom

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Pickthall, Colin

Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

Pike, Peter L

Hoyle, Doug

Pope, Greg

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Primarolo, Dawn

Hutton, John

Purchase, Ken

Illsley, Eric

Quin, Ms Joyce

Ingram, Adam

Randall, Stuart

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Raynsford, Nick

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Reid, Dr John

Jamieson, David

Rendel, David

Janner, Greville

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Jones, Dr. Lynne (B'ham S O)

Rogers, Allan

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Rooker, Jeff

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Jowell, Tessa

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Rowlands, Ted

Keen, Alan

Sedgemore, Brian

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

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Khabra, Piara S

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Kilfoyle, Peter

Short, Clare

Kirkwood, Archy

Skinner, Dennis

Lewis, Terry

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Liddell, Mrs Helen

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

Litherland, Robert

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Livingstone, Ken

Soley, Clive

Llwyd, Elfyn

Spearing, Nigel

Loyden, Eddie

Spellar, John

Lynne, Ms Liz

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

McAllion, John

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

McAvoy, Thomas

Steinberg, Gerry

McCartney, Ian

Stevenson, George

Macdonald, Calum

Stott, Roger

McKelvey, William

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Mackinlay, Andrew

Sutcliffe, Gerry

McLeish, Henry

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

McMaster, Gordon

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

McNamara, Kevin

Thurnham, Peter

MacShane, Denis

Timms, Stephen

McWilliam, John

Tipping, Paddy

Madden, Max

Touhig, Don

Maddock, Diana

Trickett, Jon

Mahon, Alice

Turner, Dennis

Mandelson, Peter

Vaz, Keith

Marek, Dr John

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Walley, Joan

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Wareing, Robert N

Meacher, Michael

Watson, Mike

Meale, Alan

Welsh, Andrew

130

Wicks, Malcolm

Wray, Jimmy

Wigley, Dafydd

Wright, Dr Tony

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Winnick, David

Mr. Peter Hain and

Wise, Audrey

Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Dover, Den

Alexander, Richard

Duncan, Alan

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Dunn, Bob

Amess, David

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Elletson, Harold

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Baldry, Tony

Evennett, David

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Faber, David

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Fabricant, Michael

Bates, Michael

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Batiste, Spencer

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bellingham, Henry

Fishburn, Dudley

Bendall, Vivian

Forth, Eric

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Body, Sir Richard

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

French, Douglas

Booth, Hartley

Fry, Sir Peter

Boswell, Tim

Gale, Roger

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Gallie, Phil

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Gardiner, Sir George

Bowis, John

Garnier, Edward

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Gill, Christopher

Brandreth, Gyles

Gillan, Cheryl

Brazier, Julian

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Bright, Sir Graham

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Gorst, Sir John

Browning, Mrs Angela

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Budgen, Nicholas

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Burt, Alistair

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Butcher, John

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Butler, Peter

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Butterfill, John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Carrington, Matthew

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Carttiss, Michael

Hawkins, Nick

Cash, William

Hawksley, Warren

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hayes, Jerry

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Heald, Oliver

Churchill, Mr

Hendry, Charles

Clappison, James

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochfond)

Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Coe, Sebastian

Horam, John

Congdon, David

Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Conway, Derek

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre Fofst)

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Couchman, James

Hunter, Andrew

Cran, James

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

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

Jack, Michael

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Jenkin, Bernard

Day, Stephen

Jessel, Toby

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Devlin, Tm

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

131

Key, Robert

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Shaw, David (Dover)

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

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Shersby, Sir Michael

Legg, Barry

Sims, Sir Roger

Leigh, Edward

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

Speed, Sir Keith

Lidington, David

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Spink, Dr Robert

Lord, Michael

Spring, Richard

Luff, Peter

Sproat, Iain

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

MacKay, Andrew

Steen, Anthony

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Stephen, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stern, Michael

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Streeter, Gary

Madel, Sir David

Sumberg, David

Maitland, Lady Olga

Sweeney, Walter

Malone, Gerald

Sykes, John

Mans, Keith

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Marland, Paul

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Marlow, Tony

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mates, Michael

Thomason, Roy

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Merchant, Piers

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mills, Iain

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Moate, Sir Roger

Tracey, Richard

Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

Tredinnick, David

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Trend, Michael

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Trotter, Neville

Moss, Malcolm

Twinn, Dr Ian

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Neubert, Sir Michael

Viggers, Peter

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Nicholls, Patrick

Walden, George

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Norris, Steve

Waller, Gary

Oppenheim, Phillip

Ward, John

Page, Richard

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Paice, James

Waterson, Nigel

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Watts, John

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wells, Bowen

Pawsey, James

Whitney, Ray

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Whittingdale, John

Pickles, Eric

Widdecombe, Ann

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Porter, David (Waveney)

Wilkinson, John

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Willetts, David

Powell, William (Corby)

Wilshire, David

Rathbone, Tim

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Wolfson, Mark

Richards, Rod

Wood, Timothy

Riddick, Graham

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Robathan, Andrew

Tellers for the Noes:

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Mr. Simon Burns and

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Mr. Roger Knapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 16

  EMPTY HOMES SCHEMES
  `. —(1) Every local housing authority shall have a scheme ("the Empty Homes Scheme") for reducing the number of unoccupied residential properties and potential residential properties in its area.
  (2) The Empty Homes Scheme shall be framed with the aims of—

  (a) dealing with empty properties before their condition deteriorates and they become eyesores and health hazards,

  (b) efficiently meeting housing need by encouraging owners of empty properties to let their properties, using registered social landlords as managing agents where appropriate, and

  (c) encouraging the conversion of empty offices and shops, and vacant rooms above them, into residential accommodation where this is appropriate.

  (3) The Empty Homes Scheme shall include all properties within the local housing authority's boundaries, including properties owned by registered social landlords, Government departments and the authority themselves, as well as privately owned properties.
  (4) The Secretary of State may, through the Housing Partnership Fund and other monies at his disposal, provide grants to local housing authorities to assist them in bring empty properties back into use.'.—[Mrs. Maddock.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The hour is late, so I fear that this matter will not be allowed the time that it merits. The new clause seeks to give every local authority a duty to formulate a strategy to deal with empty homes in its area. This is an important part of a renovation and renewal strategy for every area of the country. To improve appearances and discourage crime in any area, empty properties must be filled up as quickly as possible. Boarded up homes attract vandals and fall into disrepair more quickly. They are also an inefficient way to use our housing stock. Nobody likes empty properties. People who live next door to them do not like them; people who must walk past them when they are vandalised and derelict do not like them; and the homeless are rightly angry at the waste of resources.
  The vast majority of the 800.000 empty properties in Britain today are in the private sector. The Government's setting up of the empty homes agency and their housing partnership fund have provided some—although not enough—progress. Local authorities are the key to tackling the problem. Many have good empty homes schemes and much has been achieved by publicising how they work. Many privately owned properties have thus been brought back into use. Housing associations, as managing agents, have been useful in that respect.
  The new clause does not seek to bind local authorities, but would require them to have a strategy for dealing with all the empty properties in their areas and to say exactly how they intend to go about dealing with them. It would allow them to be innovative locally and use their own ideas in dealing with the problem. Local authorities are required to have strategies on many matters, and they are usually far more tightly drawn than my proposal. The new clause would require local authorities to look at all type of housing: private sector; housing association; and its own stock.

  133
  9.45 pm
  The Government have far too many empty properties. The void rate in Ministry of Defence properties is 20 per cent. and has long been a scandal—[Interruption.] I hear muttering from the Conservative Benches. It is the highest percentage of any sector. Last week, I listened with interest to a debate in another place and heard the Minister admit the incompetence of the Ministry of Defence in housing matters. He used that as the main justification for the housing sale. It is incredible that the Government use their irresponsibility to justify selling off those properties.
  The new clause would spread good practice in tackling the problem of empty properties. Many councils do good work, and I commend to the House the work done by New Forest district council which, between last autumn and April, by having a decent empty homes strategy, brought 75 properties back into use.
  The proposal is an important part of urban renewal, and I hope that the Minister will respond constructively.
  Mr. Clappison: I have some sympathy with the objective that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) sets out to achieve. I certainly sympathise with the importance that she attaches to this subject.
  I invite the hon. Lady to bear in mind our strategic approach to private sector renewal and how empty homes will fit into that. That strategy, which will in many cases include a specific empty homes strategy, will form the basis of a local authority's bid for resources as part of its housing investment programme. The allocation of available resources between authorities will take account of each authority's strategy and of its past performance in dealing with all types of private sector housing renewal.
  We recognise that local authorities have a key role to play in encouraging the re-use of empty properties. That is why we are providing a grant to the Empty Homes Agency to expand and train a network of regional associates to work with local authorities on their strategy for unoccupied residential and potential residential properties.
  Notwithstanding the hon. Lady's comments, the new clause would fetter local authorities' discretion in finding appropriate solutions to the problem in their areas. It is for each authority to find its own strategy in the light of its knowledge of the area. Although I sympathise with what the hon. Lady seeks to achieve, I believe that it is unnecessary. Therefore, I invite her to withdraw her new clause.
  Mrs. Maddock: I listened to the Under-Secretary with interest. It is unfortunate that the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency did not reply; he has worked with me in involving local authorities in bringing forward various strategies that are duties. If a strategy is a duty, facts and figures are put together to enable authorities to target their resources. That was the idea behind my Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 and the new clause. I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. Due to the lateness of the hour, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 141

  URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS:PRE-DISSOLUTION TRANSFERS
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 142, in page 81, line 36, after 'body', insert
  'or a legally constituted trust'.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 135, in line 42, at end insert—
  'A statutory body to which this section applies shall have the sole purpose of winding up the affairs of urban development corporations.'.
  No. 141, in page 82, line 27, after 'consult', insert
  'all members of Parliament and councillors elected to represent the area. and'.
  No. 134, in line 28, after 'situated', insert
  'and any statutory body to which transfer of property, rights or liabilities is to be made under this section.'.
  Mr. Hughes: The amendments raise two simple issues, but they are relevant for those of us who represent and live in areas covered by urban development corporations. I live in the London Docklands development corporation area. The amendments deal with residuary bodies and pre-dissolution transfers in relation to urban development corporations. The Government's current policy allows urban development corporations to be established—there is one in your part of the world, Madam Speaker, there is one in London and there is one in most urban areas these days. From the beginning, the Government's policy was that they could be wound up together; it was then amended to allow them to be wound up in parts. This is the third stage of the policy, and it allows transfers prior to wind-up.
  Two concerns have been raised with me. First, if there should be a transfer before wind-up of part or all of a development corporation, it should be possible for the assets that are held by the development corporation in the public domain to be transferred to a trust. I ask the Minister to confirm whether there can be a transfer to a trust. At the moment, the law is ambiguous, and it suggests that the orders have to transfer assets to a statutory body. Trusts are not necessarily statutory bodies and there are those who have an interest in a transfer to a trust, including those in my area of Bermondsey and Rotherhithe.
  Secondly, there should be consultation with all those who are elected to represent the areas in question. The local authority may be of one political hue but it may not represent the area covered by the development corporation. In my area, the development corporation covers the Surrey docks area of Bermondsey, which is entirely represented by the Liberal Democrats—there are Liberal Democrat councillors and there is a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament. Consulting the local authority is fine, but there is not necessarily consultation with the local councillors or with the local Member of Parliament. The reverse has happened on the other side of the river. I hope that the Minister can give undertakings that transfers to trusts are possible and that, in the future,

  135
  there will be consultation with all the local councillors and with the local Members of Parliament on all urban development corporation matters.
  Mr. Vaz: The Labour party's amendments—Nos. 134 and 135—seek to ensure that any new bodies established under the Act exist purely for the purpose of winding up urban development corporations and housing action trusts, and not for any other purpose. Amendment No. 134 seeks to put on the face of the Bill what the Minister said in Committee; that it would be foolhardy to impose a duty on a new body if it did not wish to have any of the powers transferred to it. Amendment No. 134 seeks to ensure that there are proper discussions and formal meetings, rather than informal discussions, to ensure that the powers are transferred.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I shall make three points. As to the first point about trusts, it is a case of been there, seen it, done it. Amendment No. 142 would enable the Secretary of State to transfer the residual property, rights and liabilities of an urban development corporation to a legally constituted trust as an alternative to transfer to a statutory residuary body. However, urban development corporations already have the power to transfer to any other body, by agreement, the whole or any part of their undertaking. That may include transfer to a legally constituted trust. Shortly before Central Manchester development corporation wound up in March this year, it transferred to a trust its ownership of a visitor centre in Castlefield and the responsibility for maintaining environmental improvements in that area.
  Secondly, the proposal creates unnecessary bureaucracy. Having separate residuary bodies for the various development corporations and so on would cut across the need to run them economically. When the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) reconsiders the matter, I hope that he will agree with me on that point.
  Finally, as to consultation with Members of Parliament and councils, I do not believe for a moment that the hon. Gentleman or Liberal Democrat councillors would be backward in coming forward. I think that there is merit in consulting local authorities, but not with councillors individually on a statutory basis. People should make their views known either directly or through their Members of Parliament. I am sure that that will occur.
  In response to the hon. Gentleman's final point, I restate what I said in Committee: we are not in the business of not having prior consultations and meetings, but there is no need to do so on a formal basis.
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for the Minister's reassurance on my first point. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) can deal with the second point at a later stage. However, I am disappointed about the final point concerning consultation. The Minister should accept that formal consultation should be written into the legislation and I shall pursue the matter with him through correspondence. I hope that he will accept that that duty
  136
  should be imposed on corporations. In the hope that that will prove possible—and given that it is four minutes to 10 o'clock—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 144
  ORDERS, REGULATIONS AND DIRECTIONS
  Amendment made: No. 101, in page 84, line 3, at end insert '104(1C),'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
Schedule 3

  REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS
  Amendment made: No. 128, in page 97, line 17, after '30' insert
  ', the words "The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 section 138(1)".'.[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 146

  EXTENT
  Amendment made: No. 124, in page 84, line 19, leave out 'and 143' and insert
  ', 143 and (Existing housing grants: meaning of exempt disposal)'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Clause 148

  COMMENCEMENT
  Amendments made: No. 125, in page 84, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert—
  '(1) The following provisions of this Act come into force on Royal Assent—

  (a) section 144 (orders, regulations and irections),

  (b) sections 146 to 149 (extent, commencement and other general provisions).'.

  No. 118, in page 85, line 3, after '129' insert
  'and (Regeneration and development: Welsh Development Agency)'.
  No. 127, in line 6, at end insert—
  'section (Existing housing grants: meaning of exempt disposal) (existing housing grants: meaning of exempt disposal),'.
  No. 126, in page 85, leave out lines 7 and 8—[Mr. Brandreth.]
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's and Prince of Wales's Consent signified.]
  9.57 pm
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I commend this excellent Bill to the House. I place on record my appreciation of the work that officials have done behind the scenes and of that of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), in taking through much of the legislation.
  9.58 pm
  Mr. Vaz: I shall be even briefer than the Minister. Only two months have elapsed since the Second Reading of the Bill. I place on record my thanks to all members of the

  137
  Committee. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) had an excellent working relationship: it was not so much gone with the wind as gone with the Whip. They ensured that the work of the Committee proceeded diligently.
  We shall vote against Third Reading because the fundamental principle remains that the Bill seeks to end mandatory grants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said on Second Reading, it is a rag-bag of a Bill. We—and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) in respect of its housing parts—have tried to ensure that suitable amendments were tabled.
  I thank the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for his support on the construction part of the Bill. The Government still have no regeneration strategy. Even though the single regeneration budget has been, as it were, legalised, there is a lack of cohesion. For those reasons, we shall oppose Third Reading.
  9.59 pm
  Mr. Chris Davies: The Bill deals with housing grants. I regret that, as its proceedings reach their conclusion, not one extra penny has been promised for, nor an extra commitment made to, making housing grants available to people who live in unfit homes, who desperately need them.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 250.

  Division No. 179]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Burns, Simon

  Alexander, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Butcher, John

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Butler, Peter

  Amess, David

  Butterfill, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Cash, William

  Baldry, Tony

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Churchill, Mr.

  Bates, Michael

  Clappison, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bendall, Vivian

  Congdon, David

  Beresford, Sr Paul

  Conway, Derek

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Booth, Hartley

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Boswell, Tim

  Couchman, James

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Cran, James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

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

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bowis, John

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Day, Stephen

  Brazier, Julian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Devlin, Tim

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Dover, Den

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Duncan, Alan

  138

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dunn, Bob

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Legg, Barry

  Elletson, Harold

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evennett, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareharm)

  Faber, David

  Lord, Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  MacKay, Andrew

  Forth, Eric

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Madel, Sir David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  French, Douglas

  Malone, Gerald

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Gale, Roger

  Marland, Paul

  Gallie, Phil

  Martow, Tony

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Garnier, Edward

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Mates, Michael

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Merchant, Piers

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mills, Iain

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hannam, Sir John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Norrris, Steve

  Hawkins, Nick

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hawksley, Warren

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Page, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Paice, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Pawsey, James

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Horam, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jack, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Key, Robert

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Dame Jill

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  139

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Tracey, Richard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Tredinnick, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Trend, Michael

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Trotter, Neville

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Spring, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Walden, George

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waller, Gary

  Steen, Anthony

  Ward, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stern, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stewart, Allan

  Watts, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Wells, Bowen

  Whitney, Ray

  Sumberg, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sykes, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thomason, Roy

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Thompson, Patrick

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mr. Sebastian Coe and

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clelland, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Coffey, Ann

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cohen, Harry

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Connarty, Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Corston, Jean

  Barron, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Cummings, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bell, Stuart

  Darling, Alistair

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davidson, Ian

  Benton, Joe

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

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Berry, Roger

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

  Betts, Clive

  Denham, John

  Blunkett, David

  Dewar, Donald

  Boateng, Paul

  Dixon, Don

  Bradley, Keith

  Dobson, Frank

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dowd, Jim

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

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Byers, Stephen

  Eastham, Ken

  Caborn, Richard

  Etherington, Bill

  Callaghan, Jim

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Flynn, Paul

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Cann, Jamie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Foulkes, George

  Chidgey, David

  Fraser, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Fyfe, Maria

  Church, Judith

  Galloway, George

  Clapham, Michael

  Gapes, Mike

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Garrett, John

  140

  Gerrard, Neil

  Meacher, Michael

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Meale, Alan

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Michael, Alun

  Godsiff, Roger

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Milburn, Alan

  Gordon, Mildred

  Miller, Andrew

  Graham, Thomas

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morley, Elliot

  Gunnell, John

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hall, Mike

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hanson, David

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Heppell, John

  Mudie, George

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hinchliffe, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Hodge, Margaret

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Home Robertson, John

  Olner, Bill

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

  Parry, Robert

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Pearson, Ian

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hutton, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Illsley, Eric

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Ingram, Adam

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jamieson, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Janner, Greville

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'tryN W)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rogers, Allan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooker, Jeff

  Keen, Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Rowlands, Ted

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

  Salmond, Alex

  Khabra, Piara S

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Short, Clare

  Lewis, Terry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Litherland, Robert

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

  Livingstone, Ken

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Soley, Clive

  Loyden, Eddie

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Spellar, John

  McAllion, John

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McCartney, Ian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Macdonald, Calum

  Stevenson, George

  McKelvey, William

  Stott, Roger

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McLeish, Henry

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McMaster, Gordon

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  MacShane, Denis

  Timms, Stephen

  McWilliam, John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Madden, Max

  Touhig, Don

  Maddock, Diana

  Trickett, Jon

  Mahon, Alice

  Turner, Dennis

  Mandelson, Peter

  Vaz, Keith

  Marek, Dr John

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Walley, Joan

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Wareing, Robert N

  141

  Watson, Mike

  Wise, Audrey

  Welsh, Andrew

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Mr. Peter Main and

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Employment Rights (Northern Ireland)
  10.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): I beg to move,
  That the draft Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.
  I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
  That the draft Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.
  I propose to deal with these two closely interrelated orders as a single entity. They are primarily a consolidation of existing Northern Ireland legislation on individual employment rights and industrial tribunals, one order providing the system whereby an individual can seek to remedy the infringement of a right as set out in the other.
  As hon. Members will appreciate, Northern Ireland has its own separate legal and administrative framework of industrial relations legislation, but has generally followed the corresponding law in Great Britain. Government policy remains one of parity in this area, unless there are compelling local reasons for a departure; thus the employment rights in both jurisdictions are the same, as are the provisions for the industrial tribunal system. This part of Great Britain legislation was recently consolidated in the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996 and the Employment Rights Act 1996. The two orders consolidate the equivalent provisions for Northern Ireland by re-enacting existing legislation in two orders, thus replacing eight much-amended enactments dating back to 1965.
  The opportunity has been taken, however, to insert a minor but necessary new provision in article 14 paragraphs (7) to (9) of the employment rights order. It makes special provision for those whose professional training of necessity requires successive employment with different health service employers. Without the provision, the move between employers would constitute a break in the continuity of employment; with the provision, during training for a profession, a move from one health service employer to another will not break the continuity of employment in the calculation of a period of continuous employment. That brings the Northern Ireland position into line with that in Great Britain.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, with his usual courtesy. Is he in a position to refute the allegation that cases involving charges of sexual harassment take longer to reach industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland than other cases?
  Mr. Moss: I am not in a position to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but I will look into it and write to him.
  The orders closely follow the format and terminology of the equivalent Great Britain consolidation Acts, but there are differences in content between the Northern Ireland and Great Britain enactments. As I shall explain, however, the difference in content does not mean a difference in law.
  I shall deal first with the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order. The order re-enacts the existing Northern Ireland provisions for the establishment and procedures of

  143
  industrial tribunals. There are no new provisions, and the current Northern Ireland provisions are on all fours with arrangements for Great Britain industrial tribunals. There is, however, no equivalent system in Northern Ireland of the employment appeal tribunal. An appeal relating to a decision by a Northern Ireland industrial tribunal on a point of law is by way of a case stated to the Court of Appeal.
  Of those who responded to the Department's consultation paper on the Northern Ireland review of the industrial tribunals, several raised the question of the introduction of a Northern Ireland system for appeal against an industrial tribunal decision. The outcome of the review is being considered, but considerable work is still needed, and further consultation will be necessary before a decision can be made. In any case, the order is not a suitable vehicle for such change. It is, after all, principally intended to consolidate, not introduce, a fundamental departure from the present provisions.
  Hon. Members will have noted a considerable difference in the content of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order and the Act relating to Great Britain. The main differences result from Northern Ireland's not having legislative provision for Sunday trading or Sunday betting, and the treatment in Northern Ireland of individual rights associated with trade union legislation.
  In Northern Ireland, unlike in England and Wales, there is no development of law on Sunday trading or betting and the order does not need to make corresponding provision for those special and important employment protection rights that were introduced for shop workers and betting office workers. Another difference arises from the fact that Northern Ireland legislation has traditionally regarded as individual employment rights those rights that have been provided for people by trade union legislation. They include access to employment regardless of trade union membership; actions short of dismissal on grounds related to trade union membership or detriment in relation to trade union duties; and procedures for handling redundancies and remedies via the industrial tribunals in respect of such rights. In Great Britain those rights are in trade union law.
  I hope that the consolidation and simplification of this legislation will be appreciated by all concerned and I commend the orders to the House.
  10.20 pm
  Sir James Molyneaux: As the Minister has said, happily, we are discussing the orders against a background of excellent industrial relations in Northern Ireland—a fact which, dare I say it, gives us an advantage over the rest of the United Kingdom because it is a permanent feature of the Northern Ireland landscape. To a great extent, that is due to the much maligned former Stormont Government and Parliament, which was always very cautious about industrial relations legislation being processed through Westminster.
  At first, it was not always recognised that the Westminster Parliament was sovereign, and that led us into various difficulties which we need not pursue tonight. Admittedly, that made life rather exciting for me in the early 1970s when I was in receipt of the Whip of a Conservative Government who at that time were engaged
  144
  in steamrollering through the somewhat marathon-like Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, which finally had to be guillotined after we had sat up night after night and participated in as many as two dozen Divisions through the night.
  At that time I supported the Government in the Lobby, sometimes in all those Divisions. However, when I returned home at the weekend to Stormont influences, my colleagues in that subordinate Parliament would have none of it. Even when direct rule was imposed—and let us remember on this of all days that it was imposed in 1972 with the object of ending the violence—trade union affairs did not excite passions as they unfortunately continue to do on this island.
  Both orders contain many references to tribunals. By and large they and those who man them—perhaps I should say person them—serve us very well. I pay tribute to all those who are involved in the tribunal machinery, but I wish that the same could be said of all commissions because those bodies leave much to be desired. Some commissioners simply do not belong to this planet. As some of them have sat there too long for all the good that they have done and as commissioning has become something of a growth industry in Northern Ireland, there is a need for a root and branch review of both the personnel and the proceedings of some commissions.
  Both sides of industry are burdened by restrictions and exorbitant costs to an extent that Parliament never really intended. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office will address that point seriously and urgently and that they will free employers and employees from the intolerable burdens that are imposed nowadays by a very special breed of fat cats.
  10.23 pm
  Mr. Jim Dowd: As the Minister has said and as the Opposition recognise, the primary purpose of the measures is to consolidate an almost bewildering array of employment-related issues into a more comprehensible form, as has already been done in relation to Great Britain measures. The sheer volume of them, however, merits some consideration, albeit brief, on the Floor of the House, although it is self-evidently sensible to clarify the legal framework whenever possible. As the proposals generally translate the law in Northern Ireland as currently defined into two orders, we have no objection to them. Even so, although the resulting codes may be simpler to understand, it would be a substantial over-statement to describe either as simple.
  Equally, this is not to say that the present legislation is either adequate or that the machinery for its implementation is working perfectly—I suspect that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) may have been making an oblique reference to that—or even well in all cases. As the Minister averred, one of the principal differences in Northern Ireland legislation from that in the rest of the United Kingdom is the absence of the employment appeals tribunal system, which has become an important part of industrial relations practice over here. The most significant problem facing industrial tribunals of all sorts, however, is the substantial delays in having cases listed, let alone decided.
  For a system that was originally devised to be speedy and informal, it is obvious that it has become hopelessly overloaded. In the past eight years, the number of cases

  145
  coming before industrial tribunals has risen by about 90 per cent. and verdicts of unfair dismissal have increased by well over 50 per cent. in less than 10 years.
  The problem is worse than those figures suggest because access to industrial tribunals is effectively denied to many people by the lack of legal aid in such cases, which means that only people with the means or the support of their union can bring matters before tribunals in any case. When it is realised that citizens advice bureaux dealt with some 670,000 employment-related cases throughout the UK in 1994–95, the scale of the problem becomes ever more apparent.
  The Minister mentioned the disparity on Sunday trading. I shall pursue him slightly on that matter and I speak as an enthusiastic supporter of the changes effected in Great Britain. The draft order, which would extend those changes to Northern Ireland, has been around for some considerable time, so could he say whether his consultations have revealed that they should be proceeded with in an identical form in Northern Ireland?
  I am thinking of what experience has shown in England and Wales to be the highly anomalous and widely resented differentiation of Easter Sunday. Christmas day is included in the same power, but it falls far less frequently on a Sunday, although I am readily aware that, in Northern Ireland, more so than in any other part of the UK, when dealing with matters that carry even the slightest religious overtone, one must tread with utmost caution. None the less, when, in any event, does the Minister expect the measure to be brought forward?
  I have read elsewhere that the Minister has concluded that he has no plans to extend the regulations on Sunday betting. I have a degree of sympathy with his conclusion because, in the circumstances, the combination of the religious connotations that I have mentioned with gambling is probably too volatile a mixture.
  The area in which the orders are most deficient lies in a missed opportunity to improve on the rights of people at work. Although. as I mentioned, the orders are almost exclusively a consolidation of existing regulations, that is not the complete picture. The Minister referred to article 14, paragraphs (7) to (9), which contain a wholly new provision for safeguarding the continuity of employment for medical professionals. We welcome that without reservation as both straightforward and necessary. That concedes the point, however, that the orders could, had the will existed, been used to introduce other elements that would have extended rights of redress for working people in Northern Ireland. In particular, those could have included steps to encourage dispute resolution by extending the ability of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to assist in the early stages of an impending dispute.
  The other key area in which the measures are inadequate, although in this they are at least comparable with the position in the rest of the UK, is in relation to legal rights for home workers—or rather the complete absence of them. Home workers are essential to the economy, yet they remain the least protected workers in the work force. Many are forced to register as self-employed, making them ineligible for rights such as sick, redundancy or maternity pay, pension rights, or rights against unfair dismissal. Only one in five receives a written contract of employment, one in three an itemised pay slip and just one in 20, sick pay, redundancy notices
  146
  or pay, or maternity entitlement. Yet home workers comprise at least 1 million of the United Kingdom's work force. The lack of protection that they enjoy is scandalous and compounds what I have already described as the missed opportunity of these measures.
  Notwithstanding those glaring omissions, the broad thrust of the orders is to be welcomed and we do welcome them. Anything that serves to make the law easier to understand for people other than lawyers is a highly desirable advance.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Moss: I welcome the opportunity to respond to the main points made by hon. Members in the debate—of which there were not many. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) mentioned "fat cat commissioners". I am told that one person who fills the post operates with a fairly modest budget and is the Northern Ireland equivalent of the Great Britain commissioner, so the fat cats in Northern Ireland are the same as those here, presumably.
  The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) asked about delays. For a routine case, the average length of time from registration of a complaint to an offer of a first listing date for a hearing is between 15 and 20 weeks. In equal pay and sex discrimination cases, however, the delay is somewhat longer—that answers the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and I need not write to him now. There was a backlog of about 8,631 cases, if one includes equal pay and sex discrimination cases, as of 6 May 1996, but about 70 to 80 per cent. of those were multiple cases. In other words, the outcome of many cases depends on one that is taken forward.
  On why we do not have a local employment appeal tribunal in Northern Ireland, the present arrangements whereby Northern Ireland appeals go straight to the Court of Appeal work satisfactorily without any undue delay. The case load is about 10 cases per annum only, which raises the question whether it would be cost-effective or even necessary to set up a new, specialist appeals body in Northern Ireland.
  It is most important to remember that this exercise is one of consolidation—a re-enactment of existing provisions and not an opportunity to change the legislation. Without this exercise, the extreme difficulties of understanding legislation that is some 30 years old and which has been successively amended by some seven pieces of primary legislation dealing with employment rights and 28 other amending enactments, would persist. Those difficulties are not just in relation to the legal profession and industrial tribunals, but for trade unions, employees and employers, all of whom are entitled to accessible legislation, especially as it is their rights that are dealt with in that legislation.
  The orders achieve a desirable objective. For the first time since 1965, the employment rights of Northern Ireland individuals are ordered and set out in a single enactment. They are in the form and terminology of the equivalent Great Britain provisions. The consolidation has been keenly awaited by the wide spectrum of those who work in this field
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.—[Mr. Moss.]

  DAMAGES BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills.)

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

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure attributable to the Act incurred by a Minister of the Crown, and

  (b) the payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Wells.]

  Question agreed to.

  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet in Westminster on Tuesday 16th July to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 94G(2), notice of the subject may be given not later than the rising of the House on Tuesday 9th July.—[Mr. Wells.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I think that motions 7 and 8 may conveniently be taken together.
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Wednesday 10th July, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Members' Pay and Allowances and to the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1996 not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion, such Questions including the Questions on any Amendments to any of the said Motions which she may have selected, which may then be moved; and the said Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Monday 15th July, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Gummer relating to Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Functions) not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; and the said Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Wood.]

  Rectory School, Hampton
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
  10.34 pm
  Mr. Toby Jessel: Nothing is more important than the education, the preparation for life and the protection and safety of children. Currently 890 children, mostly from my constituency, are at Rectory school, Hampton. In September, there will be 950 pupils. For the first time ever in its 60 years, it is full at the point of entry for 11-year-olds, and has had to turn some children away. That results from its growing reputation and its improving results under its outstanding head teacher, Mrs. Alessandra Wilson. She is greatly respected in Hampton and in Hampton Hill, and among her professional colleagues.
  The staff at Rectory are excellent, as is the governing body. At the end of 1994, an Office for Standards in Education report stated:
  "Rectory School has a safe and caring environment, with a strong positive ethos. There are good relationships between staff and pupils and the community … It benefits from the clear and positive leadership of the Headteacher, and the high commitment of staff … The percentage of pupils gaining 5+ A-G grades has significantly improved from 32 per cent. in summer 1992 to 50 per cent. in summer 1994 … Overall the behaviour of pupils is good both in classes and around the school, although on occasion it can be noisy … There is a developing programme of moral, social and cultural education".
  A school like Rectory should be praised and supported. Its success depends on the authority and leadership of the head teacher, the teachers and the governors. That should not be undermined by anyone, least of all by the local education authority. Yet that is just what has happened as a result of a soft and woolly-minded policy of leniency towards drug offences on the part of the local education authority, the Liberal Democrat-controlled Richmond upon Thames borough council. At one fell swoop, it has delivered a body blow to the authority of the head and the governor, flouted the professional opinion of the teaching staff, and ridden roughshod over the legitimate anxieties of parents.
  Three years ago, the governors of Rectory School, to their credit, laid down a strong policy against the possession of drugs. The school curriculum states:
  "Governors have decided that if any pupil were to be found in school in possession of an illegal substance or drug, he or she would be permanently excluded"—
  that is, expelled.
  A code of conduct, called "Rectory School Expectations", is sent to every child in the school every September. It states:
  Governors have decided that if any pupil were to be found in school in possession of an illegal substance or drug, then he or she would be permanently excluded."
  That is clearly understood by all pupils and parents. It is a tough but fair policy, which is backed by parents and staff in the interests of the 900 pupils taken as a whole.
  Drugs such as cannabis can become an addictive habit. In the long run, according to the "Oxford Textbook of Medicine", cannabis can cause lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema. It can damage reproductive capacity, cause psychiatric damage and induce personality change. It is a
  150
  slow poison that can begin to rot body, mind and spirit. That is why the parents want the school to be a haven against drugs, not to be tolerant of them.
  The policy at Rectory school has worked better than in many other schools. For three years there were no drug episodes; exceptionally, there was just one recent incident. Four months ago, three boys were caught red handed in the possession of cannabis. After careful consideration, the head decided that there were extenuating circumstances for one of the boys, but not for the other two, whom she decided to exclude.
  The parents of one boy appealed to the governors, who upheld the head's decision. There was then an appeal to a sub-committee of the governors, chaired by the Rev. Brian Leathard, the much-respected vicar of Hampton Hill. The sub-committee considered the appeal most carefully and upheld the decision of the governors, taken as a whole.
  Next, the parents of the same boy appealed to Richmond upon Thames borough council, to whom the parents of the second boy had directly appealed. A panel of three councillors—Carthew, Morgan and Gold—advised by two council officers, reversed the governors' decision, and decided to reinstate the two boys who had been excluded from Rectory school. The Rectory school governors then appealed to an independent panel, who were appointed and briefed by Richmond upon Thames borough council. The independent panel also decided to support the councillors' decision and to reinstate the two boys.
  At the beginning of last month, three teacher governors of the school wrote to me, and sent me a letter signed by 71 of the staff—only one had refused to sign. They said that they had written to the borough's director of education about their
  "extreme concern over the reinstatement by the local education authority of the two pupils who were permanently excluded from this school for being in possession of cannabis on school premises on 4 March 1996"
  The letter signed by 71 staff members of the school continued:
  "The Borough's decision will in our view, cause us extreme difficulty in managing pupils, particularly in Year 10, who will inevitably seek to take advantage of this new situation. They will know that if they bring illegal substances into school, the final sanction can be removed … We feel disastrously let down by the local education authority"—
  Richmond upon Thames borough council—
  "in this matter … the decision appears to challenge the whole concept of LMS"—
  local management of schools.
  One parent wrote to me to voice what he has called his
  "outrage taken at the action by the LEA".
  Another parent, a mother with two sons—one recently achieved excellent GCSE results at Rectory school, and the other is about to begin at Rectory school this September—wrote to say:
  "I was horrified that the LEA overturned the punishment, instead of supporting the school's very clear and sensible policy on the control of drug abuse".
  On receiving the letters, I asked instantly to see Mrs. Wilson, and saw her the same day. I then asked to see representatives of the parents and governors. Later, I had some informal conversations with members of Richmond upon Thames council.

  151
  Following the council's decision to reinstate the two boys, the central question must be, "What message does it give to the other 900 children?" Does that decision say, "Your head teacher was wrong. The school governors were wrong. Cannabis is not so dangerous for teenagers after all. Richmond upon Thames borough council says so and it knows best"? Is that the message of the reinstatement?
  Children and young people not only have a strong sense of justice and fairness; they also need and want firm guidance. But, as a result of Richmond borough council's decision, they are not getting that. The children are now confused: they do not know which rules or laws can be breached and which cannot. If cannabis is condoned, why not Ecstasy or knives? How will local primary schools and their staff and parents react? Will they want to use Rectory school in 1997 as much as they chose to do in 1995 and the early part of 1996?
  The governors of Rectory school feel betrayed by the borough council. Rectory happens to be next to two large independent day schools. Some years ago, there was a drug offence in one of those. The headmaster's decision to expel was endorsed by his governors; and that was that. There could be no further appeal. Are the governors of Rectory school, Hampton, to be treated by Richmond borough council as less responsible people than the governors of neighbouring independent schools?
  The authority of the governors and the head of Rectory school should not have been undermined by Richmond borough council unless there were absolutely compelling grounds to do so. No such compelling grounds exist. The school rule that drugs entail exclusion could and should have been given great weight, as one of the main factors, by the appeal bodies.
  The borough council now seeks to invoke Department for Education circulars 10/94 and 4/95 to imply that the two boys ought not to have been excluded. I have studied these two circulars closely and can see nothing in them to prevent Richmond council from having supported the decision of Rectory school. I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to clarify the position on this.
  It seems to me that Richmond council has not acted illegally, but it has acted unwisely and wrongly in the way that its appeal panels were set up and advised. The three councillors should have been advised by their officers to give much more weight to the well-being of the school and the 900 children as a whole. As long as there is no injustice, sometimes an example has to be made.
  I am equally uneasy about the appointment and briefing given to the so-called "independent" panel of three ladies, Mrs. Brown, Mrs. Scotney and Mrs. Viscardi. They are all governors of primary schools, as far as I know without experience in the government of comprehensive schools. The appeal to that panel was by the school against the council, who were thus the two parties to the appeal. Yet the independent panel allowed the children of the parents to appear. This turned the hearing into a three-sided hearing between the school, the parents and the council, which it was not supposed to be.
  The parents were accompanied by a solicitor, who spoke for them. The school representatives, the head, Mrs. Alessandra Wilson, and the Rev. Brian Leathard
  152
  were notified neither that the parents were going to be there nor that they would be legally represented. Therefore, the school representatives did not bring a solicitor. This unbalanced the hearing by the independent panel.
  The borough council officer advising the independent panel treated Mrs. Wilson and Mr. Leathard, who are greatly respected pillars of society locally in the Hamptons, in a cavalier manner, telling them to shut up or leave the room.
  I do not blame the members of the independent panel, so much as those who selected them and briefed them. Ultimately, the responsibility for these arrangements rests not so much with the chief executive of the council as with the leader of the council, Mr. Williams, the chairman of the education committee, Mr. Cornwell, who is also a governor of Rectory school, and the deputy leader of the council, Mrs. Alexander, who is also the chairman of the governors of Rectory school. It is for them and the committees they chair, in the end, to give policy to their officers on how this sort of situation is to be handled.
  The two boys in question are now reinstated at Rectory, and are settling back. No one is suggesting that they should be removed at this stage. However, some serious damage has been done. Parents are asking, "How can the authority of the head and the governors now be restored?"
  We have changed the law of the land to give parents more power, and it is for the parents to decide how to use it. Parents could easily hold a general meeting and say that they do not wish the governors of the school to change their rules against drugs. It might be that they would wish "to fire a warning shot across the bows" of the borough council. They could warn it that, if there is any such reinstatement decision by Richmond council ever again, then parents might consider a further meeting to discuss a petition of 20 per cent. of the parents, which could trigger a referendum of all the parents on whether or not the school should remove itself from borough council control.
  Becoming grant-maintained would result in substantial additional finance for the school, of between £200,000 and £300,000 a year, since the school would no longer have to carry any local council overheads. The governors could also trigger a parents' referendum, but an alternative procedure to obtain one is the petition by 20 per cent. of the parents.
  I am not going to suggest that a referendum of parents should be triggered now, but it is open to the parents to warn the borough council that one could take place in the future. Such a warning would deliver to Richmond council a well deserved shock. The mere threat of such a referendum from a meeting of parents would probably deter the council from making such a foolish and dangerous decision again. It would also serve to restore the authority of the head and governors of Rectory school, which is what the parents want—for the sake, as I said at the outset, of the education, the safety and the welfare of all the children in the school.
  10.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): I start by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) for raising this important issue on the Adjournment, and for the way he has done so.

  153
  Exclusions from school are self-evidently a sensitive and emotive issue; discussion of drugs in schools is equally sensitive and emotive. Combining the two can be a recipe for a great deal more heat than light. My hon. Friend has avoided that; I am grateful to him for the clear way in which he has set out the background to the case in question, and for his measured comments on the issues at the focus of his and his constituents' concern.
  There is no dispute about the facts. Rectory school, Hampton, has a well publicised and tough line on drugs in school, which I commend. Following an incident in March, the head teacher permanently excluded two pupils in pursuance of that policy. These exclusions were upheld by the school's governing body, but Richmond local education authority took a different view and ordered that the two boys be reinstated. The governors exercised their right to go to an independent appeal committee but they were not successful in reimposing the exclusions.
  So much for the background. I do not propose to disinter it in any more detail. My hon. Friend said that the LEA acted legally but believes that it acted unwisely. I understand that the school takes the same view. Neither wants to unpick what has been decided about the two boys, but both are rightly concerned about the general issues raised, on which I intend to focus.
  Before doing so, I want to make it clear that I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's line of argument. I can well understand the difficulties that a school faces when excluded pupils are reinstated. Sometimes, though not always, there are difficulties with the pupils directly involved. Very often there are concerns that the school's authority may be undermined and that it will be harder to maintain good discipline as a result. When there are reinstatements in cases involving drugs, there are very real worries that firm action being taken to combat this menace among young people will be jeopardised.
  It is a very difficult situation, and I have every sympathy with the head teacher and school concerned, especially as in this case they seem to have acted quite properly throughout.
  There is general support, including from the Opposition, for the Government's "Tackling Drugs Together" strategy. As part of that, my Department issued guidance to all schools in England in May last year on drug prevention in schools. Circular 4/95, as it is known, included general advice on school discipline in respect of drugs. I emphasise that that was general advice and clearly labelled as such. It must be for the governors of each school to establish a more detailed policy in the light of local circumstances, and for head teachers to apply those policies appropriately when reacting to particular incidents.
  We believe, as circular 4/95 makes clear, that all schools should include a specific reference to drugs in their policy statements about pupil behaviour, and that it should set out clearly the disciplinary measures likely to be taken in response to drug-related incidents. In establishing those policies, schools will want to consider a repertoire of responses, including both sanctions and counselling, and take account of how punishment prescribed by the school links with law enforcement by the police.
  How that general guidance is converted into detailed policies for schools will depend on local circumstances. Some schools, with the support of parents and the local
  154
  community, will be able to adopt firmer policies than others. Some schools have more of a problem to tackle than others and will have to pitch their disciplinary responses accordingly. But whatever the detail, it is important that pupils and parents are left in no doubt about the school's intentions regarding drugs.
  As my hon. Friend said, Rectory school's policy is exemplary in that respect. After wide local consultation and with overwhelming support from parents and the local community, the governors declared that the school should be a drug-free zone. It made it clear that permanent exclusion would be the normal response for any pupil found in possession of, or using, an illegal substance on the school premises. Parents and pupils are reminded of that in the school's code of conduct, which is re-issued to them annually.
  I understand that at no point has Richmond LEA raised objections to, or doubts about, Rectory school's policy. It did so neither in the initial consultations, nor when the policy was re-issued in each of the following three years. Indeed. I am told that there have been a number of indications of the LEA's support for the Rectory governors' strong stance.
  My hon. Friend said that, in the aftermath of the recent incident, it was suggested locally that Rectory school's policy was in conflict with my Department's guidance. That is not the case, and I underline that tonight. Our guidance states, in terms, that the fact that behaviour could constitute a criminal offence need not of itself lead automatically to exclusion. But the emphasis is on the word "automatically". Exclusion has serious consequences for pupils and it is important that all the circumstances of an incident are considered before judgments are made.
  All the facts show that Rectory school considers apparent breaches of its drugs policy carefully and in detail. It has a high threshold for mitigating circumstances, but that is not an impossible hurdle. There is clearly no crude automaticity about exclusion decisions. Indeed, my hon. Friend has confirmed that a third pupil was involved peripherally in the incident at the centre to which my hon. Friend has drawn the House's attention. After consideration of all the circumstances, the head teacher decided that a fixed-term rather than permanent exclusion would be appropriate in that case.
  Let me deal now with some of the general issues about exclusions. This serious sanction can have a significant effect on a pupil's school career. It should and must be a last resort. For that reason, the power to exclude rests solely with head teachers. It cannot be delegated. For the same reason, exclusion decisions, once taken, are subject to several levels of review. In the first instance, a school's governing body, or its discipline committee if it has one, can review the case and decide to reinstate the pupil if that seems appropriate. Secondly, for county schools such as Rectory, the LEA must consider all permanent exclusions and any representations from the parents concerned. It, too, can decide on reinstatement. That possibility does not, however, apply to grant-maintained schools—a point which Rectory school governors might wish to note, not least in connection with my hon. Friend's reference to a possible petition to that effect.
  Finally, for all schools, representations can be made to an independent appeals committee. Such representations can be made by the parents of an excluded pupil or, in a

  155
  case where the LEA has directed reinstatement of an excluded pupil, by the governors of the school concerned. Those committees are constituted to review exclusion cases impartially. They must include a majority of members independent of the school and LEA involved, and at least one lay member with no professional involvement in education. They operate in accordance with a statutory framework laid down by the Education Act 1986 and they are guided by a code of practice promulgated jointly by the local authority associations and the council on tribunals. They look afresh at all aspects of each case and reach conclusions in the light of the information presented to them, including representations from the parties involved.
  The committees are independent and it is important that they are seen to operate as such. Of course, it is also important that the process is seen to be fair by each of the parties involved—although, necessarily, at least one of them will be disappointed by the committee's conclusions. The conclusions, whatever they may be, are final and binding on all parties—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no power in law to overturn them.
  Our latest figures show that these exclusion appeal committees were convened some 1,200 times in the 1994–95 school year, which represents a little over 10 per cent. of all permanent exclusion cases. In about 15 per cent. of the appeals brought by parents, the excluded pupil was reinstated. Of the 160 appeals brought by governing bodies, almost half led to LEA reinstatement decisions being overturned. Therefore, the outcome is by no means a foregone conclusion.
  I understand that Rectory school felt that the LEA and, in turn, the appeal committee focused overmuch on the situation of the two pupils who had been excluded. It believes that insufficient attention was given to the position of the school and, in particular, to the difficulties that reinstatement would cause for the school in maintaining its discipline policy generally and in regard to its strong line on drugs. That mirrors complaints that we have heard in a number of other high profile exclusion cases in recent months.
  Clearly, appeal committees have a difficult job. They must look at all the relevant facts—at whether the excluded pupil was responsible for the alleged misdemeanour and, if so, whether permanent exclusion is the appropriate response in his or her case. However, consideration of the last question need not focus on the situation of the excluded pupil alone—it may be important to take into account the interests of other pupils at the
  156
  school. That is most obviously the case where an excluded pupil has assaulted others or has been persistently disruptive in class. However, it also applies where there are considerations about sustaining a school's authority to maintain good discipline and the sort of orderly environment necessary for effective learning.
  The present legislation places no constraints on the freedom of appeal committees to take full account of the wider interests of the school, but it does not require them to do so. Recently, we have been considering whether amending legislation to that effect would be appropriate. My hon. Friend's representations certainly reinforce the arguments for that, and I promise him that we will look sympathetically at this when we consider legislative options for the next Session.
  Such legislation could help in difficult cases where the educational interests of an excluded pupil need to be balanced against the interests of his or her peers. However, it would not remove the important rights of appeal. The serious consequences of permanent exclusion mean that, on grounds of natural justice if no other, parents and pupils must continue to have a right to an independent hearing.
  Finally, I refer to the present situation at Rectory school. I agree with my hon. Friend about the difficult situation in which the head teacher and the governors find themselves, and I have a great deal of sympathy for them. They excluded pupils in line with a policy on drugs that had been drawn up with widespread local support. Richmond LEA had never raised questions about that policy, yet it reinstated the two pupils, at least partly, on the ground that the policy was too harsh. It is not at all surprising that the head and the governors feel very badly let down.
  Mr. Jessel: And the parents.
  Mr. Squire: Yes, I accept that. From what my hon. Friend has said about the qualities of the school and its head, I am sure that the school will come out of this difficult situation with honour. It is clear that it continues to enjoy strong support from parents. Indeed, letters received by the Department refer to widespread anger at the LEA's decision. Given that support, I trust that the school will be able to sustain its commendably strong line on drugs, but it will have to work harder at it and will not thank the LEA for that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total number of employees of(a) British nationality and (b) indigenous nationality employed in high commissions in sub-Saharan Africa in (i) 1991–92 and (ii) 1995–96. [35092]

  Mr. Hanley
  On 31 March 1996, the high commissions in the 14 Commonwealth countries in sub-Saharan Africa employed 463 British nationals and 701 indigenous nationals. Equivalent information for 31 March 1992 is not available from all high commissions. The eight which were able to provide figures report 382 British and 459 indigenous nationals.

  Alexandre Nikitin
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Russian authorities about the imprisonment of Alexandre Nikitin; and if he will make a statement. [35636]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our ambassador in Moscow has raised the case of the arrest of Mr. Nikitin, a Russian citizen, with the Russian authorities. He drew their attention to the interest in the west in this case, and emphasised that the international community would continue to monitor developments closely.

  UN Conference on Disarmament
  Mr. Liew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the admission of Iraq to membership of the United Nation conference on disarmament on 17 June. [35927]

  Mr. David Davis
  We welcome the decision by the conference on disarmament on 17 June to admit a further 23 states as members. This brings the total membership to 61.

  The United Kingdom has long favoured the widest possible membership of the CD in order to promote universal adherence to arms control treaties.

  Iraq is one of the new members.

  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Indian Government regarding negotiations to complete a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. [35963]
  2
  Mr. David Davis
  We maintain a close dialogue with the Indian Government on a wide range of issues. We have expressed to them at the highest level our hope that they will support the earliest possible conclusion of a universal and effective comprehensive test ban treaty and will become a party to such a treaty.

  EU Export Bans
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the EU's powers to ban exports from member countries to third countries. [35756]

  Mr. David Davies
  The EU's powers to ban exports from member countries to third countries are described in the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member on 11 June, column 77. The Government's attitude to the use of these powers depends on the particular circumstances in which their use is contemplated. For example the Government oppose the BSE-related export ban on beef, but support restrictions on the export of hazardous substances, designed to implement a UN scheme, enabling importing countries of control handling to such substances.

  Bhutanese Refugees
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the human rights of Bhutanese refugees in Nepal. [35769]

  Mr. Hanley
  We believe that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is in the best position to monitor the situation. We continue to encourage the Governments of Nepal and Bhutan to resolve the underlying problems through bilateral negotiation. We have contributed over £475,000 through non-governmental organisations over the past three years to support the refugees in Nepal.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consultations he has had with the Appeal Movement Co-ordination Council about the situation of Bhutanese refugees in Nepal and India. [35772]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Appeal Movement Co-ordination Council full committee called on the British embassy in Kathmandu on 7 May. It provides us regularly with reports of its activities in Nepal and India.

  India (Mr. Baburam Shegdem)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has received concerning the numbers of those injured during the alleged police attack on the funeral procession of Mr. Baburam Shegdem on 21 June; what representations he has made to ensure that the injured received appropriate medical treatment; and if he will make a statement. [35771]

  Mr. Hanley
  According to reports received by our high commission in New Delhi, around 100 people were injured during Mr. Shegdem's funeral procession on 21 June. We have raised the case with the Indian National Human Rights Commission.
  3
  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information has been evaluated by his Department about the circumstances and causes of the reported death in custody in India of Mr. Baburam Shegdem; what representations he has made to the Indian Government about the subsequent events at the funeral of Mr. Shegdem; and if he will make a statement. [35770]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our high commission in New Delhi has received reports that Mr. Shegdem was among a number of Bhutanese detainees who were allegedly beaten in prison on 3 June. Mr. Shegdem was admitted to hospital on 11 June and died the following day. We have raised the case with the Indian National Human Rights Commission.

  Defence Sales Embargo
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 13 June,Official Report, column 263, if he will make a statement on the mechanism in his Department for keeping under review the embargo on defence sales. [34640]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The embargo on arms sales to Argentina is regularly reviewed by this Department, in consultation with other relevant Departments, taking account of all available information and any changing circumstances.

  St. Helena (Censorship)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Government censorship applies to articles and letters submitted for inclusion in the St. Helena News. [36033]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  There is no censorship in determining which submitted articles and letters are included in the St. Helena News. The editor relies on guidelines identical to those on broadcasting on Radio St. Helena described in my answer of 19 March 1996, column 112.

  Japan
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the benefits to the United Kingdom arising from the Japanese Government's peace, friendship and exchange initiative. [36447]

  Mr. Hanley
  The UK is specifically included in this 10-year £650 million programme; under it, the Japanese Government—in close consultation with ourselves—are helping to fund historical research as well as various exchange programmes aimed at fostering mutual understanding between the peoples of the UK and Japan. Participants in the exchange visits, initiated by private organisations, include former prisoners of war and their families. These research and exchange programmes are expected to continue in coming years.

  Angola
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently made to, or received from, the signatories of the Lusaka agreement about the political and military situation in Angola. [35590]
  4
  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker has recently had talks with the Prime Minister, the Secretary General of the MPLA and the Angolan army chief of staff. The Minister saw Dr. Savimbi during her visit to Angola in February. The British ambassador in Luanda is in frequent contact with senior representatives of the Lusaka signatories. At every opportunity we continue to press for an early and successful conclusion to the peace process.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Angolan Government and other relevant agencies and authorities about the conditions in the UNITA quartering camps. [35589]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are aware of complaints by UNITA about conditions in some of the quartering areas. These are the responsibility of the United Nations authorities who monitor the situation on the ground. Our embassy in Luanda is in touch with the relevant organisations.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  UNESCO
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the implications for Britain's contribution to international policy-making in the field of arts, culture and national heritage of the United Kingdom's non-membership of UNESCO; and if she will make a statement. [34823]

  Mr. Sproat
  The United Kingdom's non-membership of UNESCO has not significantly affected the work of my Department. The question of membership of UNESCO is primarily for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The United Kingdom has no immediate plans to region UNESCO, although this issue is kept under review in the light of progress with reform in the organisation and other financial priorities.

  Millennium Commission
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make it her policy to ensure that the Millennium Commission visits locations outside London and the large conurbations to discuss how millennium money has been distributed; and how it is to be distributed in future. [35356]

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

  Museums Review
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the museums review is to be published. [35328]

  Mrs. Virgina Bottomley
  I hope to published the museum policy review before the summer recess.
  5

  Royal Parks Constabulary
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 25 June,Official Report, column 92, (1) at whose request officers of the Royal Parks constabulary were deployed in Trafalgar square on 15 June; [34960]

  (2) under what powers officers of the Royal Parks constabulary were deployed on 15 June in Trafalgar square. [34961]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 2 July 1996]: Initially, officers of the Royal Parks constabulary were called to assist the Royal Parks constabulary inspector who was attacked in his car while driving through Trafalgar square on his way from Regent's park to St. James's park. They were later deployed in the square on different occasions throughout the day, at the request of the Metropolitan police, to help keep order between groups of rival fans in the area.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 25 June,Official Report, column 92, if officers of the Royal Parks constabulary are fully insured against injury liabilities when assisting Metropolitan police outside of the area of the royal parks. [34962]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 2 July 1996]: The Government do not take out commercial insurance cover. An officer who is injured in the course of duty would be entitled to make a claim for compensation under the procedures that are available to all Royal Parks agency staff.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if officers of the Royal Parks constabulary deployed on 15 June in Trafalgar square had available to them arrest powers other than the common law powers available to other citizens; and if she will make a statement; [34958]

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 25 June, Official Report, column 92, what is the territorial jurisdiction of Royal Parks constabulary officers outside the royal parks. [34959]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 2 July 1996]: No, they have no powers outside the parks that are not available to any other citizen.

  The powers of a constable are conferred on officers of the Royal Parks Constabulary under the 1872 Parks Regulations Act. This gives them the same powers, duties and immunities of a constable in the same police district as the parks, but they can exercise these powers only within the royal parks.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many files marked "Not for National Audit Office eyes" are currently held by her Department. [24854]

  Mr. Sproat
  [pursuant to his answer, 18 April 1996, c. 596]: I regret that a recent review has indicated that the information given then was incorrect. At the time of answering the question, my Department held 25 files marked in this way, rather than 43 as stated earlier. One of the files has subsequently been reviewed and the marking removed, as no longer relevant.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Palestine
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance Her Majesty's Government have given to Palestine for educational projects in(a) the west bank and (b) Gaza; and if he will make a statement. [35649]

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom bilateral aid programme is funding a £3.2 million education project in the west bank and Gaza to secure sustained improvement in the quality of education in schools operated by the Ministry of Education and Higher Education. In addition the UK is providing £10,000 to support an English language teaching specialist under a United Nations Association International Service programme to work on teacher training with MEHE.

  The UK is also contributing some 16 per cent. of the costs of two education projects supported by the European Union:

  i) provision of £9.45 million in running cost support this year for nine universities and 12 community colleges throughout the west bank and Gaza; and

  ii) a grant of £114,000 to establish an institutional vocational training qualification. The British Council is also supporting the project from funds to which the Overseas Development Administration contributes.

  The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees supports 200 schools in the west bank and 318 schools in Gaza. The UK is contributing to this programme both through its regular bilateral annual contributions to UNWRA's core programme budget and through the EU.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Industry (Maintenance and Safety)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the age profile of those workers involved in maintenance and safety in the nuclear industry for each of the last three years. [35534]

  Mr. Eggar
  While it is possible that individual companies may be able to produce such information, the statistics requested are not held centrally either by the industry or by this Department.

  Flour Supplies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received concerning the alleged operation of a cartel in the supply of flour to bakeries. [35665]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None. Any evidence suggesting that there is a cartel in the flour market should be brought to the attention of the Director General of Fair Trading, who has the responsibility to consider and, if appropriate, investigate such allegations.

  Regional Policy
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who was responsible for the designation of the Isle of Wight under NUTS level II; and if he will set out the decision-taking process and probable timetable for the redesignation of the Isle of Wight under NUTS level III; and what decisions in respect of NUTS designation require the agreement of the European Commission. [35593]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Community, has responsibility for the designation of NUTS areas across the Community. The Government yesterday issued a consultation document proposing changes to the UK's NUTS structure to reflect the creation of unitary authorities in England, Scotland and Wales and the decision by the Government statistical service to present regional statistics using the areas represented by the Government offices for the English regions. A copy of the consultation document, which outlines the decision taking process and likely timetable, is being placed in the Library of the House. The final decision on the NUTS areas is for Eurostat.

  Industrial and Employment Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the feasibility study carried out by his Department into industrial tribunals and employment appeal tribunals; and if he will make a statement. [35896]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The most recent review in this area followed the commitment in the Green Paper "Resolving Employment Rights Disputes: Options for Reform" (December 1994 Cm 2707) to review the scope for agency status, in consultation with the presidents of the tribunals. It would not be appropriate to publish this assessment and advice to Ministers. However, the main areas covered were:the scope for extending to the tribunals administration the benefits of improved efficiency and quality of service achieved by other next steps agencies;
  in this context, the particular benefits of great devolution of managerial responsibility in an area of administration which has expanded considerably in recent years;
  the importance of ensuring that agency arrangements for administrative staff effectively underpin the independence of the industrial tribunals, in England and Wales and in Scotland, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, as distinct judicial bodies; the constitution of a DTI steering board, to advise Ministers and support the chief executive on strategy development;

  As I announced in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on 9 May 1996, Official Report, column 216, the Government have concluded that the establishment of the tribunals administrative support as an agency would be beneficial, and should be introduced by 1 April 1997.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on staff and union consultation during the process of re-engineering within the Patent Office. [35899]
  8
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Patent Office management regard consultation of the staff concerned as an essential step in winning commitment to specific proposals for re-engineering. Staff are therefore consulted before any proposals are implemented. The Patent Office management is always ready to meet the trade union side to discuss matters of interest or concern under the Whitley procedures.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the areas within the Patent Office that are under consideration for re-engineering indicating the number of staff, time scale and names of the departments involved; and if he will make a statement. [35897]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Patent Office keeps its structure and organisation under continuing scrutiny for possible improvements to operational efficiency. In particular, it has under review certain "front end" administrative processes which are similar in nature but separately handled in the trade marks directorate and the patents and designs directorate. This exercise is still in its early stages and no detailed time scale or staffing proposals have yet been adopted. About 75 posts are covered. No compulsory redundancies are foreseen.

  Public Interest Disclosure Bill
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations his Department has received since 10 April, on the Public Interest Disclosure Bill; how many of these were in favour of the Bill; and how many indicated that the Bill would pose an undue burden on business. [36139]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In the period 10 April to 4 July, my Department received 11 letters on the Public Interest Disclosure Bill. Three of these were general inquiries about the Bill, seven were in support and one expressed concern about the Bill.

  Post Office
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial and efficiency targets he has set for the Post Office in 1996. [36446]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in agreement with the Treasury and in consultation with the Post Office, has set Royal Mail a target to achieve a 20 per cent. return on capital and employed in each of the three years 1996–97 to 1998–99, and has set Parcelforce a target to achieve a return on capital employed of 1.5 per cent. in 1996–97, 3.5 per cent. in 1997–98 and 5.5 per cent. in 1998–99. The profit used when calculating the returns will be struck after interest, excluding interest on past surpluses, but before tax. The capital employed on which returns will be calculated will be the greater of either opening fixed assets or the previous year's closing capital employed. In addition, Post Office Counters Ltd. has been set a target to achieve a 2.5 per cent. return on turnover in each of the three years 1996–97 to 1998–99. The profit used when calculating the return will also be struck after interest, excluding interest on past surpluses, but before tax.
  9
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in agreement with the Treasury and in consultation with the Post Office, has set a real unit cost target for Royal Mail of a cumulative reduction of 6.2 per cent. by 1998–99 over 1995–96.

  Insurance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from people who, having taken out payment protection cover, find their certificate of insurance differs from their letter of acceptance. [35625]

  Mr. Nelson
  None.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to prevent insurance companies from changing conditions of payment protection cover once a letter of acceptance has been signed by both the insurer and the insured. [35626]

  Mr. Nelson
  None. If an insurer wishes to change the terms of a policy it is incumbent on the insurer to notify the proposed changes to the policyholder. The policyholder can then decide whether to accept the new terms or to seek alternative cover elsewhere.

  Factoring Companies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what representations he has received about factoring companies capping the limit of the amount of money they collected on behalf of their clients; [35627]

  (2) what representations he has received about factoring companies refusing to collect debts on behalf of their clients. [35628]

  Mr. Page
  I am not aware of any representations being made about factoring companies capping the limit of the amount of money they collect, or refusing to collect debts, on behalf of their clients.

  If, however, the hon. Gentleman is aware of any specific problems being experienced by small businesses, I will be happy to receive full details from him.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list(a) United Kingdom legislation, (b) EU legislation and (c) international treaties, conventions or other obligations concerning animal welfare for which his Department has responsibility. [34291]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: None.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many statutory instruments his Department introduced in(a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) between 1 January 1996 and 1 May 1996 which had the effect of repealing one or more previous statutory instruments without replacing them with a new regulation. [35039]
  10
  Mr. Lang
  [holing answer 3 July 1996]: This information is not available in the form requested. However, a list of regulations that have been repealed or amended was placed in the Library of the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 8 May 1996.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met Mr. O. J. Williams to discuss the application to burn orimulsion at Pembroke power station; and if he will make a statement. [35525]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 4 July 1996]: Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has met Mr. Williams.

  Nuclear Energy
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the shortfall between the cost of the liabilities which remain the responsibility of the public sector and the amount of moneys available to Magnox, excluding the proceeds from the sale of the advanced gas-coded reaction and pressurised water reactor nuclear power generation stations; and if he will make a statement on how that shortfall was to be met(a) in May 1995 and (b) at present. [35617]

  Mr. Ian Lang
  [holding answer 4 July 1996]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave on 22 May 1996, Official Report, column 269. The estimated cost of meeting Magnox Electric's liabilities are given in the company's report and accounts for the year ended 31 March 1996, published on 10 June 1996, as £8.9 billion discounted at 3 per cent. real and £18.2 billion undiscounted. Magnox Electric's liabilities have always been in the public sector and will remain so after the privatisation of British Energy.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Bereaved Families
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance she has issued to employers on ways of helping their staff to make contact with bereaved families. [34659]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has not issued guidance to employers on this subject. A sensitive approach to contacts with bereaved families is an aspect of good employment practice. The Health and Safety Executive provides information and advice to bereaved families following fatal accidents at work.

  Key Stage 2 Tests
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on changes in the marking methodology for key stage 2 tests in English between 1995 and 1996. [35895]
  11
  Mr. Paice
  The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority made a number of improvements this year to the external marking of the national curriculum tests at key stage 2. These included: increased training for markers; at least two checks of each markers' work at least twice; improved mark schemes; confirming the final level boundaries after a sample of actual scripts had been marked; and re-checking papers close to the level boundaries.

  A number of improvements were also made to the tests themselves in the light of evaluation evidence from 1995 and in order to bring the tests into line with the revised national curriculum. For the key stage 2 English tests, the writing test marking criteria were updated and a broader range of marks was provided on the handwriting test. Pre-test procedures were put in place to ensure that the standard of performance required for the award of a level was consistent between 1995 and 1996.

  Schools Renewal Challenge Fund
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the local education authorities which made bids for the new schools renewal challenge fund indicating the number of bids for each LEA and the total value of each LEA bid. [35905]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Ninety-five local education authorities submitted bids for the first tranche of allocations for the new schools renewal challenge fund. The following table lists these authorities, the number of bids submitted by each and the total of credit approvals sought.

  Schools renewal challenge fund: total LEA bids for first tranche 1996–97

  LEA

  Number of SRCF bids

  Total costs bid for £000

  Barnsley

  5

  4,338

  Bath and NE Somerset

  5

  1,205

  Bedfordshire

  3

  1,388

  Berkshire

  4

  1,620

  Bexley

  1

  1,210

  Birmingham

  8

  8,702

  Bolton

  5

  4,128

  Bradford

  2

  2,895

  Buckinghamshire

  1

  115

  Bury

  15

  1,254

  Calderdale

  5

  735

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  1,655

  Cheshire

  7

  1,520

  City of Bristol

  6

  1,340

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  4

  2,315

  Cornwall

  1

  4,390

  Coventry

  2

  1,502

  Croydon

  1

  2,600

  Cumbria

  13

  234

  Derbyshire

  2

  8,045

  Devon

  6

  564

  Doncaster

  2

  376

  Dorset

  1

  8,200

  Dudley

  1

  3,700

  Durham

  2

  1,881

  Ealing

  1

  5,175

  East Sussex

  6

  1,612

  Enfield

  3

  324

  Essex

  1

  500

  Gateshead

  2

  3,300

  Gloucestershire

  3

  325

  Greenwich

  14

  3,170

  Hackney

  8

  2,379

  12

  Schools renewal challenge fund: total LEA bids for first tranche 1996–97

  LEA

  Number of SRCF bids

  Total costs bid for £000

  Hampshire

  3

  3,724

  Haringey

  2

  1,289

  Hartlepool

  3

  350

  Havering

  1

  500

  Hereford and Worcester

  2

  1,709

  Hertfordshire

  3

  1,788

  Hounslow

  15

  2,825

  Isle of Wight

  3

  1,262

  Islington

  3

  4,099

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1

  30

  Kent

  4

  3,963

  Kingston upon Thames

  9

  2,594

  Kirklees

  5

  946

  Lambeth

  3

  1,063

  Lancashire

  5

  3,218

  Leeds

  3

  2,874

  Leicestershire

  8

  1,896

  Lewisham

  9

  408

  Liverpool

  4

  3,551

  Manchester

  3

  2,642

  Merton

  3

  985

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2

  8,082

  Newham

  1

  2,304

  Northamptonshire

  6

  4,080

  North East Lincolnshire

  3

  1,283

  North Lincolnshire

  1

  675

  North Somerset

  1

  2,500

  North Tyneside

  l

  1,270

  Northumberland

  5

  1,745

  North Yorkshire

  6

  3,137

  Nottinghamshire

  5

  4,904

  Oldham

  4

  850

  Redcar and Cleveland

  3

  958

  Richmond upon Thames

  1

  1,950

  Rochdale

  6

  547

  Rotherham

  7

  2,554

  Saint Helen's

  4

  685

  Salford

  4

  1,676

  Sandwell

  2

  2,881

  Sheffield

  2

  3,281

  Shropshire

  2

  712

  Solihull

  10

  603

  Somerset

  6

  2,086

  South Tyneside

  10

  126

  Southwark

  1

  167

  Staffordshire

  4

  2,232

  Stockport

  2

  165

  Suffolk

  2

  1,100

  Sunderland

  2

  1,450

  Surrey

  4

  3,446

  Sutton

  1

  248

  Tower Hamlets

  14

  3,492

  Trafford

  1

  1,445

  Wakefield

  7

  5,590

  Walsall

  2

  1,425

  Waltham Forest

  3

  2,173

  Wandsworth

  3

  2,065

  Westminster

  1

  250

  West Sussex

  1

  3,500

  Wiltshire

  9

  2,119

  Wirral

  6

  1,170

  Wolverhampton

  1

  500

  Where more than one option has been submitted for the same project, the more expensive option only has been included in the above totals.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many English High Court actions in cases falling within the terms of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, schedule 8 rule 3, were raised against defenders domiciled in Scotland in each year since 1990 and in the first half of 1996. [35944]

  Mr. Streeter
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 8 July 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about High Court cases under Schedule 8, Rule 3 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.
  These figures are not held centrally and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many English county court actions in cases falling within the terms of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, schedule 8, rule 3, were raised against defenders domiciled in Scotland in each year since 1990 and in the first half of 1996. [35942]

  Mr. Streeter
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 8 July 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about county court cases under Schedule 8, Rule 3 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.
  These figures are not held centrally and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor' s Department how many English High Court judgments in cases falling within the terms of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, schedule 8, rule 3, were obtained against defenders domiciled in Scotland in each year since 1990 and in the first half of 1996. [35941]

  Mr. Streeter
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 8 July 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about High Court judgments under Schedule 8, Rule 3 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.
  These figures are not held centrally and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.
  14
  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many English county court judgments in cases falling within the terms of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, schedule 8, rule 3, were obtained against defenders domiciled in Scotland in each year since 1990 and in the first half of 1996. [35943]

  Mr. Streeter
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 8 July 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about county court judgments under Schedule 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.
  These figures are not held centrally and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

  Mayoral Chains and Mace (Sale)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from Birmingham city council regarding the west midlands sheriff's offices' order to bailiffs to list the mayoral chains and mace for sale; and if he will make statement. [35902]

  Mr. Streeter
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Jeff Rooker, dated 8 July 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about West Midland's Office.
  I can confirm that no representations have been received from Birmingham City Council about the West Midlands Sheriff's Office.

HEALTH

  Unique Patient Numbers
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 26 June,Official Report, columns 144–45 if he will (a) publish and (b) place in the Library the results of the study carried out into the cause of duplicate numbers under the NHS unique patient number system. [35326]

  Mr. Horam
  The results of the studies have not yet been captured in a final report, although progress notes have been produced for the new NHS number programme board. However a report is being drafted, and copies will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as practicable.

  Alcoholic Lemonade
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with health education
  15
  bodies to evaluate the impact of alcoholic lemonade beverages on the health of children. [35479]

  Mr. Bowis
  None. The Government's report, "Sensible Drinking" December 1995, expressed particular concern about young people inappropriately drinking alcohol of any kind. It specifically recommended that parents and carers of children who drink alcohol should try to ensure that children are aware of its hazards and only consume alcohol in moderate safe quantities for their age group with reference to their physical development. We are currently working with the Health Education Authority to develop new health education messages based on the report for parents and young people.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effect on the health of young people of alcohol in lemonade-style beverages. [35480]

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the relationship between the marketing of alcoholic lemonade and similar drinks and the level of alcohol misuse among young people [34724]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government are aware of concerns about the appeal of certain alcoholic drinks to young people. We welcome the code of practice for the packaging, marketing and sale of alcoholic drinks which the Portman Group published in April. The Portman Group and other signatories will monitor the code and we shall be following this carefully to see how effective it is in practice. My noble Friend, Baroness Cumberlege, recently met representatives from Coca Cola GB when this issue was amongst those we discussed. Otherwise, the Department has received a limited amount of correspondence on the subject.

  Mortality Rates
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths in England and Wales were due to(a) cancers of the (i) lung, (ii) bronchus and (iii) trachea, (b) motor vehicle accidents, (c) HIV-AIDS infection, (d) tuberculosis and (e) Creutzfeld-Jakob disease in each year since 1986. [34869]

  Creutifeldt-Jakob disease in the UK By Calendar year (1985-May 1996)

  Year

  Referrals

  Deaths of definite and probable cases

  Sporadic

  Iatrogenic

  Familial

  GSS

  NVCJD

  Total

  1985

  —

  26

  1

  1

  0

  —

  28

  1986

  —

  26

  0

  0

  0

  —

  26

  1987

  —

  23

  0

  0

  1

  —

  24

  1988

  —

  21

  1

  1

  0

  —

  23

  1989

  —

  28

  2

  1

  0

  —

  31

  1990

  [52]

  26

  5

  0

  0

  —

  31

  1991

  75

  32

  1

  3

  0

  —

  36

  1992

  96

  44

  2

  4

  1

  —

  51

  1993

  78

  37

  4

  2

  2

  —

  45

  1994

  115

  53

  1

  2

  3

  —

  59

  1995

  79

  33

  4

  1

  2

  3

  43

  1996 end May

  46

  12

  0

  0

  1

  6

  19

  16
  Mr. Horam
  The available information on numbers of deaths in England and Wales from cancer of the lung, bronchus and trachea, and from motor vehicle traffic accidents is published:

  for 1986–92 in "Mortality statistic: cause England and Wales", OPCS Series DH2 nos. 13–19;

  for 1993–94, in "ONS Monitor DH2 96/1"; and

  for 1995, in "ONS Monitor DH2 96/2".

  Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  The figures on deaths in England and Wales from HIV and AIDS are shown in the table.

  Year

  HIV

  AIDS

  1986

  24

  262

  1987

  34

  334

  1988

  42

  393

  1989

  51

  628

  1990

  65

  736

  1991

  62

  891

  1992

  85

  1,009

  1993

  104

  1,174

  1994

  110

  1,216

  1995

  95

  1,088

  The number of deaths from tuberculosis in England and Wales is published, for 1986–92 in "Communicable disease statistics, England and Wales, 1994", ONS Series MB2 no. 21 (table 1B). Copies of this publication are available in the Library. Figures for 1993 and 1994 are shown in the table.

  1993

  1994

  Tuberculosis (ICD91 010–018)

  423

  418

  Late effects of tuberculosis (ICD91 137)

  84

  79

  Total

  507

  497

  1 International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision.Figures for 1995 are published in ONS Monitor DH2 96/2; copies of which are available in the Library.

  The data on deaths in the United Kingdom for Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease are shown in the table:

  Asthma
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the mortality rate for asthma for each of the last five years(a) among the whole population and (b) among under-16-year-olds. [35087]

  Mr. Horam
  The table shows asthma mortality rates per 100,000 population for the last five years in England, for all ages and for children aged under 15. Data are not available centrally for the under-16 age group.

  All ages

  Under 15

  1991

  3.6

  0.3

  1992

  3.4

  0.2

  1993

  3.2

  0.2

  1994

  2.9

  0.3

  1995

  2.7

  0.2

  Rates for 1995 are provisional, based on 1994 population estiamtes.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of NHS expenditure in 1995 was spent on treatment of asthma; [35374]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown of NHS expenditure on treatment for asthma in 1995; and what proportion of this expenditure was spent on prescription medicines alone. [35376]

  Mr. Horam
  The net ingredient cost of national health service prescriptions for asthma medication in 1995 was £410.9 million—provisional figure. That represents just over 11 per cent. of the net ingredient cost of all NHS prescriptions in 1995. The net ingredient cost is the basic price of a drug before discounts and the addition of dispensing costs or fees.

  Information on the cost of other NHS services is not available centrally for individual conditions.

  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make asthma a key area in "The Health of the Nation"; and if he will make a statement. [36445]

  Mr. Horam
  We have considered very carefully the case for asthma to be given key area status, but decided against it. However, we have announced today consultation on the creation of an environment key area, covering both outdoor and indoor air quality and the possible respiratory effects of air pollution, including asthma. This in part reflects the report of the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants—COMEAP—"Asthma and outdoor air pollution" which found that, although air pollution did not seem to cause asthma, it did aggravate the condition in a small proportion of existing sufferers.

  We are also announcing today the projects commissioned as the Department's contribution to the joint research initiative with the Department of the Environment and the Medical Research Council on air pollution and respiratory disease. We have already agreed to fund projects worth £2.5 million. In addition, we shall shortly be issuing a call for research proposals for further work on the surveillance of respiratory disease, including asthma.

  "The Health of the Nation" strategy is concerned with the prevention of ill health, rather than its management, and provides a focus for cross-Government working. We
  18
  have concluded that improving the management of asthma remains the responsibility of the national health service working in partnership with organisations outside Government, and there is limited scope for additional cross-Government working. For these reasons we do not consider that an asthma key area would be appropriate or beneficial.

  Nevertheless, improving services for people with asthma has a high priority within the Department of Health, and we are committed to an extensive research programme. The National Asthma Campaign is managing a research strategy on behalf of the Department looking at asthma management in the national health service. It will commission research on the effectiveness of treatments and services for asthma sufferers. That programme will soon be issuing its first call for proposals.

  Other important work includes the current consultation on the future of primary care, and within this context we shall be critically examining comments made concerning the chronic disease management programme.

  The Department values very highly its productive working partnership with the National Asthma Campaign, which has done much to bring about improvements in the management of asthma and to foster research into this important condition affecting more than 2 million people in England. This partnership has provided the means for joint campaigns which have been all the more effective as a direct result of the National Asthma Campaign's participation. I look forward to the further development of this partnership following today's announcements on the latest research initiatives and the consultation on an environment key area in "The Health of the Nation" strategy.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients or their agents requested NHS trusts to supply a more expensive wheelchair than the standard type from NHS trusts in each year since 1990. [35314]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many extra electric indoor/outdoor wheelchairs have been provided since 1 April under the scheme announced in February; and if he will give a regional breakdown of the figures. [35904]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not yet available.

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received in the past two months regarding the proposed closure of St. Bartholomew's hospital. [35475]

  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has received a number of representations, both from individuals and interested groups, about the future of St. Bartholomew's.

  Paediatric Care
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of expenditure in real terms on paediatric care in(a) 1970, (b) 1979 and (c) 1996. [35477]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to eradicate CFCs from metered dosage inhalers. [35506]

  Mr. Malone
  The Medicines Control Agency is complying with European regulations and the Montreal protocol concerning the removal of chlorofluorocarbon propellants from the environment which undertake to remove CFCs from all medicinal products by the end of 1999.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department issues to doctors in respect of prescribing non-CFC inhalant medication. [35505]

  Mr. Malone
  No guidance has been issued to doctors regarding non-CFC inhalant medication, although factual material was included in a bulletin on such devices from the medicines resource centre in September 1995. Copies of this article are available in the Library. However, the Government are committed to the removal of CFCs from all medicinal products by the end of 1999.

  Cardiologists
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health regions in the United Kingdom have three or more consultant cardiologists; and if he will list them. [35498]

  Mr. Malone
  All regions in the United Kingdom have more than three consultant cardiologists.

  East London and the City Health Authority
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received other than from hon. Members concerning the adequacy of the capitation formula used for determining moneys paid to the East London and the City health authority; and what replies he has sent. [35632]

  Mr. Horam
  We have received a small number of representations from interested parties about the weighted capitation formula and its impact on East London and the City health authority. Our responses explain that homelessness and ethnicity, which are the two main areas of concern, are being considered as part of the continuous process of reviewing the formula.

  Suicide
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what national statistics are collected on the incidence of and trends in suicide and self-harm; and if he will make a statement. [35523]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Office of National Statistics collects data on deaths from suicide which have been published in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys series DH2.
  20
  Data on suicide verdicts and verdicts where the cause of death was aggravated by lack of care or by self-neglect are published in the Home Office statistical bulletin, "Statistics of Deaths Reported to Coroners: England and Wales". Detailed analysis of trends and patterns in suicide have been published in a series of articles in "Population Trends", numbers 2, 35, 69, 71 and 80. The Department of Health's Public Health common data set national volumes also include trends on suicide. Information on the incidence of attempted suicide and self-harm is available for cases that result in treatment as an in-patient in hospital. The data are published in volume 2 of "Hospital Episode Statistics: England" for the years 1989–90 to 1993–94. All these publications are available in the Library.

  The overall trend, which is down by 7.2 per cent. since 1990, is encouraging. The suicide rate for young men aged between 15 and 29, which had been rising since 1982, has fallen in the last years in the 15 to 19 age group and begun to plateau among 20 to 29-year-olds. The rate among people over 75 is also continuing to fall. It is not possible to derive any trends from the figures on attempted suicide and self-harm since a large and variable proportion of episodes with a diagnosis of injury and poisoning have no attributable cause.

  Paediatric Doctors
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received over the recruitment of paediatrician doctors qualified for staffing children's wards in district general hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [35719]

  Mr. Malone
  Correspondence about the recruitment of paediatric consultants has been received from the British Paediatric Association.

  I recently announced additional funding of £5.7 million in 1996–97 to provide a significant increase in training opportunities for doctors wishing to become consultants. In paediatrics, the increase for 1996–97 is 262, larger than any other specialty.

  Regional postgraduate deans are expected to target the available resources on those specialties, such as paediatrics, which have seen a rapidly increasing demand for consultant manpower.

  Health Services (Charges)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that when trusts and health authorities hold a public consultation for proposals for substantial changes in services, the results are published showing summarised views and the reasons given for decisions contrary to assessed opinion; and if he will make a statement. [35843]

  Mr. Horam
  We expect health authorities to conduct their business in as open a manner as possible. The outcome of public consultation is normally discussed in open session of a health authority meeting and we would expect papers summarising health authority views and justifying their decisions to be available at the meeting.

  Where a community health council contests a proposal and it is referred to Ministers for a decision, Ministers write to the council informing them of the reasons for that decision.

  District General Hospitals
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes he has made to the guidelines for the assessment of viability of district general hospitals in mixed rural and urban areas. [35720]

  Mr. Horam
  None. The latest guidance, "The Operation of the NHS Internal Market: Local Freedoms, National Responsibilities"—HSG(94)55—was published on 12 December 1994. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Contaminated Blood Products
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will offer ex gratia payments to people with haemophilia who have been infected with hepatitis C through NHS treatment with contaminated blood products; [36179]

  (2) what plans he has for providing long-term financial help to people with haemophilia who were infected with HIV through NHS treatment using contaminated blood products. [36180]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government's view remains that, while they have great sympathy for those infected with Hepatitis C in this way, as no fault or negligence on the part of the national health service has been proved, we have no plans at present to make special payments. We are always ready to listen to further evidence, but the best way that the Government can help at present is to encourage research and the best treatment for those infected, as well as supporting voluntary groups with them. This we are doing.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what money is spent annually on(a) treatment and support services for haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C through NHS treatment with contaminated blood products, (b) research into this problem and (c) recombinant products at (i) national and (ii) regional level. [36130]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Obesity
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the estimated percentage, for each nation within the United Kingdom of(a) men and (b) women, aged (i) 16 to 64 years and (ii) 64 years and over, who were obese for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [36048]

  Mr. Horam
  The table shows the information available for England from 1991–1994. Prior to this, the data are less comprehensive, and information is available for 1.980 and 1986–87 for Great Britain only. For information relating to other parts of the United Kingdom I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  22

  Percentage obese1

  Year

  Great Britain

  England

  Age (years)

  16–64

  16–64

  65–74

  75+

  Men

  19802

  6

  —

  —

  —

  1986–873

  8

  —

  —

  —

  19914

  —

  13

  14

  7

  19924

  —

  12

  11

  14

  19934

  —

  13

  15

  11

  19944

  —

  13

  18

  15

  Women

  19802

  8

  —

  —

  —

  1986–873

  12

  —

  —

  —

  19914

  —

  15

  19

  16

  19924

  —

  16

  22

  14

  19934

  —

  16

  21

  16

  19944

  —

  16

  25

  16

  Note:

  1 The classification for obese has been taken as body mass index greater than 30 kg/m2.

  Source:

  2. The Heights and Weights of Adults in Great Britain.

  3. The Dietary and Nutritional Survey of British Adults.

  4. Health Surveys of England, 1991 to 1994.

  Organically Produced Food
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated; on the potential effects on public health of the consumption of organically produced food; and if he will make a statement. [36051]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health has not commissioned such research.

  Passive Smoking
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his letter of 17 June, what recent representations he has received on the health effects of passive smoking. [34638]

  Mr. Horam
  The information pack produced by Philip Morris Europe SA in conjunction with its current publicity campaign on passive smoking has been received and is being studied.

  HIV Services
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who are the chief executives and officers responsible for purchasing HIV services with each health authority. [34851]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not collected centrally.

  HIV Prevention (Prisons)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances health authorities are authorised to provide ring-fenced HIV prevention money for health promotion in prisons in their areas; and if programmes supported by these funds are available to the entire prison population within the establishment. [34872]
  23
  Mr. Horam
  Health authorities are allocated ring-fenced funds for locally targeted prevention and education initiatives to help curb the spread of HIV. In carrying out their needs assessment, health authorities are expected to liaise with other agencies in their areas, including those working with people in custody or care of the criminal justice services, to help identify local priorities for HIV health promotion work. The scope of such work is a matter for local agreement.

  Pre-payment Prescriptions
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, (1) pursuant to his answer of 30 April Official Report, column 503, on pre-payment prescription certificates, what research his Department has undertaken to identify the costs of administering a weekly instalment system for pre-payment prescription certificates; [35377]

  (2) what measures his Department is taking to publicise the availability of pre-payment certificates for prescriptions.[35458]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  We propose to amend current regulations later this year to allow community pharmacists who wish to do so to sell prescription prepayment certificates directly to patients. At present, patients must apply to a health authority. We will take further steps to publicise the availability of prepayment of certificates once this change has been made.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on the use of the private finance initiative by individual hospital trusts for building projects or the reorganisation of health services by health authorities; and what guidance for trusts his Department has published on this matter. [35648]

  Mr. Horam
  So far, 57 schemes have been approved under the private finance initiative worth over £520 million. A further 40 schemes with a capital value of over £1.5 billion are testing private finance options as part of the PFI process.

  For the guidance issued for trusts, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 15 January at column 343.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each private finance initiative scheme advertised in the contracts supplement to the European Commission Official Journal, the adviser selected and named to assist potential contractors indicating how each was selected. [35889]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally. It is a matter for individual trusts to appoint advisers and guidance is available on the selection process.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the list of advisers currently approved to assist potential contractors seeking clarification in relation to private finance initiative schemes advertised in the contracts supplement to the Official Journal of the European Commission; if he will specify the arrangements by which such advisers are
  24
  allowed to collect fees in exchange for supplying pre-qualification documents to contractors; and if he will make a statement. [35892]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally. Advisers are appointed on the basis of their experience and relevant expertise. The payment of fees is part of the agreement between contractor and adviser and it is for the individual parties concerned to determine when these payments occur.

  Nurses
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the publication of hospital performance tables on the recruitment of nurses hired solely to greet patients within five minutes of arrival in casualty departments. [35887]

  Mr. Horam
  It is clear that, where additional nurses are in place, this is in response to increased demand for accident and emergency services and not as a result of performance tables.

  Information Management Group
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 334, if he will give the previous rank and position or outside job held by the two new deputy directors of the NHS centre for coding and classification. [35767]

  Mr. Horam
  Prior to being designated as deputy directors at the national health service centre for coding and classification—NHS CCC—the two individuals concerned are respectively:Head of the clinical coding support unit based in Manchester which was part of the information management group of the NHS Executive. Then, head of the classification department at the NHS CCC.
  General Practitioner in the NHS. Then, various posts at the NHS CCC including senior medical coding consultant, head of projects and head of Read code development.

  Edgware General Hospital
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the outcome of the meeting of the doctors' working group to finalise its recommendations on Thursday 4 July, in respect of the accident and emergency replacement facilities at Edgware general hospital; and if he will make a statement. [35832]

  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) of 1 July,Official Report, columns 338–39, what was the outcome of the meeting of the doctors' working group that met on Thursday 4 July to discuss matters relating to the accident and emergency department at Edgware hospital; and if he will make a statement. [35831]

  Mr. Dorrell
  As part of the process to which I referred in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on 1 July at columns 338–39, the working group met on Thursday 4 July to finalise its recommendations to Barnet health authority about medical input to the casualty service at Edgware hospital. The working group has endorsed the principle that there should be a medical presence within the casualty service.

  25
  This helpful recommendation, which reflects the local opinions that have been voiced over many months by my hon. Friends and others, will be considered by Barnet health authority at its next meeting.

  Read Codes
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 334, if he will specify the organisation or person carrying out the study of the licensing arrangements between Computer Aided Medical Systems plc and the NHS; if that organisation was chosen by competitive tenders; when the study was started; when he expected it to be completed; and if he will place a copy in the Library of the completed report.[35768]

  Mr. Horam
  The review of current licensing and support arrangements for Read codes will be carried out by Silicon Bridge Research. Since it was chosen for its particular skills and experience, at a cost below the single tender limit, there was no competitive tender. The review started an 4 Jury 1996 and is expected to be completed by the end of October 1996. A report of its findings will be placed in the Library.

  Trust and Health Authorities (Debts)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 May,Official Report, column 93, if he will show the amount of bad debts and claims abandoned for each health authority in each region broken down by category for the last three years. [33097]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: The information will be placed in the Library.

  Child Abuse Inquires
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost to public funds of(a) the independent review of residential care conducted by Lady Wagner and (b) its report, "Residential Care-A Positive Choice". [35146]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: The information is not available.

DEFENCE

  Land Mines
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many JP233 mines were left by United Kingdom forces at bomb dump M3 in Bahrain after the Gulf war; and how many of them are currently owned by the United Kingdom Government. [35360]

  Mr. Soames
  All JP 233 munitions in Bahrain were returned to the UK after the Gulf war.

  Hawk Trainer Crash, Portugal
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, column 416, in respect of the crash of a Hawk trainer, when the NATO standardisation agreement came into operation. [35691]
  26
  Mr. Soames
  NATO standardisation agreement 3531 first came into operation in 1964.

  Official Secrets (Military Accidents)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to alter the provisions contained in official secrets legislation in relation to military incidents resulting in(a) injuries and (b) fatalities; and if he will make a statement. [35703]

  Mr. Soames
  There are no provisions in official secrets legislation relating specifically to such incidents. Service board of inquiry reports on military incidents resulting in fatalities are released to the next of kin of deceased service personnel, on request, subject to the minimum of security requirements.

  Armed Forces
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) of 16 May,Official Report, column 559, if he will break down the figures for armed forces by (a) year and (b) service for each year since 1991. [35751]

  Mr. Soames
  The strength of the Regular armed forces by service, on 1 April for each year since 1991, was as follows:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  RN/RM

  62,100

  62,100

  54,400

  55,800

  50,900

  48,300

  Army

  154,600

  152,400

  140,900

  128,600

  115,900

  113,400

  RAF

  88,400

  86,000

  80,900

  75,700

  70,800

  64,700

  Total

  305,100

  300,500

  281,200

  260,100

  237,600

  226,400

  Others1

  2,100

  2,000

  1,900

  1,610

  1,000

  1,000

  1 Locally Engaged Service Personnel. Army figures include Gurkha strengths.

  All figures contain an element for personnel undergoing training.

  Unidentified Flying Objects
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which office within his Department deals with sightings of unidentified flying objects. [35845]

  Mr. Soames
  The focal point within my Department for reports of sightings of unidentified flying objects is Secretariat(Air Staff)2a.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by(a) date and (b) location for the last 10 years unexplainable sightings of unidentified flying objects received by his Department; and what action was subsequently taken. [35844]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department evaluates reports of "unexplained" aerial phenomena solely in order to establish whether they may have any defence significance. Unless there is evidence to indicate that the UK air defence region may have been compromised, and to date no sighting has provided such evidence, my Department does not investigate or seek to provide an explanation for what was observed. The question of unexplainable sightings has not therefore arisen.

  Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
  Sir Roger Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further progress has been made in forming an Animal Welfare Advisory Committee; and if he will make a statement. [36469]
  27
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In my previous answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) of 20 December 1995,Official Report, column 1173, I undertook to make a further announcement about membership and detailed procedures of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. The committee has now been formed under the chairmanship of Dr. Jeremy Lucke, a former president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The committee will be meeting later in the summer to agree working arrangements and will submit an initial report on these to my Department's chief scientific adviser. It is intended that unclassified versions of the committee's substantive reports will be published.

  Anglo-French Co-operation
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each current joint programme or initiative being undertaken with the French Ministry of Defence. [35737]

  Mr. Soames
  Full information on such programmes is not held centrally. The following comprises the bulk of co-operative programmes, in which the French armed services are involved with our armed services:

  Organisations/groupings

  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

  United Nations

  Western European Union

  Organisation for Security Cooperation in Europe

  Partnership for Peace

  Franco British Euro Air Group

  Twinning arrangements

  3 Commando Brigade/9th Division Infanterie de Marine

  UK Field Army/Force d'Action Rapide

  Many units organise their own affiliations.

  Nuclear

  Joint Nuclear Commission

  Bilateral training

  Bilateral exercise

  Staff College places

  Squadron Exchanges (NATO Programme)

  Operational Sea Training—Joint Maritime Course

  60 exchange/liaison officers on attachment between British and French units.

  Defence research

  European Cooperative Long Term Initiative for Defence (EUCLID)

  FINABEL

  Anglo-French Defence Research Group—controls 14 separate Working Groups.

  Anglo-French Future Land Systems Study Group.

  Anglo-French Army Equipment Commission.

  28
  Equipment issues

  Multi-Launch Rocket System Phase 1

  Milan Anti-Tank missile

  Jaguar

  Lynx

  Puma

  Gazelle

  Future Large Aircraft

  RTM322 Helicopter Engine

  Navstar Global Positioning System

  COBRA (Counter Battery Radar)

  Aimed Control Effect Anti-Tank Mine

  Medium Range Third Generation Anti-Tank Guided Weapon (TRIGAT)

  Long Range TRIGAT

  ADA Computer Language Project Support Environment Allied Data Systems Interoperability Agency

  Project HORIZON

  NATO Improved Link Eleven

  Future Tank Main Armament

  Very Short Range and Short Range Air Defence System Programme

  Principal Anti-Air Missile Systems

  Allied Standard Avionics Architecture Initiative

  Active Electronically Scanned Radar

  Advanced AeroEngine Technology

  Future Military Satellite for Communications

  Battlefield Information/Intelligence Compilation Exploitation /System (BICES)

  Computer Aided Acquisitions and Logistic Support

  NATO Submarine Rescue System

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many meetings(a) he has (b) other Defence Ministers have had with their French counterparts in the last 12 months. [35738]

  Mr. Soames
  As one would expect, Defence Ministers have met their French counterparts in bilateral and multilateral forums on numerous occasions over the past 12 months.

  Tidworth Garrison
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with the private finance initiative project for the water and sewerage works at Tidworth garrison. [36468]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I am pleased to announce that, following expressions of interest from over 50 companies and outline proposals from 14, we have now selected Wessex Water Services Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Wessex Water plc, as the preferred bidder for the supply of water and sewerage services for Tidworth Garrison. Detailed contract negotiations will now commence with Wessex Water with the aim of achieving full transfer of responsibility at the beginning of 1997.

  The application of private finance will not only represent a saving to the taxpayer but will provide a higher standard of service for all customers at no extra cost, as well as allowing the MOD to focus its efforts on its core business, that of supporting the operational activities of the armed forces.

  Bastille Day Parade
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what units of the(a) Army and (b) Royal Air Force will participate in the Bastille day parade in France on 14 July. [35736]

  Mr. Soames
  Eight RAF aircraft will participate in the fly-past along the Champs Elysee to celebrate Bastille day on 14 July. The composition of the RAF participation is as follows:

  One VC10 tanker from 101 Squadron RAF Brize Norton

  Four Tornado GR1s from XV Squadron RAF Lossiemouth

  Three Harrier GR7s from 3 Squadron RAF Laarbruch

  NAAFI
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to finalise the new Navy, Army and Air Force Institutions charter; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [35766]

  Mr. Soames
  The MOD-NAAFI charter has now been approved and has been submitted for printing. A copy of the charter will be placed in the Library of the House in due course.

PRIME MINISTER

  Transsexuals
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Prime Minister which department and which Minister has been assigned overall responsibility for parliamentary issues concerning transsexuals; and if he will make a statement. [35269]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to him on 24 June 1996,Official Report, column 14. No Minister or Department has been assigned overall responsibility for parliamentary issues concerning transsexuals. Where, as in this case, issues may touch on the responsibilities of a number of Departments, Ministers and officials in the different Departments work closely together to ensure effective co-ordination.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to lay before Parliament and publish the annual report of the Serious Fraud Office for 1995–96. [36309]

  The Attorney-General
  The report was laid before Parliament this morning and then published. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he issues to police forces and local education authorities about joint action to warn pupils of the dangers of drug taking. [35056]
  30
  Mr. Sackville
  Police forces are involved in a wide range of projects to provide school pupils with information on the dangers on drug misuse. Guidance on the content and organisation of drugs education and the involvement of other agencies, including the police, has been issued by the Department for Education and Employment. In addition, £6 million has been given to schools under the grants for education support and training programme to train teachers and support new projects in drug education and prevention.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications are currently awaiting an initial decision by his Department's asylum directorate; how many appeals against a refusal of asylum are currently being processed by the asylum directorate; and how many appeals against a refusal of asylum, having been processed by the asylum directorate and despatched to the Immigration Appellate Authority, are awaiting hearings by the authority. [35602]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  As at 31 May, there were 66,400 asylum applications awaiting an initial decision. As at the same date, there were 870 asylum appeals awaiting validation and preparation by the asylum directorate and 15,650 appeals awaiting a hearing by the Immigration Appellate Authority.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons granted temporary admission to the United Kingdom pending determination of their application for asylum since 1 January 1994 are recorded as having absconded. [35606]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average time taken by his Department's asylum directorate to process and despatch to the Immigration Appellate Authority an appeal against a refusal of asylum; and what is the average time taken by the authority to hear and determine such an appeal;[35601]

  (2) what is the average time currently taken by his Department to reach an initial decision on (a) all asylum applications and (b) asylum applications submitted (i) prior to and (ii) since implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. [35609]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information on the times taken at the various stages of the asylum process are given in the table.

  Average times involved in deciding applications for asylum (December 1995-May 1996)

  Months

  Time taken for an initial decision to be made (Pre-Act applications)

  43.2

  Time taken for an initial decision to be made (Post-Act applications)

  10.7

  Time taken by the Home Office to process an appeal

  2.0

  Time taken by the Immigration Appellate Authority to determine an appeal

  8.2

  31
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number and percentage of asylum seekers are(a) still waiting for consideration of their asylum application to be formally completed by the Home Office and (b) not having their asylum application pursued because his Department has granted them permission to stay. [35634]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  As at 31 May, there were 66,400 asylum applications awaiting an initial decision. Information on the number of asylum seekers granted leave to enter or remain in another capacity in the United Kingdom, prior to their asylum applications being decided, is not held centrally.

  Immigration (Detention Centres)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to his Department of detaining persons under Immigration Act powers in immigration service detention centres, prison service establishments and police cells in 1995–96; and what amount of that cost was reclaimed from carrying companies during the same period. [35604]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The cost of detaining persons in immigration service detention centres and police cells under Immigration Act powers in the 1995–96 financial year was some £14.2 million. Of this, some £2 million was spent on police cells and the balance on the immigration service detention estate.

  No charge is made to the immigration service for the use of Prison Service accommodation but the estimated notional cost of this for the same period is about £9 million.

  The Immigration Act specifies certain conditions under which detention costs can be reclaimed from carriers and some £400,000 was reclaimed under these provisions in 1995–96.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average weekly cost of detaining a person under Immigration Act powers in(a) an immigration service detention centre and (b) a Prison Service establishment. [35603]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  For the 1995–96 financial year, the average cost of detaining a person in a centre within the Immigration Service estate was about £560 per week. This figure includes the cost of administrative support from headquarters.

  Persons detained under Immigration Act powers in Prison Service accommodation are normally housed separately in specially designated establishments, where the average cost per place in 1994–95 was £449 per week. This figure excludes headquarters costs.

  Immigration (Carriers Liability)
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were arrested at Heathrow airport on suspicion of having used or attempted to use forged instruments to board an aircraft in(a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996 to date; how many such persons were formally charged with such an offence in the same periods; and how many such persons were convicted of such an offence in the same periods. [35607]
  32
  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table sets out the available information relating to all arrests at Heathrow airport for offences contrary either to section 1 or the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 or section 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that statistical records relating to forged instruments are not kept by reference to the use to which that instrument was being put. All those arrested were formally charged but statistical information on how many of them were convicted is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Financial

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Attempting to obtain a service by deception

  7

  16

  29

  250

  Using/possession of a forged instrument

  27

  37

  97

  126

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total amount of liability incurred by carriers under the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act 1987 in each year since 1987; how much has been paid to date; how much has been waived to date; and how much is currently outstanding. [35605]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Total charges incurred by carriers under the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act 1987 in each year since the inception of the Act are as follows: (Charges are shown in £ million).

  1987:£ 3.92

  1988:£ 4.40

  1989:£ 7.86

  1990:£ 9.63

  1991:£12.891

  1992:£12.72

  1993:£11.04

  1994:£13.24

  1995:£12.37

  1 The charge increased from £1,000 to £2,000 per inadequately documented passenger on 1 August 1991.

  Charges amounting to £94.45 million have been incurred to date. A total of £56.91 million has been paid, £18.73 million waived, and £18.81 million is currently outstanding.

  Palestinian Passports
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of recognition of Palestinian passports. [35702]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The United Kingdom accepts passports issued by the Palestinian authority, as provided for by the Cairo agreement, as valid for travel to the United Kingdom.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the current policy on overtime in the Metropolitan police service. [35259]
  33
  Mr. Maclean
  The Commissioner informs me that it is his policy that overtime is not worked unless it is operationally necessary, and that officers are compensated in accordance with the provisions of the police regulations.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the current funding level of the Metropolitan police service; and if he will list the areas of budget reductions in respect of the Metropolitan police in the current year. [35260]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 6 June to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington),Official Report, columns 702–03; it is for the commissioner to decide how the budget that my right hon. and learned Friend has approved, which includes a 2 per cent. increase with a further 1 per cent. in reserve, may best be allocated across the Metropolitan police. The Metropolitan police estimates for 1996–97 will be published as a command paper later this financial year.

  Prisons (Hepatitis)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to monitor the levels of hepatitis B and C within prisons in England and Wales. [34873]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Robert Key, dated 8 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the steps being taken to monitor the levels of Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C within prisons in England and Wales.
  The Prison Service has a central system for monitoring hepatitis in inmates based on annual returns from establishments. The information recorded includes the following which relate to the number of new cases of hepatitis identified during each year.

  Acute Hepatitis A

  Acute Hepatitis B

  Chronic Hepatitis B

  Acute Hepatitis C

  Other Hepatitis

  The latest results of this monitoring were published in the annual report of the Director of Health Care (1994–95).
  34
  From April 1996 a new monthly system of health care monitoring was introduced. This includes similar questions to the above relating to hepatitis. The new system and distinguishes between new cases identified during the month and actual numbers with hepatitis on a given day. This enables more accurate information on prevalence to be produced.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance is issued for the treatment of prisoners with hepatitis B and C. [34875]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Robert Key, dated 8 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the guidance which is issued for the treatment of prisoners with hepatitis B and C.
  No specific advice is issued to prison doctors on the treatment of hepatitis B but this is managed by the managing medical officer within his/her clinical judgement taking note of specialist advice. The treatment of acute cases of hepatitis C (HCV) is managed along similar lines.
  Advice on the treatment of HCV including the necessity to seek consultant advice, provide pre-test counselling and the need for consent to testing has recently been issued, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. This advice was developed in conjunction with the Department of Health and the Public Health Laboratory Service.

  London Fire Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hon. Members have made representations to him regarding(a) proposed changes in the level of London's fire service and (b) closures of London's fire stations. [35508]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 4 July 1996]: The London Fire and Civil Defence Authority applied on 6 March for my right hon. and learned Friend's approval under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 to certain changes in operational fire cover, including the removal of 15 fire appliances from stations around London. No station closures are involved. Correspondence has been received from 53 hon. Members regarding the proposed changes. The application is under consideration.

  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State has also met my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham Mr. Jessel) and for Battersea Mr. Bowis) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.

TREASURY

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue in a full year from the imposition of VAT at the standard rate on aircraft fuel. [35324]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The estimate of the revenue in 1995 from the imposition of VAT at the standard rate on aircraft fuel for internal flights is £10 million. Fuel used for overseas flights is zero-rated. Assuming that the imposition of VAT at the standard rate on such fuel would have had no effect on demand, it is estimated that £160 million would have been raised in 1995.

  Asset Inflation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to control asset inflation. [35931]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Interest rates are set to achieve the inflation target, which is to keep underlying retail price inflation, RPIX, at or below 2 per cent. Asset prices are among the indicators that the Government take into account in assessing the prospects for inflation.

  Utility Prices
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 286, on the utility component of the retail prices index, what factors underlay the delay in answering the question; and when he first received a draft answer to the question. [36306]

  Mr. Jack
  I replied when I was in a position to provide a suitable answer. It is not my practice to disclose information relating to the advice given by officials.

  Earnings
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 10 June,Official Report, column 22, regarding earnings, if he will provide the figures excluding overtime payments. [35077]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I am placing the available information from the "New Earnings Survey" in the Members' Library.

  Tax Relief
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each major item for which tax relief is currently granted; and if he will indicate the current total value of each of these categories of tax relief. [35739]

  Mr. Jack
  Comprehensive information about the cost of principal tax expenditure and structural reliefs was published in the "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" in July 1995. A copy can be found in the Library of the House. Estimates for 1995–96 and 1996–97 based on the summer economic forecast will be published in this year's edition later this month.
  36

  Privatisation Proceeds
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the proceeds to the Exchequer of each privatisation since 1979 at current prices. [35725]

  Mr. Jack
  Table 5.6 of the "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 1996–97" (HMSO Cm 3201) gives privatisation proceeds by sale in cash terms. The table sets out annual proceeds in cash and current 1996–97 prices. It would not be possible to give current price proceeds on a sale-by-sale basis without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Privatisation proceeds (£ million)

  Year

  Cash

  Current 1996–97 prices

  1979–80

  377

  994

  1980–81

  210

  468

  1981–82

  493

  1,002

  1982–83

  455

  863

  1983–84

  1,139

  2,065

  1984–85

  2,050

  3,538

  1985–86

  2,706

  4,428

  1986–87

  4,458

  7,081

  1987–88

  5,140

  7,751

  1988–89

  7,069

  9,992

  1989–90

  4,225

  5,582

  1990–91

  5,347

  6,776

  1991–92

  7,925

  9,124

  1992–93

  8,184

  9,053

  1993–94

  5,460

  5,870

  1994–95

  6,428

  6,786

  1995–96

  2,420

  2,486

  64,086

  83,859

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many statutory instruments his Department introduced in(a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) between 1 January 1996 and 1 May 1996 which had the effect of repealing one or more previous statutory instruments without replacing them with a new regulation. [35045]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 4 July 1996]: This information is not presently available in the form requested, and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost. However, a list of regulations that have been repealed or amended was placed in the House Libraries by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 8 May.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many written parliamentary questions to his Department in the past 12 months had not received a full answer within five weeks of the question being tabled; and if he will list the reasons in each case. [36307]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Eight out of 2,102. In each of these cases, the answering Minister was concerned to give as complete a reply as possible.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the levels of income tax in
  37
  (a) the 1996–97 and (b) the 1978–79 indexed regimes broken down into the top 1 per cent., 5 per cent., 10 per cent. and bottom 50 per cent. and 10 per cent. of taxpayers, showing the total changes in the level of tax and the average gain or loss to each group. [35511]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 4 July 1996]: Information on the reduction in income tax liability for 1996–97 compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime is given in the table. This comparison is hypothetical since if an indexed version of the 1978–79 tax regime had prevailed over the past 18 years the income base would not have grown as it has.

  Quantile group of taxpyers under the 1978–79 indexed

  Amount of income tax

  Reduction in income tax

  Average reduction

  Per cent.

  1996–97 £ million

  1978–79 indexed regime

  £ million

  £

  Top 1

  12,500

  23,100

  10,600

  38,900

  Top 5

  25,400

  40,700

  15,300

  11,200

  Top 10

  33,900

  52,400

  18,500

  6,800

  Bottom 50

  8,700

  14,000

  5,300

  400

  Bottom 10

  90

  430

  340

  130

  Bad Debts (Tax Treatment)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchquer if he will make a statement on the tax treatment of bad debts on loans made to organisations which are not bankrupt. [35936]

  Mr. Jack
  The calculation of trading profit for tax purposes follows general accounting principles which, broadly, determine that income and expenditure should be brought into account on an accruals basis. This means that a trader may be charged to tax on money owed to the business in an accounting period even if the money is not actually received. However, if a particular debt to a business is bad or considered by the trader as being doubtful, a deduction may be given in the accounting period in which the debt becomes bad or is considered as doubtful, in effect cancelling out the charge to tax on so much of that debt as is viewed as bad or doubtful.

  Capital items—income and expenditure—are excluded form the computation of taxable profits. Generally, loans will be on capital account, with the result that no account may be taken of the extent to which they are bad or doubtful in arriving at the profits for tax purposes, unless they are made in the course of a trade of banking or moneylending or as an adjunct, or as an essential part, of some other trade.

  Relief may, however, be given as a capital loss when loans to traders prove irrecoverable, or when a guarantor of a loan to a trade is obliged to make a payment under the guarantee.

  Whether a debt is bad or doubtful depends on the particular facts. But while bankruptcy or insolvency of the debtor may be evidence that a debt is bad or doubtful, it
  38
  is not an absolute requirement at a debtor be insolvent or bankrupt before a debt can be bad or doubtful for tax purposes.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Members' Pay and Allowances
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to introduce new proposals on Members' pay and allowances, pursuant to the report of the Top Salaries Review Committee. [34719]

  Mr. Newton
  The Government have announced their proposals and the House will debate the matter on Wednesday 10 July.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent assessment he has made of levels of right hon. and hon. Members' pay and allowances. [34713]

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Prime Minister's reply of 4 July to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover),Official Report, column 505.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the annual salary of a Member of the House of Commons on 1 October 1971; and what that salary would be today if it had been increased annually(a) in line with inflation and (b) in line with the national average increase in earnings. [35641]

  Mr. Newton
  On 1 October 1971, a Member's annual salary was £3,250. The salary in May this year, the latest date for which figures are available, would be:

  (a) £24,041 had it been increased in line with inflation; and

  (b) £36,899 had it been increased in line with the national average increase in earnings.

  Parliamentary Calendar
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent representations he has received about the parliamentary calendar; and if he will make a
  statement. [34720]

  Mr. Newton
  A few, including a letter from the hon. Gentleman and the exchanges at Question Time on Monday 10 June,Official Report, columns 19–20.

  Sitting Hours
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent assessment he has made of the sitting hours of other European parliaments. [34722]

  Mr. Newton
  I have made no such assessment, but the hon. Gentleman may wish to consult the memorandums from the Director of the German Bundestag and the Secretary General of the French National Assembly which were submitted to the Select Committee on Sittings of the House in 1991–92 [HC 20-II (1991–92), pp 154–160].

  Prime Minister's Question Time
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to act on the recommendations
  39
  contained in the seventh report of the Select Committee on Procedure relating to Prime Minister's Question Time, HC 555, Session 1994–95. [347181

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to review the procedures for Prime Minister's Question Time. [34721]

  Mr. Newton
  The Government have always regarded the arrangements for Prime Minister's questions as a matter for the House to decide, and wish to hear the views of the House. Thursday's debate on parliamentary procedure will provide an opportunity to discuss this and a range of other procedural issues.

  Parliamentary Procedures (Efficiency)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will initiate a survey of the efficiency of the procedures of the House. [34723]

  Mr. Newton
  The efficiency of the procedures of the House falls within the remit of the Procedure Committee.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Staff Salaries
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what was the average annual salary, including where appropriate any overtime, on 1 October 1971 of (i)(a) a senior Library clerk, (b) the highest-paid chef, (c) a senior Clerk in the House of Commons and (ii) a ministerial car driver; if he will indicate in each of those cases what that salary would be today if it had been increased annually in line with inflation; and what is the current annual salary for each of those grades. [35642]

  Mr. Beith
  Figures for salaries of Commission staff prior to 1978 are not available centrally and they can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Since the establishment of the House of Commons Commission in 1978, staff salaries have been included in the Commission's annual reports. Figures for ministerial car drivers are a matter for the Cabinet Office. The earliest figures readily available are those for 1 April 1978. London based salaries are as follows:

  Senior Clerk: £7,315-£9,253 p.a

  Senior Library Clerk: £5,917-£8,879 p.a

  Executive Chef: £9,980 p.a. (at 1 January 1980)1

  Those senior Clerks and senior Library Clerks who performed additional night duty were paid an allowance of £1,555 p.a.

  Applying the inflation factors for 1 April 1978 (x 3.093) and 1 January 1980 (x 2.454), respectively, these figures become:-

  Senior Clerk: £22,625–£28,619 p.a

  Senior Library Clerk: £18,301–£27,463 p.a

  Executive Chef: £24,490 p.a.

  The night allowance becomes £4,810 p.a.

  40
  Current salaries for the above grades are as follows:

  Senior Clerk

  £28,954–£43,802 p.a.

  Senior Library Clerk

  Executive Chef

  The current rate of night allowance is £4,010 p.a.

  1 The Refreshment Department did not become a Department of the House until 1980 and staff salaries for that Department did not appear in the Commission's report until that for 1979–80.

  In 1992, staff pay scales were radically restructured and they now include an element for performance-related pay so that strict comparison with the earlier pay scales is not valid.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list those parliamentary constituencies he has visited in the last three months on official business and those constituencies he intends to visit in the next three months; and if he will make a statement. [33864]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  In the three months to 19 June, I visited the following constituencies on official business:

  Birmingham, Hodge Hill

  Birmingham, Small Heath

  Belfast, East

  Belfast, West

  Upper Bann

  South Antrim

  Details of future visits are not given for security reasons, although I shall of course do my best to give prior warning to hon. Members when I visit their constituencies in an official capacity.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those constituencies he has visited in the last three months on official business and those constituencies he intends to visit in the next three months; and if he will make a statement. [34357]

  Mr. Freeman
  During the last three months I have visited the following constituencies: Ladywood, Widness, Ellesmore Port, Nuneaton, Bristol West, Chester, Richmond (Yorks), Warrington (North), Taunton, South Wirral, Salisbury, South Staffordshire, Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, Montgomery, Shropshire, North, Shrewsbury, and Belfast, East.

  I have not yet finalised my ministerial visits for the next three months. I always do my best to give prior warning to hon. Members when I visit their constituencies in an official capacity.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if compliance cost assessments are obligatory for all statutory instruments. [35143]

  Mr. Freeman
  A compliance cost assessment is required for all statutory instruments that effect business, charities and voluntary organisations. Full details of the requirement to prepare a compliance cost assessment are
  41
  set out in "Checking the Cost of Regulation: A Guide to Compliance Cost Assessment", copies of which are available in the House Libraries.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what has been the total compliance cost of all rules and regulations since April 1995. [35144]

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that information is not held in this form. However, as part of the recent introduction of new compliance cost and risk assessment procedures, I am considering whether assessments of the total cost and benefit of new regulations might be recorded and published in future.

  Business Panel
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minster if he will list the membership of the panel of business people advising in interchange between the civil service and industry. [35639]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 July 1996]: The members of the interchange panel, who are unpaid, are as follows:

  Sir Bryan Nicholson (Chairman)
  (Emeritus President of the CBI, chairman of BUPA and Varity Europe Ltd., and Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam university);

  Alec Daly CBE
  (chairman of the National Manufacturing Council and Deputy Director General of the CBI, chairman of Cray Electronics, and Brent International);

  Ian MaAllister CBE
  (chairman of Ford Motor Co. Ltd. of Britain);

  Mark Radcliffe
  (chairman of Upton Management Services Ltd. and Metsec plc, and formerly main board director of the TI Group and Deputy Director General of the CBI);

  Nigel Whittaker
  (chairman of Cardcast plc, strategic and corporate affairs consultant, and formerly chairman of the Deregulation task force for small business, retail and tourism).

  Small Businesses
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to promote interchange between the civil service and small businesses. [35638]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 July 1996]: Interchange between all parts of the private sector and the civil service is promoted by the Office of Public Service, Government Departments, and the Whitehall and industry group. I have recently appointed a panel of businessmen from a wide range of sectors, including small businesses, to help increase these exchanges.

WALES

  Land Reclamation Schemes
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what reductions in funding to the Welsh Development Agency for land reclamation schemes have been made in the current financial year; and if he will make a statement on the implications of financial 42
  reductions for schemes where tenders had been invited and accepted, subject to Welsh Development Agency approval. [35925]

  Mr. Hague
  The agency's budget for land reclamation in 1996–97 is £14 million. The other issues are operational matters for the WDA and I will arrange for its chief executive to write to the hon. Member and for a copy of his letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each of the land reclamation schemes under way in Wales, indicating the areas being reclaimed in each case. [35926]

  Mr. Hague
  These are operational matters for the Welsh Development Agency. I will arrange for the chief executive of the agency to write to the hon. Member and for a copy of his letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Schools (Opting Out)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the number of complaints he has received on each occasion a ballot for opt-out status has been held, indicating whether the complaints concerned the materials and/or activities of those campaigning(a) for and (b) against opting out; and what action was taken about each complaint; [34814]

  (2) if he will list the occasions the Welsh Office has scrutinised the leaflets and other materials sent to parents (a) in support of and (b) against schools opting out, indicating whether this scrutiny was preceded by any complaints and whether in case (a) or (b) changes were ordered. [34815]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  It is particularly important that parents of pupils at a school where a ballot on grant-maintained status is taking place should have access to information that is objective and not misleading. As part of the Welsh Office's normal monitoring arrangements of grant-maintained ballots, both the school at which the ballot is taking place and its local education authority are therefore requested to submit for scrutiny copies of any material that they have issued or received in connection with the ballot irrespective of whether there has been a complaint. When complaints about the material that has been circulated to parents or the activities of those campaigning are received, they are investigated by Welsh Office officials. Details of these complaints could, however, by provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much funding in cash and real terms has been spent on the administration of the education department in each of the last four years; and what percentage of the total funding this represents(a) including and (b) excluding the funds of the higher and further education councils in Wales. [34816]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is given in the following table:
  43

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Welsh Office Education Department Running Costs: 1

  Cash

  1.9352

  2.0002

  1.935

  1.962

  Real term 1994–95

  prices

  1.9711

  2.0002

  1.883

  1.858

  Above as a percentage of programme3 funding in cash terms:

  Including the Welsh Funding Councils

  0.5

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Excluding the Welsh Funding Councils

  2.0

  1.6

  1.4

  1.5

  1 DRC figures for staffing costs, travel and subsistence, stationery and training.

  2 Includes translation unit costs.

  3 Excludes LEA Credit approvals.

  Casualty Departments
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect of the publication of hospital performance tables on the recruitment of nurses to greet patients within five minutes of arrival in casualty departments. [35886]

  Mr. Hague
  I would be surprised if any hospital had recruited nurses solely to greet patients on arrival at casualty departments. The patients charter for Wales requires casualty departments not only to ease the natural concerns of the nearly 800,000 new patients attending accident and emergency departments each year but to make an immediate clinical assessment of the urgency of the treatment and care required.

  Information published in the hospital performance tables for the NHS in Wales demonstrates that casualty departments throughout Wales have greatly improved this important aspect of their emergency care.

  Staff employed in Welsh Office Education Department1

  April 1992

  September 1993

  September 1994

  June 1995

  June 1996

  Director and Secretary

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  Education Services

  421.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Culture and Recreation (including Translation Unit)

  —

  32.0

  23.5

  23.0

  22.6

  Further and Higher Education

  19.0

  13.0

  14.0

  12.0

  12.8

  Schools Administration

  15.5

  30.0

  27.0

  27.5

  28.0

  Schools Curriculum3

  16.0

  17.0

  22.0

  18.0

  —

  Schools Performance3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18.0

  HM Inspectorate of Schools

  274.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  147.5

  94.0

  88.5

  82.5

  83.4

  1 Numbers are full-time equivalent.

  2 HM Inspectorate of Schools staff transferred to the newly created Department of Office of Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales in September 1992.

  3 Schools Curriculum Division became Schools Performance Division in 1995.

  4 Education Services Division became Culture and Recreation Division in 1993.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff have been employed in the Industry and Training Department in each of the last four years; and if he will list the number of staff employed to deal with(a) regional selective assistance, (b) the exchange risk guarantee scheme, (c) regional enterprise grants, (d) business development services, (e) training and

  Higher Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the drop-out rates in higher education in(a) year one, (b) year two and (c) year three—for four-year courses—and the failure rate in the final year of a first degree or its equivalent in the last three years. [34848]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information relating to drop-out rates is not collected centrally. Data collected by the higher education statistics agency—HESA—from academic year 1994–95 will allow us to calculate drop out rates in future years. The rate of final year student failures at first degree level in higher education in Wales over the last three years may be found in the following table. Information relating to the University of Wales for earlier years and data for the 1994–95 academic year are not available.

  Failure Rates of Students at First Degree Level in Higher Education in Wales (excluding the University of Wales)

  Rate per thousand

  1991–92

  6

  1992–93

  6

  1993–94

  3

  Source:

  Examination Results and First Destination Survey.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff have been employed in the education department in each of the last four years indicating the number, by full-time equivalent, employed in each specified area of responsibility within the department. [34817]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is set out in the following table. Over the period, various responsibilities have been transferred both between divisions within the education department and between the Department and outside bodies, and staffing levels have changed accordingly.

  enterprise council business growth and start-up measures, (f) Business Connect Wales, (g) all training programmes subdivided into specific sectors, (h) the careers services and (i) other programmes in each of these years; and how many full-time equivalents are involved in initiatives financed or carried out by training and enterprise councils. [34818]
  45
  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Office Industry and Training Department was set up in May 1994. The total staff complement of its constituent divisions is set out in the table.

  31 March 1995

  31 March 1996

  Industrial and training policy division

  20.65

  20.5

  Business services division

  30.57

  28.05

  Training finance and management division

  46.0

  38.8

  Industrial development division

  85

  88.2

  182.22

  175.55

  Direct comparisons between years are not possible because some work has been transferred between divisions, neither is it possible to disaggregate staffing further because most staff are not engaged solely on the discrete elements identified in the question.

  The main divisional functions are:

  Industrial and training policy division is responsible for advice and briefing on industrial policy and training policy; for economic briefing; general industrial and employment casework; for liaison with the Ministry of Defence on matters which affect Wales; for securing the effective implementation of the people and prosperity action plan; for the operation of training programmes and initiatives; and for sponsorship of the National Council of Vocational Qualifications in respect of its work in Wales.

  Business services division is responsible for small firms policy, and a range of business development services including Business Connect Wales; deregulation; for schemes to encourage innovation and technological development, environmental awareness, and energy efficiency; and for Welsh interests in the energy, steel and telecommunications industries.

  Training finance and management division is responsible for contracts with training and enterprise councils and for co-ordination of the Department's operational interest in TECs; for the management of contracts with careers service companies; and for financial management and accountability issues in respect of those programmes.

  Industrial development division is responsible for administering the regional selective assistance, regional enterprise grants schemes in Wales and residual work arising from the exchange risk guarantee scheme; for inward investment policy; for the provision of export services and for regional overseas links.

  Enterprise Trusts
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the enterprise trusts which receive public moneys and indicate for the last year for which figures are available the funding received by each and the principal activities which were financed, separately identifying the administrative costs of each. [34849]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  There are 20 local enterprise trusts or agencies in Wales providing a variety of services in support of local businesses. They are non profit-making and receive funding from a variety of public and private sources, details of which are set out in their audited accounts. The Welsh Office does not directly fund enterprise agencies and to gather the information requested would entail disproportionate costs. The verified enterprise agencies in Wales are as follows:

  Antur Dwyryd-Llyn Enterprise Agency

  Antur Teifi

  46

  Antur Menai

  Bersham Enterprise Centre

  Clwydfro Enterpise Agency

  Coastal Enterprise Agency

  Llanelli and Dinefwr Enterprise Company

  Made Enterprise Company

  Neath and Port Talbot Development Partnership

  Pembrokeshire Business Initiative

  Cardiff and Vale Enterprise Group

  D'Arcy Development

  Deeside Enterprise Trust Ltd.

  Delyn Business Partnership Ltd.

  Enterprise Taff Ely Ogwr Partnership

  Innovation Wales Ltd.

  Rhondda Development Agency

  West Glamorgan Enterprise Trust Ltd.

  Foothold, Llanelli

  Newport and Gwent Enterprise

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what have been the costs paid by the Welsh Office to cover the grant-maintained ballot and all related costs for Ysgol Dyffryn Tâf, Whitland. [35730]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The cost of administering the ballot at Ysgol Dyffryn Taf was £1,089. It is open to the school's governing body to apply for financial assistance to help meet the costs incurred in circulating information on grant-maintained status to parents but no claim has been made to date.

  Dyspraxia
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the incidence of dyspraxia in Wales; and what help and treatment is available for sufferers. [35728]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not available centrally. The responsibility for the assessment and provision for sufferers of dyspraxia, including rehabilitation, is a matter for health authorities.

  NHS responsibilities for meeting continuing health care needs, including the provision of rehabilitation, are set out in Welsh health circular WHC(95)7.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each training and enterprise council the percentage of their resources in cash or in kind drawn from private sources. [34819]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  As the information requested will take some time to collate, I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money is provided for each training and enterprise council in Wales; what percentage of it is spent on training; and how many trainees(a) start and (b) complete TEC financed courses. [34820]

  Mr. Evans
  The information requested is shown in the table:
  47

  TEC

  (i) TEC expenditure

  (ii) Percentage spent on training

  (iii) Total number of starts

  (iv) Percentage TEC financed Youth training/youth credit

  (v) Completing courses Training for work

  Gwent

  16,265,938

  63

  5,769

  43

  65

  Mid Glamorgan

  16,468,989

  67

  6,391

  47

  54

  North-East Wales

  10,330,623

  62

  3,167

  55

  61

  North-West Wales

  13,203,648

  66

  3,427

  52

  63

  Powys

  4,765,945

  56

  886

  1n/a

  66

  South Glamorgan

  11,369,738

  65

  4,405

  25

  46

  West Wales

  29,438,309

  66

  7,860

  45

  56

  Wales

  101,843,190

  65

  31,905

  48

  59

  Source of data:

  (i) and (ii) 1995–96 invoice monitoring; (iii) 1995–96 management information; (iv) and (v) DfEE YT/YC and TfW National Follow-up Surveys for 1994–95 (the latest full year for which information is available).

  Notes:

  1 Figures not available because responses to the follow-up survey in Powys were insufficient to be statistically reliable.

  1. The percentage completion rates relate to the overall starts figures provided and are not adjusted for circumstances in which some trainees (i) switch from one training course to another during the course of their training without having completed the original course or (iii) leave training having achieved a full or part qualification but without fully completing their training plans.

  The data needed to provide such an adjustment is not available centrally.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff are employed by each training and enterprise council through funds allocated under Government contracts; and what proportion of them are involved in(a) enterprise, (b) training and (c) administration. [34850]

  Mr. Evans
  The following table shows the number of staff employed by each training and enterprise council, extracted from TEC annual statutory accounts for 1994–. 94—latest available.

  The figures are not available analysed in the form requested.

  Number

  Gwent TEC

  67

  Mid Glamorgan TEC

  95

  West Wales TEC

  126

  South Glamorgan TEC

  70

  Powys TEC

  27

  TARGED (North West Wales) TEC

  67

  North East Wales TEC

  116

  Workshops Land Reclamation, Tredegar
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure that sufficient funds are available during the remainder of the current financial year to enable the Tredegar workshops land reclamation scheme to continue. [36114]

  Mr. Hague
  These are operational matters for the Welsh development agency. I will arrange for the chief executive of the agency to write to the hon. Member and for a copy of his letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, for each private finance initiative scheme advertised in the contracts supplement to the Official Journal, the adviser selected and named to assist potential contractors indicating how each was selected. [35891]
  48
  Mr. Hague
  It is for each bidder for a private finance initiative project to appoint its own advisers. Public sector sponsors of projects may appoint their own advisers, following normal competitive tendering procedures for which guidance is available. Information on such appointments is not held centrally.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the list of advisers currently approved to assist potential contractors seeking clarification in relation to private finance initiative schemes advertised in the contracts supplement to the Official Journal of the European Commission; if he will list the arrangements by which such advisers are allowed to collect fees in exchange for supplying pre-qualification documents to contractors; and if he will make a statement. [35888]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Office does not maintain an approved list of advisers for private finance initiative projects, and has not appointed any advisers to assist potential contractors for such projects. It is for the project sponsors to decide whether to make a charge for pre-qualification documents.

  A48 Slip Road
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with(a) Hill Samuel and (b) Charterhouse Finance concerning their participation in the consortium to build the multi-storey car park and A48 Eastern avenue slip road at the University Hospital of Wales, Neath, Cardiff; and if he will make a statement. [35890]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

ENVIRONMENT

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken since his letter G/CC/P50/19364/95 of 11 September 1995 to the hon. Member for Linlithgow on playing a pro-active role in developing and implementing interactive mechanisms for safety in biotechnology; and if he will make a statement. [34635]
  49
  Mr. Clappison
  My Department continues strongly to support a twin track approach to the development of an international framework on biosafety based on the promotion of the United Nations environment programme—UNEP—international technical guidelines for safety in biotechnology and the development of a biosafety protocol to the convention on biological diversity. I am pleased to be able to report that considerable progress has been made.

  We welcome the adoption of the UNEP international technical guidelines for safety in biotechnology, first developed by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, in Cairo in December 1995 and are now actively promoting their use. As a first step, in September 1995, the UK entered a bilateral arrangement with Argentina to apply the then draft guidelines.

  The UK fully supported the decision of the second conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity, held in Jakarta in November 1995, to develop a biosafety protocol. The protocol will focus on the transboundary movement of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. A draft protocol is to be prepared by the open-ended ad hoc working group established by the conference of the parties. The first meeting will be in Denmark on 22 to 26 July 1996, when I look forward to the UK playing an active and constructive role.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow G/P50/10981/96, what consideration he has accorded to the work of the Max Plank institute in Mainz and Professor Paul Crutzen in relation to trace gases, the troposphere and climate change. [34636]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department is advised by the Hadley centre scientists on matters relating to trace gases, the troposphere and climate change. They are fully aware of, and draw on, the work of Professor Crutzen and his colleagues. Both the Hadley centre and the Max Plank institute contributed to the second assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, which provides the most comprehensive and authoritative assessment of the science of climate change.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what data is collated by his Department on the prevalence of car boot sales. [35679]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No statistics are kept by the Department on the number of car boot sales.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for controlling commercial traders at car boot sales. [35680]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The planning system controls the development, including use, of land. Part 4 of schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order 1995 already restricts the temporary use of land for a car boot sale to 14 days a year. It is not the function of the planning system to preserve existing commercial interests or to inhibit competition between 50
  retailers or between methods of retailing, and the planning legislation therefore applies to commercial and non-commercial traders alike. The Government have no plans to introduce a distinction in this matter.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Mr.Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the housing action trusts in England and Wales at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement. [35726]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There are six housing action trusts—HATs—in England—at North Hull, Liverpool, Waltham Forest, Castle Vale (Birmingham), Tower Hamlets and Stonebridge (Brent). There are no HATs in Wales. HATs provide a comprehensive approach to the regeneration of former local authority estates. They are responsible for the management, repair, refurbishment and redevelopment of their housing accommodation; giving tenants a range of options for future home ownership and tenure; and undertaking environmental, economic and social initiatives to help local communities sustain the improvements achieved by public and private investment once the trusts themselves have completed their work.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing units the Liverpool housing action trust operates at the most recent available date; and what plans there are for expansion. [35727]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Liverpool housing action trust has 4,934 housing units. It has no plans for expansion; like all housing action trusts, it was set up as a fixed life organisation to manage and improve housing stock transferred from the local authority.

  Waterloo and Wapping Dock Companies
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if(a) the Waterloo Dock and (b) the Wapping Dock companies allow their tenants to lease their apartments; and if he will make a statement; [35729]

  (2) what is the extent of the claw-back in the leases of the Wapping Dock and Waterloo Dock companies when the owner sells an apartment; and if he will make a statement. [35732]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The terms of these leases are a matter between the tenants and the companies concerned.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's current target for reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. [35900]

  Mr. Clappison
  The United Kingdom is committed under the framework convention on climate change to return emissions of all greenhouses gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000. We are on course to meet these commitments and expect emissions of carbon dioxide to be 4 to 8 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2000.

  At the June meeting of the Environment Council, European Environment Ministers agreed to call on all developed countries to make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the period after 2000. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the

  51
  Environment has called for developed countries to agree to reduce their total greenhouse gas emissions to between 5 and 10 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010.

  Albert Dock
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was paid to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company for the Albert dock in 1982; and if he will make a statement. [35733]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Merseyside Development Corporation paid £100,000 to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company for the Albert dock.

  Development Corporations (Residential Blocks)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the development corporations with residential blocks in their areas and the service charge in each block; and if he will make a statement. [35734]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following urban development corporations have residential blocks in their respective areas: Birmingham Heartlands, Black Country, London Docklands, Merseyside, Trafford Park and Tyne and Wear.

  The information on service charges is not held by the UDCs, but would in any case be commercially confidential.

  Service Charges (Liverpool)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the service charges made in the Wapping dock, the Waterloo dock and the Albert dock in Liverpool. [35735]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The service charges are a matter between the tenants and the companies concerned. My reply to the earlier question on Wednesday 26 June,Official Report, column 135, gives details of the range of services covered by the service charge at Albert dock.

  Energy Advice Centres
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals his Department has with regard to the funding of local energy advice centres from September 1996. [35901]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Energy Saving Trust is responsible for the management and funding of the local energy advice centres. My Department has agreed the trust's proposals to use DOE funds to support the local energy advice centres up to March 1999. The trust is announcing its plans for the local energy advice centres today, at the local energy advice centres' annual conference.

  Packaging Waste Regulations
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the regulations implementing the European directive on packaging waste; and when and under which procedure the regulations are expected to be placed before the House for approval. [36154]
  52
  Mr. Clappison
  I hope to publish a consultation document on the draft regulations in the near future. As provided in section 93(10) of the Environment Act 1995, a statutory instrument containing regulations—on producer responsibility—shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the forthcoming finance, management and policy review of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. [36400]

  Mr. Gummer
  As part of the Government's programme of regular five-yearly financial management and policy reviews of non-Departmental public bodies my Department will conduct a thorough review of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. The first stage of this review takes the form of a prior options study. This will assess the extent to which the committee's functions are necessary for the achievement of the Government's policies, and whether there is scope for privatising, contracting out or transferring all or part of its functions to another body.

  The work of the committee, both past and anticipated, will be examined and the results of that examination and of the prior options study will inform a detailed review of the committee's structure and operation.

  To minimise the uncertainty that the prior options study will cause, I expect that study to be completed within three months. The time required for the more detailed review cannot be foreseen, but I expect it to last no longer than a further three months.

  In carrying out the study, my Department will seek the views of those with an interest in the committee's work, including the regulatory authorities, other Government Departments, the nuclear industry, representatives of non-nuclear users of radioactivity, other advisory committees and non-governmental organisations.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he is taking to encourage the private finance initiative in local government; and if he will make a statement. [36368]

  Mr. Curry
  On 21 May,Official Report, columns 164–65, I announced that my Department would be consulting the local authority associations, and others, on wide-ranging measures to help harness private-sector finance and management expertise. I am now issuing draft capital finance regulations for consultation, with the aim of having regulations in force by the end of October.

  Marine Environment
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish guidance on the implementation of the decision on marine and coastal biodiversity agreed at the second conference of the parties of the convention on biological diversity. [35466]
  53
  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 3 July 1996]: The decision agreed at the second conference of the parties of the convention on biological diversity, to encourage the establishment or strengthening of arrangements for the management of marine and coastal ecosystems, will be given effect in the United Kingdom by actions included in the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan (Cm2428). Commitments made at the fourth North sea conference in June 1995 are also relevant for which implementation guidance was published on 2 July 1996. A good practice guide on coastal zone management will be published later this year. No further guidance is necessary.

SCOTLAND

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the restructuring of the nursing services in the Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS trust. [35218]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for NHS trusts to determine the best means of delivering nursing services to secure high quality patient care and the most cost-effective use of resources. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chief executive of the trust for further details.

  English Certificates or Money Provisions
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what mechanisms are in place at the Books of Council and Session to establish the substance of an English certificate of money provisions with particular reference to ascertaining whether it falls within the terms of schedule 8, rule 3(4) to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. [35946]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Before registering English certificates of money provisions, the keeper of the registers of Scotland ensures that such certificates.

  bear certification from an appropriate court

  are signed by a proper officer of that court

  are presented within six months of the date of signing.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many English certificates of money provisions were registered with the Books of Council and Session each year since 1990 and in the first half of 1996. [35945]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of English certificates of money provisions registered in the Books of Council and Session each year since 1990 is as follows:

  1990: 93

  1991: 1,488

  1992: 1,917

  1993: 2,101

  1994: 2,234

  1995: 2,474

  1996: 1,012 (first six months).

  Motorway Accidents
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the locations of all accidents that occurred on the motorways of Scotland in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will plot this information on a map and place a copy thereof in the Library. [35310]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table lists the number of personal injury accidents in 1995 for motorways in Scotland excluding the M8 through Glasgow. This information has been plotted on a map and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Personal injury accidents in 1995 on motorways 1

  Route number

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  M8

  4

  26

  55

  85

  M9

  1

  8

  23

  32

  M73

  1

  1

  10

  12

  M74

  2

  23

  45

  70

  M80

  Nil

  5

  5

  10

  M90

  Nil

  6

  19

  25

  M876

  Nil

  3

  5

  8

  M898

  Nil

  1

  1

  2

  M823

  Nil

  Nil

  2

  2

  Total

  8

  73

  165

  246

  1 The figures provided are provisional.

  Investors in People Initiative
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his letter of 6 June, what public funds have been committed to training through the investors in people initiative; and if he will provide a breakdown of the money allocated to the 311 companies to which he referred in paragraph 5. [34639]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  In the past five years, more than £5 million has been spent on investors in people in Scotland. This money is not allocated directly to individual organisations but is used by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to fund advisers based in local enterprise companies, to fund the assessment body, Investors in People Scotland, and for promotional work. It is not possible to assess the value of support given to each of the 1,762 organisations formally committed to IIP or the 329 organisations which have achieved the standard.

  Western Isles Health Board (GP Lists)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the chief executive of the Western Isles health board will respond to the hon. Member's letter, dated 11 April, concerning removal of patients from GP treatment lists; and what are the reasons for the delay in replying. [36020]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A response was sent to the hon. Member on 2 July. The delay was due to an oversight within Western Isles health board.

  Illegal Drugs (Deaths)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the numbers of deaths in Scotland caused by illegal drugs in each year since 1990; and if he will give a breakdown of specific drugs which caused these deaths. [35674]
  55
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 July 1996]: The available information, relating to the years 1992–1994, is contained in a paper published by the Registrar General in June 1995, "Collection of information on drug-related deaths by the General Register Office for Scotland." A copy of this is in the Library of the House. Corresponding figures for calendar year 1995 are being prepared and will be published shortly.

  The paper notes that the number of deaths from drugs in Scotland in 1994 of those known or suspected to be drug-dependent was 139. The total number of deaths due to drugs, excluding suicides, was 247.

  Alcohol and Tobacco (Deaths)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of deaths in Scotland caused by(a) smoking-related diseases and (b) alcohol-related diseases in each year since 1990. [35673]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 July 1996]: It is not possible to be precise, but the available information is as follows.

  In 1992 it was estimated that some 10,600 people in Scotland die each year from smoking-related diseases, including lung cancer, coronary heart disease and stroke.

  In some 850 cases a year, the cause of death recorded on the death certificate is a disease identified as being alcohol-related, but alcohol plays a part in the deaths of many more people through its contribution, for example, to violence and road accidents.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of applications for attendance allowance in the United Kingdom in each year since 1987; and how many of these were refused. [35063]

  Claimants of pension age in receipt of supplementary benefit/income support 1970 to 1995 Pensioner claimants by DSS administrative regions as a percentage of the regional pensioner population

  1970

  1971

  1972

  1973

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  Northern

  n/a

  n/a

  29.6

  28.0

  25.7

  21.3

  20.9

  20.9

  21.3

  20.9

  20.5

  19.7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  n/a

  n/a

  24.3

  22.6

  22.6

  19.8

  19.6

  20.4

  20.2

  19.5

  19.4

  19.6

  Anglia

  n/a

  n/a

  19.2

  17.7

  17.1

  15.6

  15.4

  16.4

  16.2

  15.7

  15.2

  15.8

  London North

  n/a

  n/a

  6.1

  5.8

  5.7

  5.5

  5.5

  5.7

  5.7

  5.5

  5.6

  5.6

  London South

  n/a

  n/a

  7.2

  7.1

  6.7

  6.5

  6.4

  6.6

  6.6

  6.5

  6.4

  6.3

  London West

  n/a

  n/a

  5.4

  5.2

  4.7

  4.3

  4.4

  4.5

  4.7

  4.7

  4.4

  4.6

  South Western

  n/a

  n/a

  15.5

  14.9

  15.6

  14.8

  15.0

  15.4

  14.9

  15.4

  14.4

  14.0

  West Midlands

  n/a

  n/a

  22.9

  21.8

  21.1

  19.8

  20.0

  20.0

  20.2

  20.3

  19.7

  20.2

  North Western (Manchester)

  n/a

  n/a

  11.9

  11.4

  11.9

  10.9

  10.9

  11.4

  11.2

  11.1

  10.9

  11.0

  North Western (Merseyside)

  n/a

  n/a

  11.5

  11.1

  10.5

  10.1

  9.8

  10.2

  10.1

  9.9

  9.7

  10.2

  Wales

  n/a

  25.0

  24.0

  22.3

  21.3

  19.0

  19.3

  19.4

  19.4

  19.3

  18.0

  18.6

  Scotland

  n/a

  22.8

  22.5

  21.9

  21.1

  18.6

  18.1

  18.2

  17.7

  17.4

  16.5

  17.2

  Northern Ireland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  27.0

  26.2

  25.8

  25.4

  United Kingdom

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  18.4

  18.2

  17.6

  17.9

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  North Eastern

  19.4

  18.3

  18.6

  18.3

  18.0

  —

  14.5

  15.5

  15.4

  14.7

  London North

  9.7

  9.2

  9.3

  9.4

  9.2

  —

  7.5

  7.6

  7.2

  9.6

  London South

  8.9

  8.0

  8.4

  8.7

  8.2

  —

  6.9

  7.1

  6.9

  8.8

  South Western

  14.3

  13.8

  14.4

  14.4

  14.0

  —

  11.4

  12.3

  10.9

  10.6

  Midlands

  19.8

  17.3

  17.2

  17.0

  17.7

  —

  13.6

  14.6

  13.2

  14.1

  North Western

  —

  20.4

  20.2

  20.2

  20.5

  —

  17.4

  18.1

  17.7

  18.0

  56
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Attendance allowance: Decisions made in each year since 1987

  Year

  Total3

  Claims decided Awarded 1

  Refused

  19872

  309,000

  214,000

  96,000

  1988

  323,000

  207,000

  115,000

  1989

  333,000

  228,000

  105,000

  1990

  375,000

  276,000

  99,000

  1991

  472,000

  357,000

  115,000

  1992

  542,000

  418,000

  124,000

  1993

  498,000

  355,000

  142,000

  1994

  492,000

  349,000

  143,000

  1995

  484,000

  343,000

  141,000

  Notes:

  1 Figures include awards to people in hospital or scheduled accommodation at time of award where benefit may not be payable.

  2 Figures exclude, for Great Britain, awards at 1 but include first awards made on review or appeal.

  3 Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  4 The figures giving the available information relates to decisions made in each year.

  5Disability living allowance was introduced in April 1992 and replaced Attendance Allowance for people under pension age. However, attendance allowance is still available for people who first become disabled over age 65 or who first claim benefit after age 66.

  Source:

  DSS (Analytical Services Division) and Northern Ireland DHSS: 100 per cent. data.

  Benefits (Pensioners)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 2 May,Official Report, column 630, in respect of the figures given, what was the percentage of pensioners who claimed (a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit in each region of the United Kingdom for each year since 1970. [34889]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the following tables.
  57

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  North Western (Manchester)

  11.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Western (Merseyside)

  10.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wales

  18.1

  17.5

  17.4

  17.2

  17.7

  16.3

  15.1

  15.7

  14.1

  15.1

  Scotland

  17

  16.3

  17.1

  16.6

  17.9

  17.5

  15.6

  16.5

  15.2

  15.7

  Northern Ireland

  25.3

  24.6

  24.4

  22.6

  23.2

  26.2

  24.2

  24.9

  n/a

  21.7

  United Kingdom

  18.2

  16.9

  17.1

  17.1

  17.1

  15.3

  14.2

  14.8

  n/a

  14.2

  Income support pensioner claimants by Government standard statistical region as a percentage of the regional pensioner population

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  South East (excluding London)

  7.1

  7.4

  7.5

  n/a

  London (inner and outer)

  5.7

  5.9

  6.0

  n/a

  North

  14.7

  16.5

  16.6

  n/a

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  15.7

  16.4

  16.7

  n/a

  East Midlands

  12.8

  13.4

  13.9

  n/a

  East Anglia

  12.5

  12.5

  12.6

  n/a

  South West

  10.5

  11.9

  11.9

  n/a

  West Midlands

  15.7

  16.6

  17.1

  n/a

  North West

  16.9

  18.2

  18.6

  n/a

  Wales

  15.1

  14.9

  15.5

  n/a

  Scotland

  15.7

  16.6

  16.8

  n/a

  Northern Ireland

  21.7

  23.5

  n/a

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  14.2

  15

  n/a

  n/a

  Claimants of pension age in receipt of housing benefit 1992–94 Housing benefit claimants by Government standard statistical region as a percentage of the regional pensioner population

  1992

  1993

  1994

  South East (excluding London)

  8.0

  8.0

  8.1

  London (inner and outer)

  7.3

  7.5

  7.3

  North

  21.0

  20.1

  20.5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  19.1

  20.2

  19.7

  East Midlands

  15.1

  15.3

  14.1

  East Anglia

  14.5

  14.5

  14.2

  South West

  10.8

  11.7

  11.1

  West Midlands

  17.6

  18.8

  17.4

  North West

  16.7

  16.7

  17.2

  Wales

  14.6

  14.1

  13.8

  Scotland

  23.8

  23.9

  23.5

  Northern Ireland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Community charge benefit/council tax benefit claimants by government standard statistical region as a percentage of the regional pensioner population

  1992

  1993

  1994

  South East (excluding London)

  13.3

  12.5

  12.2

  London (inner and outer)

  8.9

  8.5

  8.4

  North

  30.4

  27.6

  27.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  29.8

  29.1

  28.1

  East Midlands

  26.6

  24.2

  22.3

  East Anglia

  23.8

  21.8

  21.5

  South West

  19.6

  18.8

  18.4

  West Midlands

  30.7

  26.9

  27.7

  North West

  28.5

  26.5

  27.2

  Wales

  22.1

  20.5

  20.5

  Scotland

  32.2

  28.6

  28.9

  Northern Ireland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Notes:

  1. Percentages are expressed to one decimal point.

  2. London data is expressed as a percentage of the "South East".
  58
  3. Supplementary benefit/income support pensioners are defined as male claimants aged 65 and over and female claimants aged 60 and over. Housing benefit/council tax benefit pensioners are defined as aged 60 and over.

  4. Supplementary benefit/income support data are not available for 1985 and 1988. Supplementary benefit information is not available by region prior to 1972. Supplementary benefit information for Northern Ireland is not available prior to 1978.

  5. Regions from 1970–1991 are DSS administrative regions. The boundaries for these regions changed in 1982. Data by Government standard statistical regions are available only from 1992.

  6. Housing benefit/council tax benefit is not available by region prior to 1992. Northern Ireland housing benefit/council tax benefit data are not available.

  7. Income support replaced supplementary benefit in April 1988.

  8. Council tax benefit was introduced in April 1993.

  9. Housing benefit/council tax benefit figures exclude cases where entitlement was reduced to nil after a non-dependent deduction was made.

  Sources:

  1. Office National Statistics, mid-term estimates 1971–1994.

  2. Supplementary Benefit Annual Statistical Enquiries 1979–1987.

  3. Supplementary Benefits (Northern Ireland) Annual Statistical Enquiries 1979–1987.

  4. Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiries May 1989–1995.

  5. Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiries (Northern Ireland) 1998–1993.

  6. Housing Benefit Management Information System annual 1 per cent. sample May 1992–1994.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who would have been entitled to benefits before the introduction of the Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Regulations 1996 on 5 February have sought asylum since that date. [33833]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  A total of 7,281 people claimed asylum in-country between February 1 and June 30, the latest date for which figures are available.

  Prior to the introduction of the regulations, asylum seekers in this category would have been eligible for income support housing benefit and council tax benefit, subject to the normal qualifying conditions.

  Benefit Entitlement (Publicity)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent on commercial advertising space(a) in Nottingham and (b) nationally, informing the public of possible entitlement to (i) income support, (ii) family credit, (iii) disability working allowance, (iv) housing benefit, (v) council tax benefit, (vi) attendance allowance, (vii) child benefit, (viii) disability living allowance, (ix) incapacity benefit, (x) industrial disablement benefit, (xi) invalid care

  59
  allowance, (xii) maternity allowance, (xiii) one parent benefit, (xiv) retirement pension, (xv) severe disablement allowance and (xvi) widows benefits. [33877]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  In 1995–96, more than £2,000 was spent in Nottingham to promote the whole range of benefits available for the elderly. A further £1,175 was spent to promote back to work benefits including family credit and disability working allowance.

  A total of £2.6 million was spent nationally on promoting benefits for people returning to work. The benefits promoted were family credit and disability working allowance, but the campaign was also directed at people leaving incapacity benefit. Some £100,000 was spent on a campaign informing people about the January changes to housing benefit rules. It is not possible to say how much of the total spent related to Nottingham.

  The Benefits Agency spent £5,963,391 nationally on publicising benefits in 1995–96 by way of leaflets and other publicity. The cost of publicity for Nottingham is included in this total, but it is not possible to identify these individual costs from the national figure.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much money from the family credit budget will be saved, in each region, as a result of the proposed amendments to family credit regulations to end awards immediately the last child leaves full-time non-advanced education; [35254]

  (2) how many families will be affected in each region by the proposed amendments to family credit regulations to end awards immediately the last child leaves full-time non-advanced eduation. [35253]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, is estimated that nationally 15,000 families will be affected, with an overall saving of £6 million in the first year.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons an officer acting on his behalf altered the method of payment of maintenance in CSA case reference 1014339731; and for what reasons no explanation for this decision has been given to the absent parent. [35432]

  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 Mr. David Lidington, dated 4 July 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency case reference 1014339731.
  In this particular case, when the parent with care and the absent parent submitted their application forms to the Agency, they both stated that their preferred method for the payment of maintenance was by direct payments from the absent parent to the parent with care.
  However, the parent with care later requested that payments be made through the Child Support Agency collection service, as the absent parent had failed to make regular payments to her.
  60
  The absent parent was advised of this request. He subsequently telephoned Plymouth Child Support Agency Centre and it was agreed that a standing order mandate would be set up for the payment of maintenance. This has been arranged.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Child Support Agency will send its submissions to the special payments branch about case reference 1002347955. [35135]

  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 Mr. David Lidington, dated 4 July 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency case reference 1002347955.
  This case is currently being progressed by the Dudley Child Support Agency Centre compensation referral team. It has been necessary to clarify aspects of the parent with care's request for compensation. For this reason, a letter was issued to her on 18 June 1996 requesting more information.
  To date no reply has been received. Once the necessary information has been received, a submission will be made to the Special Payments Branch as a matter or priority.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total cost of the Child Support Agency advertising campaign for the Greater Manchester area; for what reasons the campaign is located in the Greater Manchester area; what are the aims of the campaign; and what organisation is co-ordinating the campaign [35375]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The full cost of the campaign will be £180,000. The Greater Manchester area was chosen because the diversity of its population and the size and range of available media make it representative of the country as a whole.

  This is a test campaign with three main aims: to address some of the common public misconceptions about child support maintenance; to improve compliance with child support legislation; and to raise the levels of public awareness about the way the child support maintenance system operates. The campaign has been co-ordinated by the Central Office of Information for the Department of Social Security.

  Incapacity Benefit (Cynon Valley)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the Cynon valley who were formerly in receipt of invalidity benefit have not qualified for the new incapacity benefit. [35355]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs Ann Clwyd, dated 4 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people in the Cynon Valley who were formerly in receipt of Invalidity Benefit (IVB) have not qualified for the new Incapacity Benefit (IB).
  61
  The information is not available in the format requested. Statistics for IVB and IB are not kept which are specific to Parliamentary Constituencies but are kept for individual Benefit Offices.

  The majority of customers in the Cynon Valley are served by the Aberdare Benefit Office. Figures for the Aberdare Benefit Office are tabled below.

  April 1995-May 1996

  Number

  Former IVB customers disallowed IB

  469

  (i) Data provided have been taken from the computerised system and therefore the count excludes a very small number of clerical cases.

  (ii) A minority of customers from the Cynon Valley are not dealt with by the Aberdare Benefit Office. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  (iii) Aberdare Benefit Office is part of the South Wales Valleys District.

  (iv) Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefit Inquiry Line
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated proportion of callers to the Benefits Agency inquiry line not referred to local Benefit Agency offices; how such inquiries will be dealt with following the closure of the benefit inquiry line; and what are the implications of the impact of the closure of the benefit inquiry line on the take-up of income-related benefits. [35450]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 3 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what is the estimated proportion of callers to the Benefit Agency enquiry line not referred to local Benefit Agency offices; how such enquiries will be dealt with following the closure of the Benefit Enquiry line; and what are the implications of the impact of the closure of the Benefit Enquiry line on the take-up of income-related benefits.
  The Freeline service closes on the 12 July but the Benefit Enquiry Line for people with disabilities will remain open.
  The information is not available in the format requested. No records are kept of the callers who contact Freeline and are not referred to their local benefit office.
  However research for the BA National Customer Survey 1995 asked about the Freeline service. 37% of customers phoned freeline to find out about eligibility, 25% for general information and 29% for issues relating to individual benefit enquiries. Freeline staff do not have access to the benefit computer systems and are therefore unable to answer specific benefit enquiries. Therefore many customers would need to contact their local benefit office in order to pursue their claim for benefit or resolve their enquiry.
  From 12 July when Freeline closes, customers will be encouraged to contact their local benefit offices. The closure of Freeline will allow resources to be refocused so that the customer is in touch with the staff who administer their claims or who can directly link the benefits available with the specific personal details of the customer. Benefit literature is readily available in local offices, post offices and numerous other outlets.
  It is not anticipated that the closure of Freeline will have any material impact on the take up of income related benefits.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Asthma
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many registered days of certified incapacity due to sickness and invalidity caused by asthma there were in 1995; and how much this cost in terms of benefits. [35373]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  4 April 1994–12 April 1995

  Number of days of certified incapacity due to asthma, excluding days for which statutory sick pay is payable

  17,061,001 (2.3 per cent, of all days of certified incapacity)

  Estimated cost of sickness and invalidity benefit

  £179 million2

  Source:

  1 1 per cent. sample of all claims in Great Britain. Diagnosis taken from the International Classification of Diseases [1975 edition].

  Note:

  2 It is not possible to estimate the costs of other benefits, such as income support, which may be payable on grounds of certified incapacity.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those constituencies he has visited in the last three months on official business and those constituencies he intends to visit in the next three months; and if he will make a statement. [35757]

  Mr. Lilley
  Since the beginning of April this year, I have undertaken official engagements in Eastbourne and Dunfermline, West. I expect to visit other parts of the country in the coming months.

  Disability Premium
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount of income support severe disability premium withheld by his Department pending the decision in the Bate case; how many claimants were affected; and what use has been made of the funding allocated for the scheme which has been withheld. [35903]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) on 13 June,Official Report, column 260.

  Unfortunately, there was an error in the reply in that the information given for the number of suspensions as a result of the Bate case was incorrect. The figure quoted related only to those cases which had been suspended by the Secretary of State following awards made by social security appeal tribunals. It did not include those cases which had been suspended following decisions made by adjudication officers. A figure is not available for the total number of cases which have been suspended as Bate look-alikes.
  63
  The information requested on the amount of income support withheld by the Department pending the House of Lords judgment in the Bate case and the number of claimants affected is not available.

  The severe disability premium is paid as a component of income support which is funded by means of money voted by Parliament. Any over-spending or under-spending is reported in the annual appropriation account.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement concerning the proposed Housing Benefit (General) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1996. [36448]

  Mr. Lilley
  I submitted these draft regulations for the Social Security Advisory Committee's consideration in April. They were intended to ensure that, as a general rule, housing benefit would meet service charges only where the service relates to the adequacy of accommodation as a dwelling.

  I have carefully considered the representations that I have received. These indicate that significant amounts of housing benefit may be being paid in respect of personal services in supported accommodation. I have concluded that the sudden removal of this source of income may cause significant difficulties for many vulnerable people in supported accommodation. I have therefore decided to withdraw the draft regulations, and I am commissioning an urgent inter-departmental review of the arrangements for funding supported accommodation. When the review is complete I will consider what legislation might be appropriate.

TRANSPORT

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of funding by private finance initiative of capital projects designed to improve traffic flow at motorway junctions. [34698]

  Mr. Watts
  Such projects are generally classified as small-scale improvements and are not large enough to be considered for separate funding under PFI.

  Eurofreight Terminal (Wales)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of the impact of rail privatisation on the provision of a Eurofreight terminal in Wales. [34700]

  Mr. Watts
  Privatisation gives the new railfreight companies greater freedom and incentive to increase the proportion of freight carried by rail in Wales, Scotland and England.

  Safety At Sea
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress Her Majesty's Government have made in improving safety at sea; and if he will make a statement. [34701]
  64
  Sir George Young
  We have successfully pursued a number of proposals, both in the International Maritime Organisation and in the European Community, leading to agreements on improving standards, including the Stockholm agreement on ferry safety. We shall continue to work towards the implementation of higher standards.

  Ferry Safety
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has to improve the safety of passenger-carrying ferries. [34706]

  Mr. Norris
  We shall be implementing changes to the SOLAS-safety of lives at sea—convention agreed at the International Maritime Organisation's diplomatic conference in November 1995, concerning evacuation procedures, life-saving equipment and enhanced operational requirements, and we are preparing regulations to implement the Stockholm agreement on ferry survivability.

  Salvage Tugs
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the current location of salvage tugs contracted by his Department to provide emergency towing around the United Kingdom coast. [34702]

  Sir George Young
  The contracts for tugs at Stornoway and Dover provide for their return to station on 1 October. As my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping announced on 17 June, the Coastguard Agency will seek tenders for an additional emergency towing vessel to be stationed on the south-west approaches for six months from 1 October. As in previous years, no contracted tugs are stationed during the summer months.

  Humber Bridge
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce the extent to which the Government will write off the Humber bridge debt. [34703]

  Mr. Watts
  Once the Secretary of State has determined the outcome of the current toll application, he will bring forward an order under the Humber Bridge (Debts) Act 1996.

  Fenchurch Street Railway Line
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on the Fenchurch Street line. [34704]

  Mr. Watts
  Since the award of the LTS rail franchise to Prism Rail plc on 8 May, we have received no representations about the franchise award. I have answered two letters seeking information.

  Privatised Rail Network
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what mechanisms he plans to introduce to measure the performance of the privatised rail network. [34707]
  65
  Mr. Watts
  The performance of the privatised rail network is monitored by both the Rail Regulator and the franchising director.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to improve competition among the privatised rail companies. [34690]

  Mr. Watts
  There is competition for each franchise awarded and each business sold.

  Forth Rail Bridge
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in the last three months on the painting of the Forth rail bridge. [34708]

  Mr. Watts
  Maintenance of the Forth bridge is now an operational matter for Railtrack. Railtrack has accepted all the recommendations in the Health and Safety Executive's assessment of the bridge, published earlier this year, and is already in the process of prioritising repair and restoration work as part of the written maintenance plan that will be submitted to the House by 30 November this year. As part of this work, Railtrack has invited tenders to undertake 35,000 sq m of painting in 1996–97—a significant increase on the 13,000 sq m painted in 1995–96.

  Cumbria Rail Line
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last used the north-west coast rail line to Cumbria. [34709]

  Sir George Young
  I have not used the west coast line to travel to Cumbria. However, on 20 May I travelled on the line to Manchester to open the Manchester airport southern spur rail link.

  Oxford-Cambridge Railway Line
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assistance he will make available to secure the re-opening of the Oxford to Cambridge via Milton Keynes railway line for passenger traffic. [34710]

  Mr. Watts
  The proposal by a consortium of interested local authorities is currently at feasibility stage. I understand that the phase 1 study covered the potential of a number of east-west routes and recommended further work on a central corridor which would use existing rail infrastructure via Bletchley. Railtrack has now joined the steering group but it is too early to say whether this will result in a viable proposal worthy of Government support.

  Red Routes (London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest timetable for introducing further red routes in London and for consultation with residential and business occupiers along proposed routes. [34711]

  Mr. Norris
  The Traffic Director for London is responsible for co-ordinating the introduction of the red route network. Before red routes are introduced, all frontagers are consulted, and full consideration is given to how their needs can best be met. The latest timetable for introducing red routes is contained in the Traffic 66
  Director's 1995–96 annual report, a copy of which is in the Library. The aim is to have the network operational by the year 2000.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of capital expenditure on transport during the next financial year will be on(a) roads and (b) non-road transport; and what were the equivalent figures for 1986. [34699]

  Sir George Young
  The proportion of capital expenditure allocated to national and local roads in the current year is nearly 60 per cent., compared with 70 per cent. in 1986–87—but such an analysis is inevitably subject to fluctuations in the capital budget arising from major projects.

  Charter Aircraft
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 34, if he will list the safety reasons that have resulted in the grounding of the aircraft operated by Air Operations of Europe. [35273]

  Mr. Norris
  I am advised that the Civil Aviation Authority issued a direction, under the Air Navigation Order 1989, to prevent this aircraft from flying because its registration documents, certificate of airworthiness and licences of flight crew appeared to have been issued illegally.

  Departmental Property
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the location and function of all buildings owned by his Department but not occupied by Government officials. [35435]

  Mr. Norris
  Excluding properties acquired for the roads programme, my Department owns but does not occupy the following properties:

  Stores Depot at Yate, Bristol

  IT Offices at the Oldway Centre, Swansea

  Research Sites at Crowthorne and Livingston

  International Maritime Organisation Building, London.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) cost, (b) name and (c) duration of all contracts entered into for the purposes of disposing of his Department's land. [35436]

  Mr. Norris
  The following firms have been appointed to advise on the Department's civil estate, including marketing of sites.

  Company

  Appointed

  Contract end date

  Expenditure (£)1 April 1996 to 30 June 1996

  Richard Ellis

  1 December 1995

  30 March 1997

  9,850

  Frere Cholmondeley Bischoff

  1 May 1996

  31 March 1997

  0

  Aspinwall and Co.

  1 June 1996

  31 July 1996

  10,500

  Healey and Baker

  1 June 1996

  31 March 1997

  0

  67
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list(a) the length of leases held by his Department and (b) buildings occupied and run by his Department which contain other Government or next step agency tenants; [35434]

  (2) if he will list all properties held by his Department that are (a) leased and (b) owned with their locations and functions. [35433]

  Mr. Norris
  I have placed a copy of the answer in the Library.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps his Department is taking to improve the access to train services for disabled people at unmanned stations; [35474]

  (2) what measures he plans to ensure disabled access to train services at unmanned train stations. [35484]

  Mr. Watts
  Under the Railways Act 1993, the Rail Regulator has a duty to protect the interests of disabled rail passengers. All train and station operators are required to submit for the Rail Regulator's approval a disabled people's protection policy, as a condition of being granted a licence to operate. Many franchise operators have committed to improving access for disabled passengers. For example, GNR has committed to spending an additional £400,000 per year on improving access to its stations for disabled passengers. Prism Rail plc will spend £14 million on station improvements which will include improved facilities for disabled passengers.

  The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 provides the Secretary of State with powers to make regulations to require that new public transport vehicles are accessible to disabled people. The Act will apply to new rail vehicles, as well as to buses, coaches and taxis. Discussions have begun with the rail industry and the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee about the shape of the new regulations. The issue of rail vehicles serving unstaffed or partially staffed stations will be considered in that context.

  Train Services (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what annual funding is made available to West Yorkshire passenger transport authority for operating trains in the Yorkshire area. [35485]

  Mr. Watts
  A figure is set aside each year from within the all other services block of the revenue support grant for distribution to district councils in metropolitan counties to meet the cost of supporting local rail services. The West Yorkshire passenger transport authority levies the district councils in the WYPTA passenger transport area each year for funding to cover expenditure by the West Yorkshire passenger transport executive on securing such railway passenger services as the authority decides to be necessary. In addition, payments are made to the WYPTE under the terms of certain current deeds of assumption. The combined figure for 1996–97 is £51.18 million. This comprises £45.98 million by way of RSG and some £5.2 million under the terms of those deeds of assumption.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will place a copy of the main construction contract for the Newbury bypass in the Library; [35501]

  (2) what assessment he has made of Costain Group plc's ability to meet its contractual obligations in the construction of the Newbury bypass; [35504]

  (3) what action he is taking to ensure that Costain Group plc will meet its contractual obligations in the construction of the Newbury bypass; [35503]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the costs to his Department's budget of a failure by Costain Group plc to meet its contractual obligations in the construction of the Newbury bypass. [35502]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Keith Hill, dated 8 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent questions about the award of the A34 Newbury By Pass contract to Costain Group plc.
  All contractors employed by the Highways Agency are assessed in terms of their financial stability and capacity to undertake the work for which they have applied to be considered. These assessments were applied to Costain Civil Engineering Limited, the construction company within the Costain Group plc which applied to be considered for this contract, and the company met the pre-qualification criteria.
  In this case, where the contract has been let on the basis of the ICE 5th Edition Conditions of Contract, the immediate responsibility for ensuring contractors meet their contractual obligations rests with the Engineer to the contract. In addition, the Agency is continuing to monitor the financial position of Costain Civil Engineering Ltd and the Costain Group plc generally but has no immediate concerns as to their ability to meet all their current contractual obligations to the Agency, including construction of the Newbury Bypass.
  We have made no assessment of the costs to the Agency should Costain fail to meet its contractual obligations as this depends on a range of factors, the effect of which will vary with time.
  The documents comprising the actual contract awarded to Costain Civil Engineering Limited include the detailed Bills of Quantities which contain price information which is commercially sensitive to the company. The total estimated value of the contract at the time of award has already been announced.
  I have now seen the details announced by the company of their proposed deal with a major Malaysian construction and investment group which, if agreed, would strengthen substantially their financial position. Although the deal is subject to the approval of shareholders, this is a positive development which the Agency will follow closely.

  Rail Accidents (North-west)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 351, how many fatalities and serious injuries were caused to (a) adults and (b) children in (i) Lancashire and (ii) the North West Regional Railways area for each year since 1990. [35692]

  Mr. Watts
  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate's accident statistics are not recorded by county, and due to a number of changes to regional railway boundaries since 1990, the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Lower Vickers Street, Miles Platting
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when a decision was made to order a public inquiry into the closure of Lower Vickers street, Miles Platting; and what actions were taken between the publication of the draft order and the decision to order a public inquiry. [35500]

  Mr. Norris
  Eight objections were received following publication of the draft order on 11 December 1995. Officials in the Government office for the north-west spoke to the applicants on a number of occasions over the following months, as the applicants sought to resolve differences with the objectors. When it became clear that satisfactory progress was not being made, officials wrote to the applicants on 14 May to arrange a public inquiry.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under what powers magistrates may require those convicted of driving offences to retake their driving tests; and what are the figures for the use of this power in each of the last five years [35594]

  Mr. Norris
  Under section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, as substituted by section 32 of the Road Traffic Act 1991, magistrates courts which have ordered drivers to be disqualified for a period of time on conviction on an offence of dangerous driving must also order them to be disqualified until they have passed an extended driving test. These courts may, at their discretion, also order other persons convicted of driving offences involiving obligatory endorsement to be disqualified until they have passed the appropriate driving test. The appropriate driving test is an extended driving test where the conviction involves obligatory disqualification, as with the main drink-drive offences, or if the driver has accumulated 12 or more penalty points. In other cases the test is the ordinary test of competence to drive.

  Section 36 as substituted came into force on 1 July 1992. The numbers of disqualifications under that section since that date, notified to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency by all courts in England, Wales and Scotland, are as follows:

  Extended test

  Ordinary test1

  1992 (July to December)

  186

  1,093

  1993

  1,845

  4,325

  1994

  3,128

  6,224

  1995

  5,126

  8,358

  1996 (January to June)

  1,843

  2,593

  1 Includes some ordinary tests ordered in respect of offences committed before 1 July 1992 in accordance with section 36 as first enacted.

  The Department has not kept statistics for the period before that date.

  MS Link Road
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the M5 link road to the second Severn crossing will be open. [35611]
  70
  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 4 July 1996]: I will be pleased to perform the opening ceremony of the M49 which links the M5 in the second Severn crossing shortly. The road will open to traffic as soon as safely possible after the ceremony.

  Road Traffic Growth
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been undertaken by the Government into the impact of planning policy guidance note 13; and what are their conclusions on the rate of road traffic growth during(a) the next five years, (b) the next 10 years and (c) the next 20 years. [35591]

  Mr. Norris
  A research project to define the possible economic effects of the draft PPG 13 was published in April 1996; copies of the report have been placed in the Library. The report contains some projections of overall transport impacts, but does not specifically address the future rate of road traffic growth. The Government have commissioned further research into the implementation of PPG 13, and into future land-use patterns, taking account of planning policy guidance and road congestion.

  Buses
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the budget committed by Her Majesty's Government to promote(a) guided buses and (b) telematics for buses. [35953]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government have no specific budget for the support of either guided buses or telematics for buses. Bids from local authorities for new or improved transport infrastructure are considered through the annual transport policies and programmes system, and good value projects are supported within the available resources. These projects may include facilities for guided buses and for the provision of information about bus services using telematics. The provision of facilities on vehicles themselves is a matter for the bus operators.

  Singapore Airlines
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the rights of Singapore Airlines to land at Heathrow and Manchester. [35956]

  Mr. Norris
  Singapore Airlines has the rights to operate 17 frequencies a week between Singapore and the United Kingdom. Any number of these can be used for services to Manchester, but no more than 14 a week may be operated to London.

  Cycling
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's cycling strategy; and if he will make a statement. [35952]

  Mr. Norris
  The national cycling strategy will be launched at a conference in London on 10 July. It is a consensus document, which we hope will be widely adopted by local authorities, other public bodies, and commercial interests. The Department of Transport endorses the main thrust of the strategy and will be contributing to the actions proposed, and other Government Departments are likely to do so as well. It is
  71
  expected that the strategy will continue to evolve, and to adjust to circumstances, under the aegis of a standing national cycling forum.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to require cyclists to carry identification plates and third party insurance. [35947]

  Mr. Norris
  We have no plans to require cyclists to carry identification plates and third party insurance.

  Salisbury Bypass
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to make a decision about the Salisbury bypass. [35699]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport are considering the inspector's report on the public inquiry into the proposed Salisbury bypass. They will announce their decision on the scheme as soon as possible.

  Motor Cycling
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what support his Department is giving to motor cycling in Bristol; and if he will make a statement. [35957]

  Mr. Norris
  Traffic management, including motor cycling, in Bristol falls to the local highway authority, which has a statutory responsibility to prepare and carry out a programme of measures designed to promote road safety.

  Crash Helmets
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the advantage of making compulsory the wearing of crash helmets for cyclists. [35958]

  Mr. Norris
  We have carefully considered the case for the compulsory wearing of crash helmets for cyclists, and have decided that it is more effective at the present stage for Government actively to promote the voluntary wearing of helmets.

  Bus Working Group
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to bring forward proposals to implement the recommendations of his Department's bus working group. [35938]

  Mr. Norris
  The programme of actions and further discussions I have announced on 8 January is being actively pursued by the bus working group and its sub-groups. Implementation of agreed measures is being taken forward as and when appropriate. The bus working group is to meet again on 5 August to review progress.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the dates of the last meetings of the bus working group's sub-committees; and what items were discussed. [35939]

  Mr. Norris
  Three bus working group sub-groups are pursuing the programme of actions and further discussions announced on 8 January. The dates of their most recent meetings are as follows: Passenger Information—18 April; Bus Priority—15 May; and Service Provision 72
  and Quality—5 July. The main items considered at the relevant meetings were publication of a revise of "Keeping Buses Moving", the Department's guide on bus priority measures, publication of a new "Good Practice Guide" on passenger information, operator entry requirements, issues relating to bus headway spacing, and the development of quality partnerships.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on EU regulations on eye tests for heavy goods vehicle drivers. [35954]

  Mr. Norris
  The second EC driving licence directive requires a new uncorrected vision standard for drivers of lorries and buses. This will apply to new applicants for licences from 1 January 1997. The Government intend to consult further on a proposal to permit existing licence holders to renew their licences provided that they continue to meet current legal requirements. Those who can do so only under preserved rights provisions, which require them only to comply with the eyesight standards which applied when they obtained their licences, would be required to certify that they have a minimum level of recent driving experience and have not been involved in an accident where eyesight might have been a factor.

  Sustrans Project
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the Sustrans project. [35959]

  Mr. Norris
  The national cycle network being promoted by the charity, Sustrans, is making good progress. Much of the detailed work will be undertaken by local highway authorities.

  The Department welcomed the initiative to develop the network. We have already said that, where feasible, we would help to ensure safe and convenient crossings arrangements where the network crosses trunk roads. Sustrans has been invited to identify with the Highways Agency desirable trunk road crossing points.

  We were pleased to help Sustrans last month with the launch of its "Safe Routes to School" conference. This three-year demonstration project offers opportunities to local authorities to consider the strategic role which walking and cycling to school can play in helping to achieve local authority objectives.

  Transport Policies and Programmes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost to local authorities submitting TPP bids in the latest year. [35922]

  Mr. Norris
  We have made no such estimate. It is for individual local authorities to decide on the precise content of their transport policies and programmes submissions, although we encourage them to keep the size of TPPs to a minimum—see paragraphs 17 and 18 of local authority circular 2/96, copies of which have been deposited in the Library.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total of(a) TPP bids received in the last year, (b) the amounts of those bids approved and (c) the proposition of (b) funded by his Department. [35921]
  73
  Mr. Norris
  The total of TPP bids from local authorities for 1996–97 was £2,260 million, of which £795 million—35.2 per cent.—was accepted as part of the local transport capital settlement announced on 19 December 1995.

  Northern Line
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which stations on the Northern line(a) were improved during 1995–96 and (b) are due to be improved in 1996–97. [:35894]

  Mr. Norris
  (a) During 1995–96 London Underground Ltd. made improvements to the following Northern line stations:

  Balham

  Brent Cross

  Burnt Oak

  Chalk Farm

  Clapham North

  Clapham South

  Colindale

  Finchley Central

  Hampstead

  Kentish Town

  Old Street

  Tufnell Park

  (b) LUL is making improvements to the following Northern line stations during 1996–97:

  Clapham Common

  Hampstead

  Kentish Town

  Mornington Crescent

  Old Street

  Oval

  Tooting Bec

  Tooting Broadway.

  Mr. Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much London Transport spent upgrading facilities on the Northern line in 1995–96; and how much it expects to spend in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [35893]

  Mr. Norris
  During 1995–96, London Underground Ltd. invested a total of £104 million in capital projects on the Northern line.

  (a) LUL has a budget of £96 million for capital investment in the Northern line during 1996–97

  (b) LUL's budget for investment in the Northern line during 1997–96 is £93 million.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to build an east London river crossing, and if he will make a statement. [35919]

  Mr. Norris
  In the transport strategy for London announced in April, the Government proposed a multi-modal local crossing between Beckton and Thamesmead at Gallions Reach as one potential element of a "package" of new crossing for East London. This proposal supersedes the old east London river crossing 74
  scheme, for which we propose to publish draft revocation orders as soon as possible.

  Road Surfaces
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on environmentally friendly surfaces and the use of whisper concrete on motorways. [35754]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Teresa Gorman, dated 8 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question concerning environmentally friendly surfaces and the use of whisper concrete on motorways.
  It is the Department's policy to encourage the use of environmentally friendly surfaces both by permitting the recycling of existing surfaces where possible and by the use of low noise road surfaces where technically suitable and cost effective to do so.
  Following the satisfactory completion of trails whisper concrete is now permitted as an option for all roads where concrete is technically suitable.

  Bypasses (Yorkshire)
  Sir Irvine Patrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the benefits to local communities of bypasses in Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement. [35853]

  Mr. Watts
  Bypass schemes to be built on the trunk road network are assessed during the design stage in accordance with my Department's procedures which are set out in the design manual for roads and bridges. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Following completion of a bypass an assessment of the effects of the scheme is undertaken in terms of traffic and accidents. Since 1989, the following post-opening studies have been made for bypass schemes in Yorkshire:

  A616 Stocksbridge bypass: (November 1989)

  A65 Settle and Gigglewick bypass: (February 1990)

  A65 Addingham bypass: (February 1992)

  A1079 Market Weighton bypass: (June 1992)

  A650 Drighlington bypass: (October 1993)

  A65 Draughton bypass: (December 1993)

  Bypasses promoted by local highway authorities which are included in their transport policies and programme submissions to the Department are assessed using similar procedures.

  The provision of bypasses can bring very substantial benefits to local communities in terms of relieving bottlenecks to through traffic, enhancing the environment and improving road safety.

  Infrastructure, North-West
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the need to improve the transport infrastructure in the north-west. [34705]
  75
  Sir George Young
  We receive representations about improving transport infrastructure in the north-west, as we do from other parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for local transport chaired the regional annual consultative committee for the north-west in Chester earlier this year, at which he heard the local authorities' view on transport needs in their region.

  Rail Speed Restrictions
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many temporary speed restrictions were notified by Railtrack's weekly operating notices to Regional Railways North East in the period(a) April to June 1994 and (b) April to June 1996; [35880]

  (2) how many temporary speed restrictions were in place on tracks used by Regional Railways North East passenger services on 1 April 1994 and how many are in place currently; and if he will list the locations and nature of each of the temporary restrictions at these dates. [35879]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked Railtrack to provide the relevant information. Once this is available, I will write to the hon. Member.

  Rail Franchising
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has commissioned into the number of stops by intercity trains which were removed from the timetable by British Rail during the three months prior to the award of franchises for the private sector operation of services which would otherwise have stopped at those stations; and if he will make a statement. [35884]

  Mr. Watts
  We have not commissioned research. For train operating companies which are subsidiaries of the British Railways Board, timetable changes are a matter for the board.

  For franchised services, the franchising director develops a contractually binding passenger service requirement based on the British Rail timetable in operation at the time the PSR is drawn up. He is not minded to include in PSRs services that are not being provided in the British Rail timetable. The PSR is subject to consultation with local authorities and rail users consultative committees.

  In specifying the PSR, the franchising director has regard to the need to protect vulnerable services, to give franchisees flexibility to plan service provision for commercial services, and to provide value for money. He takes into account the commitments of bidders to provide timetabled services over and above the PSR when assessing franchise bids.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the instructions given to the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising to ensure in future that the minimum service requirements established through passenger service requirements which he issues through the franchising process are based upon the established pattern of activity by British Rail InterCity services and discount any cessation of services made in the immediate run-up to the franchise being issued. [35883]

  Mr. Watts
  The franchising director's existing objectives, instructions and guidance require that, when setting service levels for services being franchised for the 76
  first time, he should take as his starting point the service being provided by British Rail at the time when the specification is drawn up. This does not preclude the inclusion in the passenger service requirement of services which have previously been withdrawn by British Rail. Local rail users are free to press for the inclusion of such services in the service requirement during the period of public consultation which the franchising director undertakes for each franchise.

  Rail Disruptions
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much compensation was sought by Regional Railways North East from Railtrack for disruption to its passenger services as a result of temporary speed restrictions in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c)1996–97 to date. [35881]

  Mr. Watts
  The performance regime was not in place until December 1995. Compensation paid under the performance regime is a commercial matter for Railtrack and the operators involved.

  Transport Council
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the result of the Transport Council held in Luxembourg on 17 and 18 June. [36228]

  Sir George Young
  The Transport Council met in Luxembourg on 17 and 18 June. I represented the United Kingdom on the first day and my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping did so on the second.

  The Council took a vote on one item, a mandate for the Commission to open negotiations with the United States on the regulatory framework for a possible future EU-US common aviation area. This was opposed by the United Kingdom but was approved with the support of other member states. The mandate is restricted to negotiations on "soft rights" such as competition rules and ownership and control of airlines. Any second stage, including a mandate for negotiations on "hard rights" such as market access, would require a separate Council decision. Member states retain the right to conduct bilateral negotiations with the US while Community-level negotiations are under way.

  The Council reached agreement with the European Parliament in the conciliation procedure on guidelines for the Trans-European transport network. The next stage is for the Council and the European Parliament to adopt the agreed text, formally and separately, to bring the guidelines into force.

  The Council reached political agreement on a proposed directive concerning the safety of domestic passenger ferries. The Council also reached political agreement on a draft directive to harmonise codes used to record information on driving licences.

  The Council discussed a directive to extend until 2001 the present arrangements for harmonisation of summer time start and end dates, but deferred a decision until its October meeting.

  The Council agreed a mandate for the Commission to negotiate an agreement between the Community, the European organisation for the safety of air navigation—

  77
  Eurocontrol—and the European Space Agency on a European contribution to a global navigation satellite system.

  The Council agreed general conclusions accepting a report on aviation safety, which was presented to the Council by the Commission, and calling for further work.

  The Council discussed four policy papers prepared by the Commission, on air traffic management, the external costs of transport, public passenger transport, and maritime strategy.

  The Commission presented progress reports to the Council on its negotiations with Switzerland on land and air transport, and on the work of the research task forces on intermodality and the train of the future.

  The United Kingdom blocked a number of "A" points submitted for adoption by the Council in accordance with the Prime Minister's statement of 21 May.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what preparations he has made for Her Majesty's Government presidency of the Council of Transport Ministers; and if he will make a statement. [35916]

  Sir George Young
  Officials are considering the administrative implications of the United Kingdom's presidency of the Council of Ministers in the first half of 1998. No formal preparations have yet been made in relation to the Transport Council.

  Trunk Roads
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to help road users to identify high-standard all-purpose trunk roads. [36229]

  Mr. Watts
  Motorways are our highest standard trunk roads. The Government's road improvement programme has established a second category of all-purpose trunk roads which offer similar levels of service to motorways, with dual carriageways, purpose-built interchanges and restricted frontage access. I consider that we should now do more to publicise the second category of roads near motorway standard, so that road users can more easily identify the quality of route they should expect. This will also help locations which, although not directly served by the motorway network, nevertheless benefit from excellent trunk road connections and so good accessibility to national and international markets.

  Following discussion with the Minister with special responsibility for the south-west, I announced on 4 July that the section of the A38 which connects Plymouth to the national motorway network will be the first to benefit from the new designation—which will be called an expressway. I will be giving consideration to extending this more widely to other high standard all-purpose trunk roads in England.

  EU Transport Funding
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he is taking to secure EU funding for a Trans-European network feasibility study for the Bristol-Penzance main railway; [35949]
  78
  (2) how many projects have been endorsed and submitted by Her Majesty's Government to the EU Commission for funding under financial regulations 2236/95 for transport initiatives; if he will list them; and if he will set out the steps taken to secure Commission allocation of funds. [35948]

  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom put forward, for funding under the Trans-European networks financing regulation EC 2236/95, 16 projects in 1995 and 18 projects in 1996, including the Great Western line development study, which covers the Bristol-Penzance line. These are listed in the table. The allocation of funds to individual projects is determined by a committee of member states' representatives on the basis of a set of Commission proposals, themselves based on member states' bids. Officials maintain regular contact with the Commission to ensure that the proposed allocation is based on a thorough and accurate knowledge of the projects concerned.

  Projects included in the 1995 UK bid for TENs funds

  Priority Projects

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link

  West Coast Mainline Upgrading

  Ireland-UK Benelux Road Link

  Other Projects

  Airports-Rail Links

  Heathrow Express

  London-Luton Interchange

  Manchester Airport Intermodality Study

  Birmingham Airport Interchange

  Other Rail

  Piggyback Consortium

  Other Road

  M4 bridge strengthening programme

  Britannia Bridge tidal flow study

  English road bridge strength studies

  English road capacity studies

  Traffic Management Systems

  Air

  Short Term Conflict Alert System evaluation studies

  ATC system modeling

  European airport/airspace capacity assessment model

  Road

  Radio Data Systems—Traffic Message Channel

  Projects included in 1996 UK bid for TENs Funds

  Priority Projects

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link

  West Cost Mine Line Upgrading

  Ireland-UK Benelux Road Link

  Other Projects

  Airports—Rail Links

  Luton Airport Interchange

  Birmingham Airport Transport Interchange

  Heathrow rail link studies

  Other Road Projects

  A40-A477-M4 corridor studies

  Other Rail Projects

  Great Western Line Development study

  Ayr-Mauchline Development study

  79

  Traffic Management Projects

  Air

  ATN feasibility studies

  Avionic ADS Europe systems upgrading

  Air/ground data link studies

  Flight Data Management and Distribution systems

  Road

  RDS-TMS development

  A55 Traffic control and driver information study

  Sea

  GMDSS safety radio network improvement

  Transponder Identification and Tracking trial

  Maritime traffic density study.

  Speed Limit Signs
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission an inquiry into the effectiveness of speed limit signs on roads; and if he will make a statement. [34874]

  Mr. Norris
  Aspects of speed limit signing have been, and continue to be, part of the Department's research programme.

  Millennium Exhibition
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what administrative arrangements he is making to ensure that the development of passenger traffic on the River Thames is co-ordinated with the organisation of the millennium exhibition. [34876]

  Mr. Norris
  The primary responsibility for all aspects of the millennium exhibition will rest with the company formed to operate it. The development of River Thames passenger services to the exhibition will be for the operator in conjunction with boat operators and the Port of London Authority. The Department of National Heritage and the Government office for London will each have a role in co-ordinating action.

  Ministerial Visit
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to visit Congleton by train; and what route he plans to take. [35885]

  Sir George Young
  I have no current plans to visit Congleton.

  Road Programme
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the new roads and (b) the major road works planned to begin in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98 and (iii) 1998–99. [35920]

  Mr. Watts
  The new road schemes announced for a start in 1996–97 are as follows:

  Al2 Hackney Wick—MI 1 Link Contract 1, London

  Al2 Hackney Wick—MI 1 Link Contract 3, London

  A13 Wennington—Mar Dyke, Essex

  A 13 West of Heathway—Thames Avenue Improvement, London

  A34 Newbury Bypass, Berkshire (Contract awarded June 1996)

  A40 Gypsy Corner Improvement, Ealing, London

  80

  A40 Western Circus Junction Improvement, Ealing/ Hammersmith, London—London Primary Route Signing Project

  Decisions about the start of works on programmed schemes in future years depend on their relative priorities and the resources available.

  The following major maintenance schemes will be carried out during 1996–97—that is, work over £1 million in value, including bridge maintenance and strengthening work:

  M1 Junction 34 North

  M1 Junction 34 Northbound Exit

  M1 Junction 2 Strengthening of flyovers

  M4 Junction 2 Elevated Structure—Replacement of Crosshead

  M4 Junction 5–6

  M4 Junction 10 Sliproads

  M4 Junction 18–19

  M5 Junction 24 Bridge Maintenance

  M6 Junction 15–14 (Southbound)

  M6 Junction 33—MP 3820

  M6 Junction 36–37

  M6 Midland Links Bescot Viaduct—Repairs to viaduct supports

  M18 M1 Junction 1

  M23 Junction 8–9 North

  M23 Junction 8–9 Central

  M25 Junction 26–27

  M27 Junction 8–10

  M53 Junction 9–10

  M62 Junction 11–12

  M180 Brigg Bypass

  A1(M) Bowburn to Bradbury

  Al Kingsway to Lobley Hill

  A2 Jubilee Way

  A2 Brenley to Harbledown

  A3/A31 Surrey Bridge Strengthening

  A4 Sutton Court Road to Chiswick Roundabout

  A10 Great Cambridge Road—Bush Hill Park Bridge Replacement

  A19 Moor Farm to Beckworth

  A27 Shoreham Bypass

  A38 Branston to Barton (Southbound)

  A40 Western Avenue—Bridge repairs

  A46 Kenilworth Bypass—Resurfacing (Stage 1)

  A5103 M56-M63

  Major maintenance works in 1997–98 and 1998–99 will be determined following analysis of the up-to-date condition information which will be collected this year and next.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Right of Hot Pursuit
  Sir John Cope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now seek an agreement between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic in respect of the right of hot pursuit similar to that reached allowing Spanish police the right of hot pursuit of suspected terrorists into France. [33816]
  81
  Sir John Wheeler
  I understand that the 'hot pursuit' arrangements between Spain and France to which my right hon. Friend refers are part of those countries' commitments as signatories to the Schengen agreement. Although neither the United Kingdom nor the Republic of Ireland are signatories, there are arrangements between the two countries for dealing with cross-border terrorist incidents.

  Local Enterprise Development Unit
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much grant aid was committed by the Local Enterprise Development Unit in each of the Northern Ireland constituencies in the period 1990 to 1995. [34977]

  Mr. Ancram
  LEDU assistance in each of the Northern Ireland constituencies in the period 1990 to 1995 was as follows:

  Constituency

  Amount committed £

  Belfast East

  4,599,390

  Belfast North

  7,410,213

  Belfast South

  7,421,601

  Belfast West

  8,826,576

  East Antrim

  3,865,682

  East Londonderry

  6,027,513

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  6,118,240

  Foyle

  6,345,457

  Lagan Valley

  7,413,171

  Mid Ulster

  7,065,516

  Newry and Armagh

  6,382,322

  North Antrim

  3,685,661

  North Down

  3,634,786

  South Antrim

  7,655,512

  South Down

  8,149,437

  Strangford

  4,640,272

  Upper Bann

  6,521,397

  Total

  105,762,746

  Industrial Development Board
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many inward investment projects were secured by the Industrial Development Board in the period 1990 to 1995 in each constituency in Northern Ireland; how many jobs were created, and how much each investment was worth. [34975]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on investment projects by externally owned companies secured by the Industrial Development Board is available in the form requested only for the period 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1996. Details are set out in the table:

  Inward investment: 1993–96

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number of projects

  Jobs promoted

  Total investment (£000)

  Belfast, East

  4

  64

  65,032

  Belfast, North

  3

  119

  2,217

  Belfast, South

  3

  33

  3,142

  Belfast, West

  9

  804

  62,784

  East Antrim

  3

  339

  13,691

  East Londonderry

  4

  403

  55,291

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  8

  700

  29,455

  82

  Inward investment: 1993–96

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number of projects

  Jobs promoted

  Total investment (£000)

  Foyle

  15

  2,297

  190,190

  Lagan Valley

  7

  1,994

  179,845

  Mid Ulster

  6

  510

  43,389

  Newry and Armagh

  7

  499

  28,607

  North Antrim

  4

  8

  20,955

  North Down

  2

  91

  5,490

  South Antrim

  11

  1,827

  196,786

  South Down

  2

  91

  5,403

  Strangford

  1

  41

  1,676

  Upper Bann

  16

  1,241

  95,999

  The precise location of part of one project announced in 1995–96 has still to be decided; consequently, the table excludes the 215 jobs promoted and £4,277,000 of investment associated with that element of the project.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much grant aid was committed by the Industrial Development Board under selective financial assistance to client companies in each of the Northern Ireland constituencies in the period 1990 to 1995. [34976]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on selective financial assistance offers is available in the form requested only for the period 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1996. Details are set out in the table:

  Parliamentary constituency

  Value of selective financial assistance offers (£'000)

  Belfast, East

  8,819

  Belfast, North

  2,711

  Belfast, South

  2,394

  Belfast, West

  35,925

  East Antrim

  18,359

  East Londonderry

  22,242

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  24,499

  Foyle

  50,417

  Lagan Valley

  68,143

  Mid Ulster

  19,100

  Newry and Armagh

  18,882

  North Antrim

  8,142

  North Down

  1,922

  South Antrim

  56,193

  South Down

  3,167

  Strangford

  2,056

  Upper Bann

  36,436

  The offers figures exclude £659,000 in respect of part of a project announced in 1995–96 for which the precise location has yet to be decided.

  Indecency Offences
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many men have been(a) convicted of, and (b) cautioned for, public indecency offences over the last three years in Northern Ireland and the equivalent figures for England and Wales; and what are the present guidelines under which the RUC proceeds in relation to cautioning for such offences and the equivalent Home Office guidelines in England and Wales. [35321]
  83
  Sir John Wheeler
  Statistics and guidelines relating to England and Wales are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

  Males convicted of indecency offences in Northern Ireland

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Gross indecency offences

  13

  10

  19

  Indecent assault on females

  69

  86

  85

  Indecent assault on males

  15

  12

  18

  Indecent exposure offences

  23

  16

  17

  Indecent behaviour

  223

  300

  279

  The computerised recording of cautions commenced only in 1995. From 1 January 1995 to 4 July 1996, 66 persons were cautioned for the offences of gross indecency, indecent exposure with intent to insult a female, indecent exposure or indecent behaviour.

  Adult and juvenile caution schemes are operated by the Royal Ulster Constabulary based on the precept that criminal offenders should not necessarily be prosecuted for their offences. The purpose of the formal caution is:

  (a) to deal quickly and simply with less serious offenders;

  (b) to divert offenders from unnecessary appearance in the criminal courts; and

  (c) to reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

  Consideration is given as to whether a caution is in the public interest. Factors taken into account are the nature of the offence; the likely penalty if the offender was convicted by a court; the offender's age and state of health; the offender's previous criminal history; the offender's attitude towards the offence.

  The views of the aggrieved party as regards the decision not to prosecute are considered; however the victim's consent to police administering a caution, although desirable, is not essential.

  Set-aside land
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what hectarage in Northern Ireland is given up to set-aside land; and if he will make a statement. [35354]

  Mr. Ancram
  A total of 1391.66 hectares have been set aside in Northern Ireland in 1996 under the arable area payments scheme and 10.55 hectares under the five-year set-aside scheme.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many kilometres of river bank run along set-aside land; and if he will make a statement. [35353]

  Mr. Ancram
  It is not known how many kilometres of river bank run along set-aside land in Northern Ireland as this information is not collected.

  All-party Talks
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amounts and proportion of the cost the Irish Government have agreed to pay toward the all-party talks; and if he will indicate the areas of activity the payments will relate to. [35323]
  84
  Mr. Ancram
  The British and Irish Governments are sharing in equal proportions from 10 June 1996, the various running costs of the negotiations, excluding strand one. This includes various categories such as expenditure relating to the three independent chairmen and their staff, allowances/grants paid to delegates and parties relating to their attendance for the purpose of the negotiations, press accommodation and catering contract costs. Final figures on costs incurred between 10 and 30 June 1996 are not yet available.

  Small Businesses
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many small businesses have received assistance in Northern Ireland under the small firms loan guarantee scheme in each of the last 12 months. [36153]

  Mr. Ancram
  Figures are available for the last financial year. The number of loans to Northern Ireland small businesses guaranteed under the small firms loan guarantee scheme during the period are as follows:

  Month

  Number of loans

  April 1995

  7

  May 1995

  5

  June 1995

  2

  July 1995

  8

  August 1995

  9

  September 1995

  2

  October 1995

  8

  November 1995

  1

  December 1995

  1

  January 1996

  6

  February 1996

  13

  March 1996

  11

  Some companies may have received more than one loan.

  Secondary School Funding
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the present age weighted pupil units that exist for post-primary school financing in the five area education boards and those for the voluntary grammar sector; and if he will make a statement. [35318]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is as follows.

  The age weighting of pupils depend on the form being attended. The range of age weightings in each educations and library board area and in the voluntary grammar school sector is as follows:

  Form 1

  Form 2

  Form 3

  Form 4

  Form 5

  Form 6

  Belfast

  1.80

  1.75

  1.85

  1.95

  2.02

  2.30

  North-eastern

  1.83

  1.75

  1.83

  1.92

  2.02

  2.30

  South-eastern

  1.90

  1.80

  1.90

  2.00

  2.01

  2.51

  Southern

  1.60

  1.60

  1.60

  1.80

  1.80

  2.50

  Western

  1.66

  1.66

  1.66

  1.66

  1.66

  2.32

  Voluntary grammar schools

  1.60

  1.60

  1.60

  1.80

  1.80

  2.40

  85
  The actual amount of resources available to individual schools depends on the cash value of each age-weighted pupil unit and this varies from board to board and In the voluntary grammar school sector.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the budget unit costs arising over the last three financial years from allocations under

  Education and library board

  Secondary schools £

  Grammar controlled£

  Schools voluntary £

  Controlled integrated'£

  Grant maintained integrated schools£

  1993–94

  Belfast

  2,398

  2,211

  2,211

  n/a

  2,424

  North Eastern

  2,213

  2,033

  n/a

  South Eastern

  2,129

  2,032

  n/a

  Southern

  2,079

  2,249

  3,128

  Western

  2,094

  2.053

  n/a

  1994–95

  Belfast

  2,465

  2,246

  2,263

  n/a

  2,512

  North Eastern

  2,274

  2,108

  n/a

  South Eastern

  2,183

  2,092

  n/a

  Southern

  2,143

  2,311

  2,949

  Western

  2,192

  2.123

  n/a

  1995–96

  Belfast

  2,529

  2,289

  2,381

  n/a

  2,964

  North Eastern

  2,301

  2,140

  n/a

  South Eastern

  2,213

  2,122

  n/a

  Southern

  2,156

  2,331

  2,529

  Western

  2,275

  2,173

  n/a

  1 There is only one controlled integrated secondary school.

  Differences between the figures reflect a range of differing factors, including, relative need between education and library boards, local needs and priorities within education and library boards, differing levels of need between schools, expanding enrolments and different levels of delegation between sectors. An additional factor affecting integrated schools is the high initial per capita cost of newly established schools.

  Student Grants (Eligibility)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to enable Northern Ireland-born citizens' children whose parents have been resident in British dependent territories to be eligible for student grants and fees. [35346]

  Mr. Ancram
  There are no plans to change the residence requirements, which are common throughout the United Kingdom.

  Industrial Research and Technology Unit
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of public expenditure in Northern Ireland has been spent on the industrial research and technology unit in each of the last five years; and what is the planned proportion for the next two years. [36147]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Industrial Research and Technology Unit under its chief executive, Mr. F. G. McConnell. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from F. G. McConnell to Ms Marjorie Mowlam, dated 8 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Industrial Research and Technology Unit (IRTU), to reply to your question about the unit's expenditure.
  86
  local management of schools post-primary funding (a) in each of the five area boards, (b) as between voluntary and controlled grammar schools and (c) in maintained integrated schools and in each case set out the reasons for the differences in unit costs. [35319]

  Mr. Ancram
  The table details the pupil per capita expenditure costs over the last three financial years:

  IRTU's total expenditure since its establishment in March 1992 and planned expenditure for future years together with the corresponding Public Expenditure amounts are as follows:

  IRTU £ million

  Northern Ireland public expenditure block £ million

  IRTU expenditure proportion for total NI public expenditure Percentage

  1992–93

  14.3 (Actual)

  6,580 (Actual)

  0.2

  1993–94

  18.2 (Actual)

  7,085 (Actual)

  0.3

  1994–95

  18.2 (Actual)

  7,407 (Actual)

  0.3

  1995–96

  16.9 (Actual)

  7,823 (Estimate)

  0.2

  1996–97

  17.8 (Planned)

  8,015 (Planned)

  0.2

  1997–98

  17.8 (Planned)

  8,210 (Planned)

  0.2

  1998–99

  17.8 (Planned)

  8,273 (Planned)

  0.2

  I hope your will find this reply useful.

  Emigrants
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Northern Ireland emigrants have returned to Northern Ireland in each of the last three years. [36151]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The most recent information on migration flows to and from Northern Ireland is for the mid-year period extending from 1 July 1994 to 30 June 1995. Information for this year and for the two previous years, 1992–93 and 1993–94, is shown in the table.

  The years 1992–93 and 1993–94 show net inward migration of 3,600 and 1,110 respectively. The year 1994–95 shows a slight net outward migration of around 200.
  87

  NI Inward 1992–93

  NI Outward 1992–93

  Net 1992–93

  NI Inward 1993–94

  NI Outward 1993–94

  Net 1993–94

  NI Inward 1994–95

  NI Outward 1994–95

  Net 1994–95

  Total migration

  17,344

  -13,703

  3,641

  15,367

  -14,303

  1,064

  15,884

  -16,123

  -239

  Total rounded

  17,300

  -13,700

  3,600

  15,400

  -14,300

  1,110

  15,900

  -16,100

  -200

  Emigrants leaving Northern Ireland are shown as a negative contribution to the net migration calculation for the year in question. Immigrants entering Northern Ireland are shown as a positive contribution.

  It is not possible to determine from the data available whether those recorded as immigrants are past emigrants from Northern Ireland returning home or persons coming to live in Northern Ireland for the first time.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money was allocated to the making it back home scheme in 1995–96; and how much is planned to be allocated in 1996–97. [36148]

  Mr. Ancram
  The allocation of funding for making it back home for 1995–96 was £60,000, and the budgeted provision for 1996–97 is £96,400.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef Ban
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Commonwealth Affairs under what legislative powers the Commission of the European Union has placed a ban on the export of British beef to any nation; what are the penalties for breaching such a ban; and how the decision of the Commission will be enforced. [24069]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following notification of EU decision 96/239, we have ceased to issue export health certificates for products covered by the decision. Failure to meet the provisions of the decision could leave the United Kingdom liable in the event of an unfavourable judgment in national courts or the European Court of Justice. The Customs and Excise (Management) Act 1979 enables Customs to detain goods presented for export which are subject to the decision.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the European directives on which the European Commission based its decision to ban the export of beef or beef products by the United Kingdom to third countries; and what action he is taking to test the legality of that ban. [26481]

  Mrs. Browning
  I regret that the hon. Member has had to wait so long for a reply.

  The decision of the European Commission to ban the export of beef and beef products from the United Kingdom is based on the following directives:
  Council directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (OJ No. L 224, 18.8.1990, p29), as amended.
  Council directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (OJ No. L395, 30.12.1989, p13), as amended.
  88
  As regards the action taken, I, together with ministerial colleagues, have brought an action under article 173 of the treaty of Rome, challenging the legality of the ban before the Court of Justice of the European Community. In the context of that action, the United Kingdom has applied to the court for interim relief—essentially a suspension of the ban pending judgment in article 173 action—under articles 185 and 186 of the treaty.

  The United Kingdom has also intervened before the Court in support of a separate article 173 challenge to the ban launched by the National Farmers Union. In addition, the United Kingdom will be submitting written observations to the court contesting the ban's legality, as part of a procedure for a preliminary ruling under article 177 of the treaty, arising out of an application by the NFU for judicial review of measures taken by the Ministry to implement the ban.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had from, and what meetings he has had with, the International Meat Trade Association, since 20 March, about the consequences of the European Community ban on British exports of beef; and if he will make a statement. [26361]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government have received numerous representations, both oral and written, from the International Meat Trade Association since 20 March about the ban on British beef exports. MAFF Ministers and officials have met IMTA officials and members on several occasions during that period. IMTA members also made representations to Coopers and Lybrand in the context of the two reports which the Government commissioned, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the consequential losses incurred by the meat, livestock and ancillary industries resulting from the ban on British beef exports. [28116]

  Mrs. Browning
  A full audit of the consequential losses incurred by the meat, livestock and ancillary industries resulting from the ban on British beef exports could be calculated only at disproportionate cost and would raise questions of commercial sensitivity. However, the effects include the following: exports valued at nearly £800 million in 1995 have been stopped; clean cattle prices have fallen by up to 20 per cent.; beef consumption has fallen; beef stocks have been devalued; staff have been laid off or made redundant; and businesses have taken on large debts.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's policy in respect of the holding of car boot sales on agricultural land with particular reference to set-aside land. [35513]
  89
  Mr. Baldry
  European Union rules currently prohibit any lucrative use of set-aside land incompatible with the growing of an arable crop. The European Commission has ruled that this prohibition applies even to local or charitable events where the proceeds go to someone other than the farmer. It therefore applies to car boot sales. The Government consider this restriction to be unwelcome and unnecessary arid are continuing their efforts to persuade the Commission to relax its ruling.

  Beef Intervention Stock
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current size of the beef intervention stock held in the United Kingdom; and how much of this stock was purchased in each year. [24417]

  Mr. Baldry
  As at 21 June 1996, United Kingdom beef intervention stock levels stood at around 9,000 tonnes. In December 1992, the stock level was approximately 160,000 tonnes. In the following year, about 22,000 tonnes came into intervention and around 86,000 tonnes were sold. There were no sales into intervention in 1994 and 1995 when sales from intervention were around 64,000 tonnes and 17,000 tonnes leaving a stock total in December 1995 of around 5,500 tonnes.

  Tonnes

  Belgium

  Denmark

  Germany

  Greece

  Spain

  France

  Ireland

  Italy

  Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  UK

  1991

  5.974

  35,230

  103,386

  —

  3,882

  163,266

  199,524

  51,947

  —

  2,623

  139,529

  1992

  2.666

  39,093

  174,492

  —

  12,895

  186,379

  241,843

  53,069

  —

  1,774

  159,849

  1993

  184

  22,131

  17,499

  —

  —

  21,275

  166,424

  20.985

  —

  681

  85,614

  1994

  —

  1,150

  —

  —

  —

  590

  27,403

  4,518

  —

  —

  22,015

  1995

  —

  71

  —

  —

  —

  36

  345

  —

  —

  —

  5,072

  As at 21 June 1996, UK beef intervention stock levels stood at around 9,000 tonnes.

  Intervention stock is unlikely to contain BSE-infected material. Community rules currently require that beef purchased into intervention must be derived from steers aged less than 30 months at slaughter, or 24 months in the case of bull beef. BSE has never been clinically diagnosed in an animal aged less than three years, and only in two animals—both heifers—aged between three and four years. In addition, specified bovine offals would be excluded and obvious nervous and lymphatic tissues removed during cutting. Beef stored in intervention is subject to regular and comprehensive controls, including analyses, to ensure that it remains safe to eat.

  Beef (Fast Food)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to require fast food and other eating establishments to restore British beef to their menus clearly labelled as such. [24881]

  Mrs. Browning
  No, the Government do not have the legal powers to introduce legislation requiring retail or catering establishments to sell British beef, as this would be a restrictive trade practice. The Government, in consultation with the beef industry and the Meat and Livestock Commission, continue however to do all that they can to persuade such establishments to restore British beef to their menus.
  90
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans his Department has for disposal of the beef intervention stock held in the United Kingdom. [24418]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Commission is expected to adopt a regulation which requires United Kingdom intervention stocks purchased prior to this year, that is between 1991 and 1993, to be destroyed. Beef purchased into intervention since March this year will be stored until such time as the Commission, in consultation with the Beef Management committee, deems it appropriate to place it back on the market.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what amount of the beef which was placed in intervention stores in each of the last five years currently remains in intervention; what steps he has taken to ensure that it complies with current requirements in respect of bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and what are the equivalent beef intervention stocks in other EU member states; [30049]

  (2) how much beef was held in intervention stores for each EU member state in each of the last five years. [30050]

  Mrs. Browning
  The levels of intervention stocks for each member state at the end of each calendar year for 1991–1995 were as set out:

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which organisations have been consulted by his Department regarding the situation in the meat and livestock industry. [28117]

  Mrs. Browning
  MAFF Ministers and officials have consulted, and continue to consult, organizations representing every part of the meat and livestock industry, including producers, consumer groups, breed societies, livestock exporters, feed manufacturers, welfare organisations, the veterinary profession, scientists, the medical profession, local authorities, the Commission, other member states, abattoirs, cutting plants, cold stores, meat exporters, renderers, retailers, wholesalers, caterers, economists, hauliers, livestock auction markets, tenants, landowners, the Meat and Livestock Commission, the banking industry and research establishments. Recent consultation papers laid in the Library of the House will indicate the names of those organisations consulted.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the cost of the slaughter of cattle of five years old and above in herds in Scotland which have had an incidence of BSE. [23364]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: It is estimated that there is somewhere in the order of 149,144 animals in Scotland in herds which have an incidence of BSE and are five years old or above. Slaughtering animals alone at a cost of about £50 head would cost around

  91
  £7.5 million. More substantial would be the economic costs to the meat and dairy industries and compensation to farmers for loss of stock and replacement.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if meat now entering the United Kingdom has had removed all the bovine offals required to be removed in United Kingdom production. [24216]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: Although some other countries have introduced similar controls to the UK, prohibiting the sale of bovine offals for human consumption, this is not a pre-condition of importation into the UK. However, imports of beef from animals aged over 30 months are currently prohibited except from 14 countries outside the EU where there have been no recorded cases of BSE.

  Abattoirs (Rendering Capacity)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has, and over what period, to increase the rendering capacity available to Welsh abattoirs; and if he will make a statement. [29609]

  Mr. Baldry
  There are currently three Welsh abattoirs involved in the over-thirty-month scheme and the scheme carcasses from these are being processed by three approved rendering plants. Renderers are working to a national plan agreed by the industry through the United Kingdom Renderers Association. The industry is currently processing about 28,000 scheme animals each week and hopes to improve on this through the introduction of extra capacity which indirectly will be of benefit to all abattoirs, including Welsh ones, through the national plan.

  Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what sums were(a) allocated and (b) taken up in respect of decommissioning fishing vessels in each of the last three years; and what use was made of surplus funds. [35519]

  Mr. Baldry
  Sums of £8.4 million, £8.9 million and £12 million were allocated for decommissioning schemes in 1993, 1994 and 1995 respectively. Corresponding uptake in these years was £7.8 million, £8.8 million and £9.6 million. Normal Government accounting rules applied to these underspends.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make it his policy to publish the findings of his review into the common fisheries policy before 25 July; and if he will make a statement; [35723]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the outcome of his review into the common fisheries policy; what changes he now proposes to make to it; and how he intends to bring about reforms within the intergovernmental conference. [35724]

  Mr. Baldry
  The common fisheries policy review group has almost completed its work and I understand that it plans to publish its report before 25 July. Fisheries Ministers will wish to study the report and to hear the views of the industry before reaching final conclusions on 92
  it. The Government have already made it clear that they will be putting proposals to the intergovernmental conference to enable the problem of quota hoppers to be resolved.

  Beef Industry (Compensation)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those areas where EU compensation payments would be automatic to support the United Kingdom beef market, setting out the circumstances and triggers whereby it would come into effect. [24000]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: Community arrangements act to support the United Kingdom beef market in several respects, including:
  Premiums payable on beef cows and other male animals under the suckler cow and beef special premium schemes;.
  beef offered for sale into intervention when average market prices in the EU fall below 84 per cent. of the intervention price and where, in an individual member state, the average market price falls below 80 per cent. of the intervention price;.
  Subsidies, or export refunds, payable on cattle and beef exported to certain destinations outside the EU to enable EU exporters to complete on world markets;.
  Premiums payable on male dairy calves taken out of production by the age of 20 days; and.
  subject to upper limits, 70 per cent. of the basic compensation paid in respect of UK animals aged over 30 months which are currently unable to be sold into the human food chain.

  All of the above measures are subject to detailed rules set out in the relevant Community legislation.

  Veal Calves
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of British veal calves recently sent to France have been reared for beef; and what provisions exist to prevent these animals from being re-imported into the United Kingdom. [25861]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 19 April 1996]: Community rules, in place since 1990, required that any UK calf exported to another member state must be slaughtered on or before the age of six months. This precluded their use for production of beef.

  Beef
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion by weight of prime British beef has been slaughtered at over 30 months of age in recent years. [25859]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 19 April 1996]: Precise information on the slaughter age of prime beef cattle in recent years is not available. However, we estimate that between 5 and 10 per cent. of steers and heifers slaughtered annually are likely to be aged over 30 months.

  Quarantine Conditions
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the minimum standards that have to be met by the owners of quarantine kennels. [28930]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 14 May 1996]: The standard requirements under the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974 for the

  93
  design, construction, operation and management of authorised quarantine premises for dogs and cats are set out on form ID50. I have placed a copy in the Library of the House.

  Cattle Culling
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the reasons for, and the consequences of, the halving of allocations of cattle under the 30-month scheme to the St. Merryn, Cobden's and West Devon meat abattoirs. [30802]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Intervention Board to reply direct.

  Letter from George Trevelyan to Mr. David Nicholson, dated 8 July 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about reduction in the allocations of cattle under the Over 30 Month Slaughter Scheme (OTMS) to St Merryn, Cobdens and West Devon Meat.[30802]
  The number of cattle that can he slaughtered each week under the OTMS is limited by the rendering capacity that is available. In the
  94
  first two weeks we operated the scheme in England and Wales on the basis of around 20 abattoirs. However, that was a "pump-priming" exercise and it was quite clear that it was necessary to increase the number of participating abattoirs in order to provide more equitable geographical coverage for producers. From week commencing 27 May, therefore, the number of plants was doubled and, as a consequence, it was necessary to reduce the allocations to the original abattoirs. Nevertheless, even under the new arrangements around 20% of the English allocation is in the West Country.

  Since slaughtering under the scheme began more than 208,000 animals have been processed and in each of the last four weeks the throughput has averaged more than 28,000 limited only by rendering capacity. We are beginning, therefore, to make significant inroads into the backlog.

  We are exploring all possible means of stepping up the rate of slaughtering. The renderers themselves are increasing their capacity over a period of time and we are bringing on stream cold storage capacity to allow carcasses to be stored prior to rendering. As a result, St Merryn Meat are now slaughtering additional cattle each week. We are also investigating the possibility of making more use of direct incineration. In combination these measures will allow us to increase the present allocations to abattoirs on the list over the coming weeks.

  I am sending a copy of this letter to the House of Commons Library and the Public Information Office.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

European Union: British Presidency
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has so far been made in preparations for the next British presidency of the European Union in January 1998.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, preliminary consultations have already taken place with Whitehall departments on planning for the next presidency. Detailed preparations will begin in the autumn.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government have approached a number of private companies to help to subscribe to the cost of the British presidency in 1998? Will she explain to us why the Government have done that because it seems to me to be a form of voluntary taxation? I assume that the Government have not offered any privileges or assurances on policy to companies in return for subscribing. Will she tell the House whether only British companies have been approached or whether American, Japanese and German companies with substantial premises in the United Kingdom have also been approached?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, first, we are only considering the possibility of commercial
2
sponsorship for events during the British presidency. I assure your Lordships that any sponsorship would have to be compatible with the proper management and dignity of the presidency. There is no question of anybody who might come forward having any privilege or policy influence during the presidency.
I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that commercial sponsorship for such events is not new. Some sponsorship was offered in 1992. There was sponsorship for the Canadian G7 summit in Halifax last year and also significant sponsorship for the recent G7 summit in Lyon. There is no negotiation taking place at present. I have no idea who may come forward. But if companies are willing, then that is one way in which to defray the costs. I would describe it as willing taxation.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the approach being considered to business does not relate solely to the British presidency of the European Union but also to other major international meetings which we shall be hosting at about the same time?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, is absolutely correct. In recent years, major meetings have repeatedly been offered such sponsorship, whether they be European Union or any other sort of meetings. If companies are so willing, because they believe it is right, that we should have those discussions then I do not believe it is a bad way to defray the costs.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will my noble friend not push aside those rather narrow-minded and dark xenophobic mutterings suggesting that it would be wrong to accept help from companies in Britain merely because they are foreign? More to the point, fonctionnaires in Brussels are reported to have said that it would be unacceptable for the Prime Minister to pursue his policy of blocking progress at the IGC unless we have an agreement on matters such as the 48-hour working week directive. Does the Minister not agree

3
that if that is not brushed aside from Brussels, it may be that the IGC will still be going on in January 1998 when the British presidency takes over?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, both in your Lordships' House and long before that in another place, I have become quite used—as I know my noble friend did—to putting mutterings aside. It is a very useful habit to be able to put mutterings aside. I assure my noble friend that we shall put firmly in their place any fonctionnaires. There is no way in which we shall be dictated to in that regard. It does not matter what is the issue: we shall stand up for Britain. It is as straightforward and as simple as that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Baroness answer two questions? First, since 1st January 1998 will be running very close to decision-making time on a single currency, by that time will Parliament have had the opportunity to declare its will on whether or not we should enter the third stage of EMU and the single currency? Secondly, are reports correct which appeared in yesterday's press that the Attorney-General has advised the Prime Minister and other Ministers that if they do not implement European law on the 48-hour week they will be liable to prosecution and, indeed, they may be in gaol when we next have the presidency?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, first, I have no idea what will be the parliamentary programme for 1997. Therefore, I cannot answer the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, as to whether Parliament will have taken that decision. To a large extent, it depends on my noble friend's earlier question as to whether by that time matters are in a state of completeness at which the British Parliament will be asked—and it will be asked—to make a decision. The Attorney-General may have given such advice but he has not told me about it. Certainly, I do not believe everything that I read in the newspapers.
Lord Barnett: My Lords—
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, whatever happens—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I am sure we have time for both noble Lords. I wonder whether the House might think that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, might come before the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, but not of course as a matter of general precedence.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, whatever may or may not happen in 1997, does the Minister recall that in 1998, during the British presidency, it will be up to those at the heads of government meeting to take the final decision about economic and monetary union? If by any chance the present Government were still in office at that time, would not their pathetic opt-out on the single currency mean that their presidency of those
4
meetings would result in our lacking all influence in looking after one of our most important interests; namely, our financial interest?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have never said this to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, before, but that was a load of nonsense. I say that because it is perfectly likely that there will be another Conservative Government in 1998. Whatever decisions are to be made, we shall not only do what is right for this country but we shall also certainly examine all these matters in the proper way. I must point out to the noble Lord that even if a decision is made about a single currency, there are 11 other countries besides ourselves who at this moment do not meet the criteria. There will probably still be a large number of others by 1998.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will the Minister ignore the xenophobic views of her noble friend Lord Tebbit, or my noble friend Lord Stoddart, and tell us whether, even if by some miracle the present Government are in office in 1998, they will not make any plans before then that would exclude the possibility of joining an economic and monetary union?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, knows full well that we have not excluded any possibility; neither have we made any plans. We are working to see what is best for Britain.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, when the United Kingdom takes over the presidency will it be able to insist that all the other member states start to obey European legislation as well as we do? By way of example of our good behaviour in that respect, can my noble friend confirm that the Government will obey the Public Services Contracts Regulations of 1993 which implemented EC directive 92/50, and therefore put the contracts for slaughtering our cattle out to tender, thus saving hundreds of related businesses from bankruptcy?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that question is a long way away from the original. I shall consider it in detail and write to my noble friend.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that this Question is somewhat academic as regards her Government? However, she will be glad to know that the Opposition—soon to be the government—are well advanced in making preparations for the British presidency as from 1st January 1998. Will the Minister be a little more specific as to what sponsorship is intended to cover? Presumably it cannot possibly cover any questions of policy. Presumably, also, the Government will not give any assurances to those providing the sponsorship of any promises in return for that sponsorship.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, what happens next year is not academic. It is extremely important for the British people. It is interesting that I have heard the noble Lord say three times before

5
that he thought this might be the outcome after the next election. He has been wrong three times; I hope he will be wrong a fourth time. He asked about the influence of any sponsor on questions of policy. I made it quite clear to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that there will be no such influence, but sponsorship would help to defray the costs, certainly of feeding people.

Starred Questions: Friday Sittings
2.47 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked the Chairman of Committees:
Why Starred Questions are not permitted at Sittings of the House on Fridays.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, on 10th January 1995 the House agreed to a recommendation of the Procedure Committee that no Starred Questions should be taken on Fridays. That recommendation was in line with a recommendation of the Group on Sittings of the House chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not the real reason that Ministers do not wish to be cajoled into returning here on a Friday in order to answer Questions? Will he assure the House that Ministers are willing to turn up on Friday to answer Questions put by noble Lords?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, as I have had occasion to say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on a previous occasion, it is not my duty to defend either Ministers or aspiring Ministers, but I have no doubt whatsoever that our present Ministers will do whatever the House requires of them as regards the proceedings of this House. To go back to the original part of the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, it is not the case that this proposal was intended to have that effect for either Ministers, aspiring Ministers or indeed Front-Benchers in any other part of the House. It was part of a package of proposals which were put forward by the Group on Sittings of the House chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, aimed at saving the time of your Lordships' House, especially late at night, so that we could rise at a more civilised hour.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is not the real reason behind the real reason not that Ministers are unwilling to appear before the House but that their civil servants wish to send them off on visits around the country to keep them out of mischief?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, if I am not answerable for Ministers, I am even less answerable for their civil servants. As I have also had occasion to suggest to your Lordships before, I feel that not only Ministers but other Front Bench Members of your Lordships' House have other duties
6
to the nation than appearing here. They have a duty to get round the country, and indeed abroad, to further the interests of the nation.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can it possibly be the case that certain noble Lords who like to ask a lot of Questions would wish to ask many more?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that may well be the case. However, if that were so there would be many more Answers too.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, under the present arrangements the House is able to put down some 15 or 16 Questions a week. Those Questions are usually to the point and are answered with a remarkable degree of clarity which is not always available in another place. Is it not in the interests of the House that on a sitting day Members can ask specific Questions, in particular in regard to EEC matters which occupy a large amount of reading time of all Members of your Lordships' House? On balance it might be advantageous, if only for clarity, to have Questions on Friday as well.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, on a previous occasion before an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I was rash enough to note that he had not intervened on that Question on a European matter. He has now intervened even without my provocation.
The noble Lord raises a serious point. There is great substance in what he says about the tabling and answering of Questions. However, Friday Sittings are a different matter. After a great deal of consideration by the Group on the Sittings of the House, the proposal was specifically recommended as a means of saving additional time. Coupled with that recommendation was the group's expectation that the House would not sit beyond 2.30 in the afternoon on those additional Fridays. That would leave only three and half hours. If we were to have Starred Questions on a Friday as well it would diminish by half an hour the sitting time for a normal Friday Sitting.
The aim is to save time and to enable your Lordships to rise earlier. I suggest that we would not wish to prejudice that time saving.
Lord Desai: My Lords, following the point made by my noble friend Lord Bruce, would it not be a good idea to have EEC Questions only on a Friday? Then one would have no Friday Sittings!
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, tempts me. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, said on a previous occasion, I am apt to resist temptation sometimes.

Bull-bars: EC Directive
2.52 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that the European Commission introduces an amendment to Directive 74/483/EEC so as to prohibit the use of bull-bars on road vehicles.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Commission has recently proposed an amendment to the External Projections Directive which would control the fitment of aggressive bull-bars. A working group has been set up to develop the proposals further and the department is actively involved in this work.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. What is the timing of the next stage of the Commission's progress? How soon is a European directive expected?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is right to say that there has been progress. A specific working group has been set up to discuss the issue. There is a meeting on 16th July. We hope that there will be some progress. We have commissioned the Transport Research Laboratory to inform our thinking on this matter. It is clear that there are still significant difficulties in reaching an agreement, but we are working hard towards one.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the House will have been interested in the Minister's initial reply, in particular the reference to "aggressive" bull-bars. Will he explain the difference between aggressive bull-bars and any other bull-bars?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes, aggressive bull-bars are those that would do the most damage to pedestrians. There are other types of bull-bars which are not necessarily thick, steel, sharp-edged bars. There are those made out of deformable plastic.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it well known in Europe that "bull-bars" is the British term? "Roo-bars" is what the term is in the country where they originated; and they were designed to protect the driver because a vehicle radiator is rapidly smashed by a large kangaroo colliding with it, and dusk is the most dangerous time. As a member of the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety, perhaps I may say that it is important that we do everything we can to press for the prohibition of these bars, which are not appropriate in Europe.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. We rely on her for marsupial advice on these matters. But she is right. It is an important issue, on which we are working hard to bring about a solution.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm to the House that the Government
8
have received the permission of the European Commission for a proposal to be introduced for the amendment of the legislation? If they have received permission, it must be counted considerably to their credit, because under the treaty only the Commission can originate a proposal.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I understand that the Commission has recently proposed an amendment to the directive. We welcome the Commission's involvement. My honourable friend the Minister for Road Safety, Steven Norris, had a meeting with the European Commissioner, Mr. Kinnock, at which it was agreed that a European approach was the best way forward.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, would it have been possible for the British Government to have made these bull-bars illegal without the involvement of the European Commission, if that is what we had wished to do?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there are powers under the Road Traffic Act, but there are difficulties. A vehicle with the optional equipment of bull-bars could be type approved, in which case we would be bound to accept it. That is why we do not believe that national action is appropriate without having first overcome the European problem.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, since there are hundreds of deaths and injuries every year as a result of bull-bars and only 11 reported cases of CJD, will the Government now pursue a policy of non-cooperation with the European Union until it agrees to a measure which would save lives and injuries in this country?
The noble Viscount was sitting on the Bench when my noble friend Lord Barnett accused me and the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, of xenophobia. Did he hear anything in my two very reasonable questions to suggest that I was xenophobic in any way?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I always listen carefully at Question Time. But I do not answer for the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I answer for Her Majesty's Government.
I should have been disappointed had the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, not come up with a bovine reference of some kind. Research has been done into injuries which have resulted in fatalities through the use of bull-bars. Current research tends to indicate that the figure is rather lower than was originally supposed. It is not in the realm of hundreds but is a much smaller figure.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, will the Government not be too precipitate in action against bull-bars? Bull-bars have many useful purposes. There are many items that one can tie to them, including a balloon, if one so wishes, when there is no other way of raising it to the sky.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his helpful advice on ballooning matters.

9
There are a number of legitimate uses for bull-bars. We have been concerned that they have tended to be fitted merely as a fashion accessory rather than for any practical purpose. However, a number of different people, including farmers and gamekeepers, have practical uses for them.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we should move from bovine, marsupial and ballooning matters to the reality of the situation? As he indicated, we are encouraging further progress at Commission level. However, does he agree that the directive relates only to the construction of new vehicles? Vehicles currently fitted with bull-bars will not be affected. Does he further recognise that there are measures available in the United Kingdom to deal with the situation? Does he have any intention of taking action, particularly in the light of the inquiry that he caused to be made into the matter? Perhaps he would like to focus on that.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the thrust of our inquiry is towards addressing the problem of new vehicles being fitted with bull-bars. We have not ruled out retrospective action, but a number of significant difficulties are involved and we would have to consider carefully the appropriateness of such action.

Scotland: Teaching of British History
3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend that the teaching of British political history should be reduced in schools in Scotland also, if a change of this kind is made in England and Wales.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the great majority of schools in Scotland follow courses leading to qualifications offered by the Scottish Examination Board. There are no plans to alter the content of the Standard Grade History course in Scotland.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply which is welcome. However, if press reports are correct about the GCSE and the national curriculum—neither of which applies in Scotland—will a child have to be at school in Scotland to learn about the Battle of Hastings, kings and queens, Wellington and Nelson? That, of course, would be in addition to Bannockburn and Prestonpans.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I am confident that the noble Lord will understand why I excuse myself from commenting on the veracity of press reports. However, I can confirm that within the Scottish curriculum as it stands at present, it is possible to study the Battle of Hastings. With the curriculum reforms which are proposed at present by the Government, the Battle of
10
Hastings can be studied at four different levels in secondary schools. That also applies to the Battle of Bannockburn which my noble friend mentioned.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that he is suggesting that Scottish children should be educated much better than English children? There is a move on the part of persons responsible for the national curriculum in history to minimise the teaching of proper political and institutional history in favour of vague nonsense.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, as I understand the situation in England and Wales, a mandatory list of events and peoples is not entirely necessary on its own. The teaching of mandatory subjects such as the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars will include such famous people as Nelson and Wellington. In addition, the subject of the Crown and Parliament in the 16th and 17th centuries will mention the Gunpowder Plot.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, history is a subject on which everyone has his own opinion as to whether it is correct or incorrect. When I saw the Question, I did not know what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was seeking. I spoke to some people in Scotland who are involved with history and they were just as puzzled. However, it came to me that the thread between social and political Scottish and English history is very tangled in our country. Many Members here will remember with affection Lady Elliot of Harwood who encapsulated a great deal of history. She once told me how proud she was that her father had been carried on the shoulders of his father to the first Chartist demonstration in Britain held in Glasgow Green in 1832. That showed the generations, the movement of people and the public expression of a point of view by someone whom most people in the House will remember with great affection.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for giving me a history lesson. What he said was important: as well as learning about individuals and events of significance, it is also necessary for young people to be aware of important changes within society and consider them across a wide timescale.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, if we are to insist that children learn about battles, will the Minister ensure that Scottish and English children learn as much about the Battle of Stirling Bridge as Bannockburn, bearing in mind that William Wallace was an extremely good commander for the Scots? In teaching about the Battle of Waterloo, perhaps it could be pointed out that two-thirds of Wellington's army consisted of German and Dutch troops and only one-third of English, Scots and Irish.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who has also helped me today.
Lord Monson: My Lords, since we are discussing the teaching of British history, does the noble Earl agree that this might be an opportune moment to congratulate the BBC on an excellent radio series which has just finished?

11
It was called "This sceptr'd isle", and was loosely based on Sir Winston Churchill's A History of the English-speaking Peoples. This superb production must have reawakened the interest of an enormous number of people in our history.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I gather that it was an excellent piece of radio journalism from the BBC.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, about a week ago a senior judge on the Bench asked me whether Estonia, the northern Baltic state where I live and work, is still governed from Moscow. I replied in the negative. Estonia is a free and independent state. Does the Minister agree that British history should be taught in schools in a European context rather than a narrow parochial one?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his information relating to Estonia. It is always useful for such points to be made.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in relation to the previous question, does the Minister agree that European history is the history of the member states of Europe?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Pearson always brings up interesting points in relation to Europe. Returning to the Question on the Order Paper, I confirm that in the Scottish syllabus, particularly relating to the Higher Grades, European history is an important part of the syllabus.

Business of the House
3.7 p.m.
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 on Friday next to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Earl Howe to be taken before the Motions standing in the names of the Viscount Goschen and the Baroness Miller of Hendon and on Monday 15th July next to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Aldington to be taken before the Motion standing in the name of the Earl Ferrers and the Second Reading of the Social Security (Overpayments) Bill.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Marriage Ceremony (Prescribed Words) Bill
Read a third time.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I shall not delay your Lordships' House for longer than two minutes. I wish to take the opportunity to thank the honourable Member for
12
Canterbury for looking after the Bill in another place. I also thank those Members of the House who have shown an interest in the Bill.
Your Lordships will remember that I find myself in the strange position of looking after a piece of legislation which will have no effect upon the Church of England but which will be warmly welcomed by Roman Catholic and Free Churches in this country. When in force, it will allow for alternative forms of the prescribed words that are used in marriage ceremonies. As a result of recent liturgical revision, the present form of words as required by law for the oaths and declarations do not sit happily within celebrations of holy matrimony within the churches affected. That is those other than the Church of England, the Jewish community or the Society of Friends.
It should be borne in mind that in addition, although the primary purpose of the Bill is to permit alternative words in a marriage service solemnised in a church, it will also enable the new alternative words to be used in a marriage in a register office and certain other forms of civil ceremony, including marriages in approved premises under the Marriage Act 1994.
In introducing the Second Reading, I said that it was very much a tidying up operation. Having debated some of the problems that marriages face in today's society during the Committee stage of the Bill and having, I trust, reassured the noble Lords who contributed to that debate that the Churches share in the concerns that were expressed, I now hope that the House will give its final approval to the Bill. In doing so, we will have tidied up something which is on the one hand minor but in the context of a ceremony as important as marriage an irritating anachronism. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Bishop of Southwark.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Energy Conservation Bill
Report received.

Housing Bill
3.10 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 151 [Allocation of housing accommodation]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 97, line 4, at beginning insert—
("Subject to section (Allocations to homeless persons),").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the main push of today's debate is on Parts VI and VII of the Housing Bill, whose purpose is to ensure that families are housed in permanent council housing only from the waiting list. Homeless families, in other words, may not queue jump but, like everyone else, must wait their turn on the list. While they wait, the local authority has a duty, lasting two years, to find them temporary housing either in

13
private rented stock or in the local authority's own temporary stock such as hard-to-let housing. The Government hope that by the end of those two years the vast majority of homeless families will have gained enough points to reach the head of the queue and be rehoused. The Government have accepted that if they have not reached the head of the queue local authorities can continue to help them if they wish, but not, so far, in their own temporary housing.
The problem is that many local authorities no longer have enough council housing left in which to house most people off the waiting list within two years, let alone house homeless families. It will probably be possible in the north of England, but in London and the South, and in rural districts, there is a limited supply of social housing to rent. For those families that are hard to house because they have special needs—they may be a large family or have a disabled member—the wait is likely to be much longer than the two years.
What, then, would a homeless family in temporary accommodation for two years do in the meanwhile? If a family is on the waiting list but not homeless, that family can continue to wait. They may be in insecure housing sharing with family or friends, husband, wife and child all in an eight-foot bedroom; they may be in a shabby but expensive rented flat where housing benefit does not cover the rent; they may live in a house that is in a state of poor repair; given their physical health, they may be ill-suited to the house they are in (for instance they cannot climb stairs and the only bathroom is upstairs); they may have only two bedrooms and be somewhat overcrowded with the mother and daughters in one bedroom and the father and sons in another. But however inadequate, unsatisfactory and undesirable all those housing circumstances are, at least the family have a roof over their heads. Such families make up the majority of those on the waiting list. They can usually hold on with their fingernails—just—until the points system or the waiting list itself takes them to the head of the list and they are rehoused into adequate, decent and affordable permanent housing.
But if people are homeless they cannot wait. They cannot hold out. Family relations may have broken down; the landlord may have evicted them because housing benefit does not cover the rent and they cannot make up the shortfall; the house may be so damp that the children are in and out of hospital with asthma; or the strain of overcrowding may have led to domestic violence and the family has broken up. Homeless families are not different from those on the waiting list, except in so far as their need was more severe in the first place and their ability to hold on and wait is that much less.
As the Department of the Environment so rightly said not very long ago, in 1989:
"in many local authorities, those who are homeless are simply people on the waiting list with nowhere to wait".
They are people on the waiting list with nowhere to wait. That is not my phrase but that of the Department of the Environment; it is the Government's phrase.
This amendment respects that view of the Department of the Environment and also respects the assumption that has informed this Government Bill that, within two
14
years, the vast majority of homeless families who have been put on the waiting list will indeed be housed. The amendment says that when a local authority receives an application from a homeless family it must consider whether, as with other candidates on the waiting list, that family may be expected to be rehoused within the two years of the local authority's temporary duty towards them and, if the needs of that family are so acute relative to those of other applicants, whether it is reasonable to give them additional points, additional priority, to ensure that they are housed within two years.
In other words, if what the Government believe is right, as I hope it is, this amendment should not be necessary. But for the tiny minority of homeless families on the waiting list, either in areas where there is a limited or very short supply of social rented housing, as in the inner cities, in the South and in rural districts, or for those families who have difficulty in finding housing because they have special needs—for instance, large families, families with a disabled member—this amendment is their safeguard. Local authorities would not be required to give homeless families additional preference. However, this amendment would mean that, when examining a family's needs relative to those of other people, an authority must consider whether it should ensure that they are housed within the two years or by some other specified time.
If the Government are right, and the majority of homeless families will be housed within two years, the amendment need apply only to a very small minority of families: those who live where social housing is in very short supply or where they have special and particular needs. But it does ensure that the needs of those families are not lost sight of and that the local authority may have the discretion to ensure that they are housed within two years. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment and to Amendment No. 74. My noble friend Lord Russell has just handed me a newspaper cutting. Although noble Lords are accustomed to saying that one cannot believe all one reads in the newspapers, this short report perhaps says more than I could about the situation to which the noble Baroness referred. It is a report from December 1995 concerning an order against the London Borough of Lambeth, which was told,
"to pay £6,000 compensation to a homeless family with seven children who were moved 34 times before the council finally found them a permanent home after a wait of more than five years.
Between June 1989 and September 1994, the family lived in bed-and-breakfast accommodation at 34 hotels in eight London boroughs … Save for short periods, the children received no formal education during that period".
The local government ombudsman, referring to the loss of education, said that he viewed the position of the children as they moved around London "very seriously". The ombudsman said,
"It cannot be any surprise that problems arose when so many children were crammed into bed-and-breakfast accommodation".
The borough was ordered to set aside several thousand pounds to pay for remedial education for those children.

15
As I said, one sometimes takes with a pinch of salt what one reads in the newspapers. I hope that a situation such as this is worth reporting for its scarcity value. However, this is an extreme example of the very difficult situation to which the noble Baroness referred. It is the reason I join the noble Baroness in asking your Lordships to question very seriously the change in the method of dealing with permanent accommodation proposed by the Government in the Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I oppose these amendments on the ground that I do not believe they are necessary; also, Amendment No. 74 would place very heavy demands on local authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, quoted a newspaper report from 1995. I hope the case it referred to is very rare. I hope that the case I read in the local paper, the Hampstead & Highgate Express, on 21st June is equally rare. It related to a couple who claimed that they and their six children were homeless and applied to Camden Council. The report is quite lengthy and I shall not read it all. It states:
"At a second meeting with the council … they brought with them a man who said he was Mr Hai's cousin. He … pleaded with the council to find the Hais a home quickly, because he said both he and their family were terribly crowded".
In August they were offered temporary accommodation, which they refused, saying they would wait for a house of their own. They wanted one of the very few four-bedroomed homes that Camden Council has, and they said how hard the situation was with their six children.
Alarm bells began ringing when the council contacted the schools that the children were supposedly attending, and there was no record of the children. The council then started to look much more carefully into the case, and it uncovered the fact that this couple had just bought two houses for themselves and were about to buy a third; Mr. Hai was a director of a company registered at Companies House; and only four children were traced. Four children had been born to the couple, but were not necessarily with them.
Apparently the maximum fine was £2,500 for this attempt to defraud the council. When the case went to court the defence's case was that they had been abroad for many years—they had lived in Saudi Arabia for 17 years—and were not familiar with the procedures for claiming council housing, which is the sort of plea I have heard here often. The judge dismissed the defence's case and said that it was not ignorance, but fraud and a pack of lies.
I hope that case is equally as rare as the one that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has just quoted. So many homeless families are genuine cases, and if they are genuine I believe that they will accumulate the necessary number of points within the appropriate time. I believe two years is a good long time. It has been conceded here that during that time most of these people will have been rehoused. The fact that the family quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had seven children meant that it was a particularly difficult case.
16
I do not know anything about Lambeth Council's housing stock, but any family with such a large number of children does present a difficult case.
I cannot accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that these people have nowhere to wait, because they are offered temporary accommodation, and they do have somewhere to live. No one is left without a roof over their heads. I think these amendments are too onerous on the local authorities, and I would oppose them.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I would like to agree with every word that my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has said. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will know from our little debate at Committee stage, I feel equally strongly on this matter.
There is one point which I would like to pick up, and on which I suspect the noble Baroness is between a rock and a hard place, or so it appears to me. One does not want to appear heartless as far as "homeless" people are concerned, but the noble Baroness went through a list of categories of people who were waiting for housing, who were waiting in hopelessly inadequate housing, often in misery, often in intolerable circumstances, but who had been on the waiting list longer than those "homeless" people may have been. But, as my noble friend said, such people had had housing over that two-year period; they had had a period of respite; and they had had a period of trying to get things together.
I sympathise with the noble Baroness on that point, and I suspect that her real difficulty is that she really wants to say that there is not enough social housing, and she wants to be able to house everybody in this social housing, but she cannot say that because she would be committing her party to a good deal of expenditure that it would not wish to own up to in this place.
Therefore, I would urge my noble friends to resist both these amendments, the second one not least of all because I think it is possibly incapable of interpretation.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene purely to suggest that I suspect the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has misinterpreted the Government's plans. I think we need to recognise that we are not talking about a situation now, but a situation that will pertain in approximately two years' time, when this Housing Bill has become an Act and is on the statute book. I believe I heard her correctly when she said that after two years nobody would be thrown on to the streets. Maybe I misheard her. The noble Baroness indicates, from a sedentary position, that that is not what she meant.
It is worth the House recognising that we are, as I understand the Bill in front of us, talking about a situation where a local authority will have a responsibility to ensure that homeless people are housed for a period of two years, but when that two-year period is finished then the local authority will, almost by law, be required to evict that family from any local authority accommodation, because it will cease to have a legal authority on which to house them.

17
In that situation we could, in two years' time, literally see homeless people being thrown out of whatever poor accommodation they have on to the streets. If my interpretation of the legislation is at fault, then no doubt the Minister, when he comes to wind up this debate, will correct me, but many of us on this side of the House, fear that that is the sort of problem with which we will be faced.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say that the noble Lord has not misunderstood me. I am well aware that the accommodation is for two years. The point I made was that the vast majority of people are housed within those two years. We have, on previous stages of this Bill, had a discussion on the fact that the council would have a certain flexibility if people had reached almost enough points to be eligible to be rehoused. We have had discussion on those points before.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not share the noble Baroness's confidence that everybody gets housed within two years. Even if there were only a few people who did not get housed within two years, those people would have a need which deserved attention. I have listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, who was repeating what has been, in essence, the Government's argument on this ever since the Green Paper.
In effect, the Government argue that homelessness allows people to jump the queue. We do not accept that that is the case, but at least we understand the argument. This Bill has now thrown out the baby with the bathwater. It has gone to the other extreme, and it has not allowed homelessness to count for any points at all in local authority allocation schemes.
Allocation schemes should be on the basis of need. I think we would agree with that in all quarters of the House. We are saying that homelessness is one of the forms of housing need. That is the point that this amendment is designed to establish.
The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, may remember that I responded to her also in Committee and alleged that this Bill was setting up the system of a revolving door, whereby people go into temporary accommodation, do not get rehoused, become homeless again, go into bed and breakfast, and go round the cycle of temporary accommodation all over again. My noble friend Lady Hamwee offered what I believe is a fairly dramatic example of that, but there are plenty of others. In the research published by Shelter this morning there are numerous cases of this kind of thing happening, although not on such a dramatic scale. Under the existing system people are being moved two, three, four, five and six times in the course of their period of homelessness. The situation will, of course, get worse as the January changes in housing benefit begin to bite. As those changes, in their turn, are followed up by the changes in housing benefit for the under-25s, which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I am sure will remember debating with some vigour on both sides of this Chamber, I think this revolving door situation will become worse. It has a very considerable effect as regards interrupting children's education.
18
In the case which my noble friend quoted just now, the children have had no regular education in five years. The damages award made by the local government ombudsman was in order to meet the cost of remedial classes to make up for lost schooling. That is a very considerable cost to public funds.
We on this side of the House believe that the Government are not nearly careful enough of public funds. This attempt to palm off the homeless on to the private sector, where the average cost of housing benefit will be £118 million a year greater, is a very good example. Average rents in the private sector are £60 a week as against £38 a week in the local authority sector.
What the Government are doing is a very considerable waste of money. People do not have to be housed within their particular local authority district, which means that they cannot take regular jobs—they do not know whether they will be able to get to them. That is one of the biggest ways in which the government system is wasting money. If just a few people can be put through into permanent housing in an area where they can work and where their children can go to school, so that they can start a constructive cycle going again, we shall be very much better off. That is what this amendment would achieve and that is why I hope that the House will view it with sympathy.
3.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Hamwee, will be sorry to find me answering the amendment when previously they had the pleasure of hearing my noble friend Lord Mackay answering. Perhaps I may say that I am sorry too. But I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Mackay who jumped into the breach at Committee stage when I was unable to attend.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said that she could accept the amendments and my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes said that she hoped that I would resist them. Perhaps I can satisfy both noble Baronesses. At least we start with a score of two-love. I shall try to assist them as best I can.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if it were not possibly insulting to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, I would say from these Benches that we—as I am sure is the case with the whole House—are delighted to see the noble Earl return. We are also delighted to have the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, with us.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that was an enormously gracious remark of the noble Baroness. I dare say she is delighted to see me back because she believes that she will get an easier ride than she had with my noble friend.
Housing is always a very sensitive issue, as is homelessness. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that we hoped everyone would be housed within two years. He also said that homelessness is one of the forms of housing need.

19
Let me put this point to him. Homelessness is a fact. If a person is homeless, it is a fact. We have tried to address the causes of homelessness. There could be many different reasons why people are homeless. It may well be that a person is not homeless for any length of time, but only homeless for a relatively short time. But when people are homeless, there is a reason for it. That is why we address the causes in Clause 157.
The purpose of all our reforms is to ensure that the claims of everyone who is seeking social housing are given proper consideration on a comparable basis. That is what the allocation provisions in Part VI of the Bill set out to do. We are considerably modernising the factors—it might frighten some of your Lordships—which local authorities should be required to take into account, because some of them have been in operation since 1935. We are doing so in order that they should reflect both long-term social needs and the present housing circumstances.
We are also maintaining a proper safety net for families and vulnerable people who lose their present accommodation through no fault of their own. That is what Part VII of the Bill provides for.
Part VII, which deals with the homelessness provisions, preserves the essential structure of the current homelessness legislation. It provides that, where a person is losing his existing accommodation and there is no suitable alternative available to him, the local authority must secure that accommodation is available to him for a minimum of two years. That period can be further extended, at the discretion of the authority or on re-application by the individual, if he continues to qualify.
Under the existing legislation, and the way in which it has been applied until now, a person who is owed a duty under the homelessness legislation has generally been rehoused in long-term accommodation in a little over half the time in which someone who is on the waiting list has had to wait. Those people have been put in long-term accommodation within eight months, whereas those who are on the waiting list have had to wait for 14 months. That is the result of a survey conducted by my own department.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, thought that the Housing Bill would allow local authorities to evict people from their own accommodation. The noble Lord is a charming Member of your Lordships' House but sometimes he gets the wrong end of the stick. He has done so on this occasion.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, with the leave of the House—
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord cannot rise to his feet yet because I have not answered his question. I shall do so in a moment.
The two-year duty to house will recur if the household applies and if the person remains eligible. The local authority will have the power to continue to
20
accommodate such people for longer than two years. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord. The noble Baroness wags her head, but she often does that.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. He will recognise that there is a difference between the local authority having a duty to provide housing or ensure that people are housed for that two-year period and the responsibilities that they may have beyond those two years. The concern of a number of noble Lords on this side of the House, on an authoritative reading of the Bill, is that if local authorities are providing temporary housing for homeless people during that period, they will, at the end of the two years, effectively be debarred from providing housing for homeless people. By law, they will have to evict any temporarily housed persons whom they have under that category. That is our desperate fear.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was trying to persuade the noble Lord that his fears were groundless. If I may say so, the noble Baroness is putting me off a little because she wags her head in dissent even before I have said anything.
The fact is that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is perfectly right. When a person is homeless, the local authority is bound to provide accommodation for him. His case is assessed. It may be that he is given short-term housing. That can last up to two years. At the end of that two-year period, he can apply again if he has not already found other accommodation. That should not be confused with the two in three-year rule to which we shall come later. The local authority will still have a duty to house that person if he has not already found accommodation or, in other words, if he becomes homeless again. We find from research which has been conducted by the local authority associations that, in the great majority of authorities, those who are owed a duty under the homelessness legislation are rehoused more quickly than those who are on the waiting list. I ask whether that is fair. I take the example of the young girl with a baby who lives in bad and miserable conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, shakes his head. I congratulate him on his percipience. In fact, he does not know what I am going to say, but he disagrees with me before I say it.
For example, there may be a young lady with a baby living in poor circumstances—bad housing with water running down the walls and so forth; she is on the housing list. There may be another young lady who is expecting a baby but in more convenient circumstances, possibly even comfortable circumstances. However, her mother gets cross with her because she is having a baby and says that she must leave. At the moment that young lady can go to the housing authority and say, "I am being made homeless". She is immediately put on the homeless list and jumps the queue ahead of the girl who lives in far worse circumstances. Which is the more deserving case? Is it the one being made homeless because the mother does not approve of her having a

21
baby even though she may be living in good conditions, or the one living in bad conditions, sitting on the waiting list waiting to be rehoused?
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. Does the noble Earl understand that what he describes is not what the amendment proposes? The amendment proposes that local authorities should be able to balance one form of need against the other as seems to them appropriate.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am coming to that. I was trying to give the noble Earl the picture in case he was not certain what it was. However, he and the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, appear to be certain.
What has happened under the existing legislation is that homelessness has become a short-cut into long-term social housing and somebody who loses his present home can, if he is in priority need, simply require the local authority to rehouse him without taking any steps to avert the crisis or seek an alternative. We are providing that the homelessness duty is to secure accommodation for a minimum of two years. Research shows that over three-quarters of all people who are allocated council housing are rehoused within that period. Not everyone who is accepted for rehousing under the homelessness legislation wants permanent housing. A separate study carried out by my department showed that some 18 per cent. of those accepted for rehousing under the homelessness legislation had found other accommodation for themselves in a little over one year.
During our consideration of these provisions we heard a great many complaints about people who are owed a duty under the homelessness legislation being accommodated in unsatisfactory accommodation, or being required to move from one short-term letting to another. I should like to be able to reassure your Lordships on both counts. The accommodation which the local authority is required to secure under the new two-year duty must be "suitable"; we will return to that concept later. It is sufficient to say now that poor quality accommodation will not be acceptable.
Concern was also expressed that local authorities may not be able to find sufficient stock in the private rented sector for the discharge of the two-year duty. It was in recognition of that concern that, when the Bill was being considered in Committee in another place, my honourable friend the Minister for Housing announced that we would consider a revision of the arrangements which gmvern the leasing of private rented stock by local authorities.
I can confirm that, from 1st April 1997, local authorities will be able to take out leases for up to 10 years on property owned by private landlords in order to provide accommodation for those who are owed a duty under the homelessness legislation without being required to provide capital cover. There will be no restriction on their taking out further leases on property which had been the subject of an earlier lease. Those measures will ensure that local authorities have the
22
ability to provide suitable and stable accommodation for all those to whom they owe a duty under the homelessness legislation.
The noble Baroness's amendment seeks, possibly unintentionally, to continue to make the homelessness legislation a direct route into long-term social housing. That is not what we wish to do. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Hamwee, ask that local authorities be required to assess whether a household which has been accommodated for two years under the homelessness provisions should be offered accommodation through the allocation scheme within two years. If not, they propose that the local authority be required to assess whether the housing needs of that particular household are greater than others on the register. If that is the case, the authority would be required to give that household additional preference with a view to ensuring that it obtains permanent accommodation within two years of its first being owed a duty under the homelessness legislation.
There are technical reasons—and more substantive ones—why the amendment is not acceptable. At a technical level, I do not see how an authority can compare the housing needs of people who are on the housing register, which will include the person who is owed the homelessness duty, and on the same basis and, at the same time, make a separate assessment under the proposed provisions in the new clause of the housing needs of the person who is owed the homelessness duty. The noble Baronesses are mistaken in suggesting that the application of the new clause should run for two years from the time at which accommodation is provided as a result of the duty under Clause 183. The authority may seek to maintain the person who is threatened with homelessness in his present accommodation either for a few more months or, in some cases, indefinitely.
Therefore the requirements imposed by the clause could continue to be in place almost indefinitely. The real point is that the noble Baronesses are seeking to ensure that, once a family has been accepted for rehousing under the homelessness legislation, it should—even after it has been accommodated for two years and even if it is no longer in priority need—still be entitled to a degree of preference over others who may be living in wholly unsatisfactory accommodation but who are patiently waiting their turn on the housing list. The family who would gain will have been provided with perfectly reasonable accommodation for two years. The family who would lose could be living in damp conditions with poor sanitation and with no prospect of improving those conditions except through an offer of a tenancy through the housing register.
Social housing is intended for people with real long-term needs. It is generally taken up by people who cannot secure accommodation for themselves in the housing market in a way in which the majority of the population can. I suggest that it is wrong to suppose that social housing should go to people who could provide for themselves in other ways. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that the homeless family cannot wait, while those on the waiting list can; its need is more urgent.

23
The noble Baroness misses the point. The family accepted as homeless is given suitable accommodation for two years and families on the waiting list may be in much worse accommodation. I am sure your Lordships agree that they are the ones to be given priority. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to a family which had been moved 34 times. I agree that that is a distressing case and is unacceptable. Indeed, the homelessness code of guidance already states that and it is precisely to avoid such situations that we are giving the authorities a two-year duty to provide suitable housing.
Clause 157 requires local authorities to adopt a broad set of allocation criteria which will ensure that everyone with long-term housing needs receives fair consideration for the available stock of housing. If households who are owed a duty under the homelessness legislation have long-term needs which are greater than those of others who are on the housing register—and many of them will have—they can be confident that they will be offered permanent social housing through the register.
Homelessness is of course regrettable. However, it is a fact and not a cause. We want to address the causes which lead to people becoming homeless. When we have done that, we can right the situation. Those who are homeless will receive accommodation, but it should not be a short-cut to advancing in front of those already on the housing register. It is for that reason that I hope your Lordships will not agree to the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, when I came to reply I intended to welcome back the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and say, like her, that we on these Benches are delighted to see him. However, after his assurance that he would be no more accommodating than his noble friend and after the answer that he has just given, I am sure he will understand if our delight has been just a little qualified. Nevertheless, we are delighted to see him in his place.
Perhaps I may use the shorthand used by the noble Earl and the two noble Baronesses, Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, pointed out a case of fraud, and she was right to do so. I am sure and I would expect that anyone from these Benches and of our political persuasion running a local authority where such a case was presented to them would respond in exactly the same way as the noble Baroness did. I have no more tolerance or patience with fraud or with anyone manipulating the system in a wilful and wrongful way than she has. There is nothing between us on that.
She went on to say—and this is at the heart of the amendment, and I believe I have her words correctly—that if there are genuine cases she expects that they will accumulate the necessary points within two years. I wish that she were right. If she were right this amendment would be unnecessary. It is precisely because, for quite a small number of people, she is not correct that we need this amendment as a safety net. That is my best
24
information. For example, I am told that at present in Tower Hamlets there are more than 50 families who have been waiting for more than two years for appropriate council housing, having been accepted as homeless and placed in temporary accommodation, including bed and breakfast.
On the argument put forward by the noble Baroness, if she were presented with that information I am sure that she would wish to support this amendment. I agree that genuine applicants should be housed within the two years and should be allowed to acquire the necessary points to do so.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I ask the leave of the House to intervene. I draw the attention of the noble Baroness again to the point that has been brought out in earlier debates; namely, that in certain large cities and inner London in particular there are particular difficulties, but those difficulties are not typical of everywhere. I believe that the Government are well aware of the particular need in the inner city areas, and that might have to be dealt with differently. That does not mean that the provision will apply everywhere else.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. This amendment would not need to apply, I hope, to most parts of the country. But there are places, which I was at pains to point out, where the pressures are so acute that this situation will arise. As the noble Baroness said, they include the inner London boroughs and many places in the south, including the coastal towns and some rural districts. Those are places where applicants have special needs for large accommodation. We have discussed this before. There may be two step-families coming together or a member of the family may be disabled. From what the noble Baroness has suggested, in those situations she will be asking her noble friends on the Front Bench to modify their approach. That will be no more and no less than this amendment does.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I ask the leave of the House once again to intervene. I had asked my noble friends to allow a period of two years, in those exceptional circumstances, to be extended to perhaps three years, but not in the way proposed in this amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in that case I look forward to the support of the noble Baroness on an amendment later this afternoon which will do exactly that. I believe that we are using the same hymn sheet, but possibly different parts of it.
Perhaps I may now comment on the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. I agree with her on the first point, but perhaps not on the second. The substantive point on which she is right is that the problem originates from the fact that there is a shortage of social housing to rent. That is why there is pressure. At this stage your Lordships will not particularly welcome a debate as to why there is that pressure, but it is certainly due to the fact that local authorities have

25
been unable to recycle their capital receipts. Therefore, to replace the houses which have been sold there has been growing pressure on rented social housing. It is that problem that we are seeking to address. The point on which I disagree with the noble Baroness is that it is obviously true that many people on the waiting list are living in miserable conditions. But the fact that they do not become homeless means that their situation is usually not as intolerable as that of people who are homeless.
From my experience of chairing a housing committee for 11 years, for the most part the difference, as the DoE said in 1989, between families on the waiting list and those who become homeless is that the homeless cannot wait. That was my experience from local authority work and that was confirmed by the Government in 1989.
I now come to the Minister's point. He described this Bill as offering a safety net for homeless families. I believe that his advisers have failed to engage with what this amendment does. I say categorically that it does not do what the Minister asserted, which, according to his phrase, allows homeless families a direct route into permanent housing. It does not do that. I am genuinely distressed that his advisers thought fit to put that interpretation on the amendment. I do not know whether our amendment was so opaque, but the Minister said that is what it did.
Those who have been involved in these debates for many hours will know that that is not what this amendment does. It does not give homeless families a direct route into permanent housing. Under this Bill homeless families go into temporary housing for a statutory period of two years. The question which this amendment seeks to deal with—and I apologise to the House for perhaps not making this as clear as I should have done at the beginning—is what happens to these homeless families if, after two years in temporary accommodation, they have not got to the head of the queue. My noble friend Lord Monkswell is right in saying that that is the question.
As the Bill stands a local authority may continue to rehouse them after two years: the word is "may" and not "must". If the local authority decides not to continue to house them then the family is out. However, if in the process of housing them for two years the local authority has used its own hard-to-let housing, they have to be evicted. The Minister said that that was wrong, but he simply misunderstood my noble friend and that is why I shook my head. I was respecting the conventions at Report stage so I did not intervene during his speech, but perhaps another time I should do so.
The Minister has misunderstood this amendment. It does not give a direct route for homeless families into permanent housing. It states that if after two years a tiny minority of families who have been in temporary housing have not reached the head of the queue and otherwise face eviction—which must take place if they are living in local authority owned property—then this amendment allows local authorities to review all the circumstances. If it thinks it reasonable, the local authority should ensure that the family is given enough points to be rehoused into permanent housing. There is
26
no direct route or queue jumping. They wait two years. If the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is right—and I hope she is—most of the families will have their needs met within those two years, but some will not.
Rented social housing is in very short supply in the inner London boroughs, as the noble Baroness suggested, and in other areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, pointed out in an earlier debate. He referred to families being hard to house because, for example, a member of the family may be disabled and need a large property. Those families may face eviction from temporary housing after two years and if they are living in a local authority owned house they must be evicted. Is that reasonable? Is it right to send fragile, vulnerable families, often with several children, into the churning of going in and out of temporary accommodation such as bed and breakfast accommodation, hotel or private rented accommodation and so on? It is not that they queue jump or that there is a direct route into permanent housing but merely, as the Minister himself said, that there should be a safety net for them.
However, if after two years a family in temporary housing has not qualified for permanent housing, then the local authority may, if it believes it reasonable, in comparison with other people on the list, ensure that they have enough points to qualify for permanent housing, which they would get if they lived in a different authority area. That is all this amendment does. It simply does what the Minister said it should do, which is to put in a safety net. If we do not there remains a black hole for some of the most vulnerable and fragile families.
It is a modest amendment. It will probably affect only a few thousand out of the 120,000 homeless families who present themselves to local authorities each year. But those families are in an acute situation. They are not queue jumping. The amendment merely provides that after two years' waiting, in often poor quality temporary housing, we should not send them churning back into bed and breakfast accommodation to go through the cycle again. Remembering that this is not providing a direct route into permanent housing and it is not queue-jumping—it is merely including a means of rescue and a safety net for those who would otherwise be turned out after a wait of two years—I should like to test the opinion of the House on the amendment.
3.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Barnett, L.

Addington, L.

Berkeley, L.

Annan, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Avebury, L.

Carlisle, Bp.

27

Carlisle, E.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Chichester, Bp.

Mayhew, L.

Chorley, L.

Methuen, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mishcon, L.

David, B.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Palmer, L.

Donoughue, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dubs, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rea, L.

Ezra, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Geraint, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Simon, V.

Gregson, L.

Stallard, L.

Halsbury, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taverne, L.

Haskel, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayman, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hooson, L.

Thurso, V.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Jeger, B.

Tope, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Kintore, E.

White, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Wigoder, L.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Longford, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Addison, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Ailsa, M.

Cockfield, L.

Aldington, L.

Courtown, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cuckney, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Davidson, V.

Balfour, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Denham, L.

Birdwood, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Blaker, L.

Derwent, L.

Blatch, B.

Digby, L.

Blyth, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Boardman, L.

Downshire, M.

Bowness, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elles, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Elton, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Erne, E.

Burnham, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Butterworth, L.

Ferrers, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Goschen, V.

Carnock, L.

Gray of Contin, L

Cayzer, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Harrowby, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Hayhoe, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Headfort, M.

28

Henley, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Holderness, L.

Orkney, E.

Hooper, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Howe, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Inglewood, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Pender, L.

Kimball, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Lane of Horsell, L.

Pym, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Leigh, L.

Rawlings, B.

Lindsay, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Liverpool, E.

Renton, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Renwick, L.

Long, V.

Ridley, V.

Lucas, L.

Romney, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

St Davids, V.

McConnell, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

MacFarlane of Bearsden, L.

Seccombe, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Shannon, E.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L

Sharples, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

MacLehose or Beoch, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mersey, V.

Sudeley, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Swinton, E.

Monson, L.

Thomas of Gwvdir L

Mountevans, L.

Tollemache, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Trumpington, B. [Teller.]

Moyne, L.

Vivian, L.

Munster, E.

Waterford, M.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Newall, L.

Westbury, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Norfolk, D.

Wilcox, B.

Norrie, L.

Wise, L.

Northesk, E.

Wynford, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish) moved Amendment No.2:
Page 97, line 35, at end insert ("section 153(1A) or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 9, 10, 12 and 14.
Perhaps I may echo the noble Baroness and welcome my noble friend Lord Ferrers back to the House. I do so with a great deal of relief but, unfortunately, almost immediately I have to return to your Lordships because this part of the Bill affects part of the Government's policy on asylum seekers and the tie-in with the changes which we have made to benefits.
I have told the House, on what must be beginning to feel like an excessive number of previous occasions, that the Government are clear that social housing, which is intended to meet the ongoing needs of people who require low-cost affordable housing over the long term, should not be used to accommodate people who may be here for only a short time. We intend to ensure that persons who are subject to immigration control do not have access to long-term tenancies allocated by a local housing authority unless they have the right to remain here indefinitely and the right to receive public funds.
As drafted, Clause 153 provides the Secretary of State with the power to prescribe by regulations classes of persons who are or are not qualified to be allocated housing by a local authority. In practical terms, this means that any exclusion from entitlement to be allocated a social tenancy would be achieved by subordinate legislation: in other words, by regulation. Your Lordships will be aware that the Court of Appeal on 21st June, in reviewing the lawfulness of the Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996, has recently expressed concern about the vires of subordinate legislation which excludes certain asylum seekers from entitlement to non-contributory social security benefits such as income support and housing benefit.
As your Lordships will recall, in the light of that court judgment we have recently amended Clause 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, which deals with the housing entitlement of persons subject to immigration control. The effect of those amendments was to make clear on the face of that Bill that persons who are subject to immigration control are not entitled either to be allocated a council tenancy or to assistance under the homelessness legislation, unless they fall within a class of person prescribed by regulations. That puts beyond doubt, in primary legislation, that such persons do not have an entitlement unless they are prescribed as so having. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that we wish to make similar amendments to this Bill in respect of persons who are not qualifying persons for the purposes of allocating tenancies under Part VI and also in respect of persons who are not entitled to assistance under Part VII. I shall deal with that part later when we come to it.
Amendment No. 7 will achieve that end by providing that all persons subject to immigration control will be ineligible to be allocated a social tenancy by a local housing authority unless they were to fall into a class of person prescribed by regulations as being qualified. Notwithstanding the issue of vires and lawfulness, the practical effect of this amendment is nil. We are in the same position as we were with the original clause. The classes of persons we intend to exclude from entitlement to be allocated a tenancy by a local housing authority are not changed.
Under Clause 153 as drafted, we would prescribe by regulations those classes of person subject to immigration control which are excluded from entitlement. Under the clause as it would be changed by these amendments, we would prescribe by regulations those classes which are entitled. We intend that an order under Clause 153(1A) would specify that the following classes of person, subject to immigration control, are qualifying persons in relation to local housing authorities. They are, first, refugees; secondly, persons granted exceptional leave to remain; and, thirdly, persons having indefinite leave to remain. We intend that such regulations would be made at the outset on commencement so that Amendment No. 7 would put beyond doubt the lawfulness of excluding certain classes of person subject to immigration control from
30
entitlement to be allocated a local authority tenancy. Amendments Nos. 9, 12 and 14 are drafting amendments consequential upon that amendment.
Amendment No. 10 would clarify that regulations made under Clause 153(2) may prescribe classes of person who are or are not qualifying persons in respect of either an individual authority or in respect of local housing authorities generally. We have been over this argument on a fair number of occasions before, and I commend these amendments to your Lordships.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, yesterday a number of your Lordships probably had rather more leisure than I had for applauding the exploits of Richard Krajicek at Wimbledon. The few moments that I was able to watch, in the time I could take off from considering this Bill, were well worth it. It was a clear reminder of how much a country may gain in credit and reputation from what is done by those who come to it as refugees. If his parents had come to this country now, I believe he would never have been born; but I will take that matter no further now.
This is a technical amendment. It substitutes the vires of primary legislation for the vires of regulation. That, so far as it goes, is a laudable change, though it will of course take up a certain amount of time in the next Parliament, and that will have to be found. It is wide of the point of the judgment. I understand the Government's caution; if it makes them a little more cautious in future about what they set out to do by regulation, that may be a good thing. The point may arise again when we come to Amendment No. 8 and those amendments which are grouped with it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 97, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) For the avoidance of doubt, under section 157(2) of this Part the local housing authority may in exceptional circumstances give additional preference to persons to whom the authority are subject to a duty under section 181 of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wonder, ever hopeful, whether this amendment might acquire the support of the Government Benches and possibly even of the Government themselves. It refers to the issue of exceptional circumstances. I believe that your Lordships' House is occasionally persuaded by what I would like to think is the stronger argument, and this may be one such case; I do not know. Only those people who are eligible for permanent council housing are those at the top of the waiting list. Most homeless people are on the waiting list in the usual way, living with family or friends, or living in a six-months shelter awaiting their turn. Then arrangements may break down and they become homeless. Sometimes the family becomes homeless shortly before they are due to be rehoused from the waiting list. The Minister made it clear in Committee by repeating the assurances made in another place that the local authorities could, in exceptional circumstances, give additional preference to homeless

31
people near the top of the waiting list. This amendment seeks to put the Minister's words on to the face of the Bill to avoid doubt.
What the amendment does—and we welcomed the Government's response—is to allow a modest amount of flexibility in the system. Somebody is sharing accommodation and they are on the waiting list, having waited perhaps one year and eleven-and-a-half months or maybe they are two months away from a permanent allocation. Although they are just a very short time away from permanent reallocation their two years is up and they are forced to move into yet another home in the meanwhile. No sooner will they have moved in the furniture, contacted the utilities and changed the address for council tax than out they move again, all at considerable cost and with great stress being caused to the family concerned as well as being destabilising for the children.
The Minister could, if he wished, define by guidance the word "exceptional". We pressed him on what this word meant at Committee, but the Minister merely emphasised that, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "exceptional" meant exceptional and that local authorities had that exceptional discretion. He would not go further. I hope that the Minister would like to see the words he used in Committee immortalised on the face of the Bill: I am sure that local authorities would. It is the aim of this amendment that, as the Minister has said, local authorities may in exceptional circumstances, such as the one I have envisaged, rehouse a family rather than send them through the process when they only have six weeks, two months or whatever to go. I think that local authorities, to avoid the possibility of litigation, need to have that assurance so that it is not just in the Minister's words printed in Hansard but printed on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support the amendment. I have sympathy for the Minister who said at the last stage that by definition he could not define "exceptional". I believe that this amendment is an appropriate way to tackle the issue. It is right that the matter should go on the face of the Bill. If the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, now asks the mover of the amendment to define "exceptional", I believe that the noble Baroness is quite right to quote his colleague's words back at him.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe that we badly need this amendment because of the effect of Clause 157(8) of the Bill. That provides that a local authority shall not allocate housing accommodation except in accordance with its allocation scheme. If there is no provision for exceptions the words of Clause 157(8) will prove extremely inconvenient. One does not want a world that is made up of nothing but exceptions. As was said in this House by the first Earl of Strafford, the prerogative is to be used as God doth His omnipotency—upon extraordinary occasions. But there must be prerogative if there must be extraordinary occasions. There are plenty of extraordinary occasions. One can immediately
32
think of many categories where, to avoid a considerable degree of social harm, it may be necessary to allow a local authority on occasion to give an additional priority.
Take, for example, children leaving care. They are some of the worst treated people in the whole of society. The problems created are likely to be with us for the rest of those people's lives. We are likely to pay heavily for them. There are the problems of those cared for in the community who may be discharged from medical or other accommodation when their needs are exceptional and who are not altogether fit to cope with the housing market. I take as an example a person who regularly can be seen on the route that I take to the tube station in the morning and who harangues every passer-by with unintelligible imprecations. Such people are not necessarily fit for the amount of freedom they have been given. If there is no exceptional freedom to provide for them tragedies of many kinds may result.
Take the example of women who leave refuges after they have been victims of domestic violence. Ever since publication of the Green Paper there has been intense concern among those involved in refuges about the danger of urgently needed places silting up because people cannot be rehoused. Being able to exercise a reasonable preference in cases like that may be vital to avoid severe problems. People who have been through that experience need a new permanent environment in order to get back on their feet again. To stand on one's own two feet is all very well. But, generally, one needs ground underneath one's feet before one can do it.
Amendment No. 4 takes its wording from the Children Act. It is my understanding that Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are grouped together. That draws attention to the fact that we are perpetually passing on problems from housing to social services. There must be a two-way traffic; if not, there will be a traffic jam. I am happy to support the amendments.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness explained the reasoning behind the amendment, for which I am grateful. I am amused by the company the noble Earl, Lord Russell, keeps when he goes to the tube station every day. I believe that he is very generous to take a person who perpetually harangues everyone in sight—but evidently not the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I presume that if he harangued the noble Earl he would not get a lift the next day.
I should like to address the amendment by explaining what Clause 157 does. It sets out the factors to which each local authority must give reasonable preference in framing its allocation scheme. Those factors take into account a broad range of housing circumstances and social conditions. That is all that the legislation says about the way in which an authority must allocate its stock. It is for each authority to decide the details of the scheme it wishes to adopt for its area, subject to any principles that the Secretary of State may prescribe on matters such as the involvement of elected members in individual cases and how it operates the scheme.
This means that the authority has considerable discretion as to how to interpret the factors to which it is required to give reasonable preference. The expression

33
"reasonable preference" appears in the provisions governing housing allocations contained in the Housing Act 1985. Indeed, the same term is found in earlier legislation dating back to 1935.
The amendment seeks to address the question of what would happen to a household which, for example, had been on the waiting list for some time and was perhaps living in poor conditions. The household might be nearing the point where it would be allocated a house. It may be that a fire occurs, the house is burned down and the household suddenly becomes homeless. The household is rehoused under the new two-year duty, possibly in a house which is in better condition than the one which has been burned down. Because the accommodation provided under the two-year duty must be suitable within the meaning of Clause 192, the household will lose at least some of the points which it had on the waiting list because it had been in poor accommodation. No doubt many of your Lordships will feel that that is unfair since the household will have to wait longer for permanent rehousing than it would have done had the house not burned down.
We are not setting out in legislation the way in which an authority will operate its allocation scheme in relation to individual cases. That must be a matter for its discretion. We do not wish to specify how each local authority handles such a case. An authority must apply the principle of reasonable preference in setting up its allocation scheme. Within its scheme, which must reflect the criteria set out in Clause 157(2), it has discretion to make provision for special cases of this kind and to move them directly into permanent housing if it feels that the particular circumstances justify it. Clearly, the authority can use this discretion only within the limits of that which is reasonable in a particular case. But if the Bill were to contain a general provision on this point, it would run counter to the authority's duty to give reasonable preference to the classes of person mentioned in Clause 157. Some local housing authorities already exercise their discretion in particular cases in just this way under present provisions. Since the key phrase in the legislation, "reasonable preference", appears in both the existing and the new legislation I see no reason why authorities should not continue to do so.
I draw the attention of the House to the provision which follows the list of allocation criteria in Clause 157(2):
"The scheme shall also be framed so as to secure that additional preference is given to households … consisting of someone with a particular need for settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds who cannot reasonably be expected to find settled accommodation for themselves in the foreseeable future".
That would enable an authority to give additional preference to someone with a need for long-term housing on medical and welfare grounds if he could not reasonably be expected to secure accommodation for himself. I believe that that would meet the cases of most concern to your Lordships.
The amendment of the noble Baroness seeks to formalise the extent of a local authority's discretion. That may be a contradiction in terms in that it is quite difficult to formalise a discretion. I believe that that
34
would be a pity. The amendment seeks to set out in specific terms what the Bill already provides for in the construction of Clause 157. So I hope that the noble Baroness will not think I am churlish if I say to her that the Bill would be better without the amendment because that which the noble Baroness wishes to see incorporated in the Bill is, in fact, already incorporated.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, before responding to the debate I would like to ask the Minister a question that follows from what he was saying.
One of the issues that I think has not been clarified at any stage during the debates is on what the points system is based. I had assumed from what had been said in the other place and at earlier stages in this Bill by the Minister's noble friend Lord Mackay—but obviously I do not want to put words into his mouth—that the number of points allocated to a homeless person when he went into temporary accommodation depend on the condition of homelessness existing when he went on to the waiting list rather than on the quality of the temporary housing offered to him. In other words, by accepting temporary accommodation, he would go back down the list—the snake effect. If that were so, I can see it would be very difficult for local authorities. Applicants would then say "Well, I don't want good temporary accommodation even for two years if that means that I won't get permanent housing for another four or five. I would rather take my chance in poorer temporary housing and not lose my points score, and then get my entitlement to permanent housing in due course".
Will the Minister clarify that point which is absolutely pivotal to our understanding? I had understood that the situation from which homeless families came determined their points score: that they waited in temporary accommodation and that whatever the nature of the temporary accommodation it did not affect their points. But something that the Minister said seemed to suggest that the eligibility for permanent housing would depend on the points obtained from the temporary housing in which they were subsequently housed. He used the case of somebody whose house was burnt down. In that case, as I said, there would be major problems for people trying to calculate whether they should accept this temporary house rather than another according to the points it would carry with them for their family. I am sure that that is not a route that local authorities would want to go down.
That point is so pivotal that it would be very helpful if we could have an answer. It may be that the Minister would prefer to wait a moment or two and come back with it, but we really do need this clarified. I am happy to wait and go on to some other points if that would help the Minister. It is a major point for us, and I am trespassing on the indulgence of the House.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing attention to a point which she feels is uncertain. If I made it uncertain for her, I am sorry. The reason for the uncertainty is that I gave the

35
example of somebody living in a poor house, who had his house burnt down but, had that not happened he would have been almost at the top of the list. He is then moved temporarily into a bigger house and, as a result, it might be thought that he goes down to the bottom of the list. That is a matter which local authorities will have to decide. The point is perfectly clear.
This is where we do not want to be confused about homelessness. I shall take the noble Baroness through the steps relatively carefully. A person comes to a local authority and says "I haven't got a house". He is made homeless unintentionally as opposed to a failure to pay the rent. It is then the duty of the local authority to see that that person is housed. If he turns up at nine o'clock at night, he might be sent into a bedsitting room or whatever it may be. The next day the local authority will see the person and ask why he is homeless. The reasons for the homelessness or the reasons for the person being in that position will be discussed.
The allocation of points will depend very much on that which is contained in Clause 157 which, as I said when speaking to the first amendment, is really a matter of trying to find the cause of homelessness. It may be that the cause of homelessness is that the wife has walked out or it may be that the house has burnt down. But long-term housing is determined by Clause 157(2) which refers to giving reasonable preference to people occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing, people occupying housing accommodation which is temporary or occupied on insecure terms, families with dependent children, households consisting of or including someone who is expecting a child, and so forth. That is what determines the right of people to long-term housing. The fact that they have been given short-term housing does not put them at an advantage or at a disadvantage over whether they obtain long-term housing.
I hope that that has made the point relatively clear. The points systems will take account of the level of security of tenure which a person has.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I hope that the Minister will correct me if I have misunderstood him, but I think the Minister said that he used the words local authorities will have to decide. In other words, there is an element of discretion as to the basis upon which the local authorities will determine the points system: either the conditions of homelessness from which the people concerned emerged, or the quality of temporary accommodation which they now occupy. I think that is what the Minister said. If I have misunderstood that, I would be very grateful to be corrected.
He went on to say that temporary accommodation, being insecure, would obviously come into the reasonable preference. But studying my own local authority's points system, insecure accommodation carries only, for example, 10 points whereas medical need may carry 100 points, and shared facilities may carry 100 points. So simply saying that because they are insecure gives them reasonable preference will not
36
give them enough points certainly to bring them back up to the level at which they entered the situation of temporary housing because insecure accommodation as such, in the typical local authority points system, does not carry very many points.
I repeat, as I understand it, people may go down the "snake" by going into temporary housing but that is for the local authority to determine. Is that correct? I apologise to your Lordships but it is such a pivotal point that it would be very helpful for all of us to have clarification of that. I am happy to move on and ask the Minister to come back at some appropriate stage because without this clarification, local authorities will not know how they are allocating their points scheme. I am in the Minister's hands. I am very happy to continue or to give way to him if the House will permit.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall try to clarify the point with which the noble Baroness is concerned. If she looks at Clause 157(2) one of the priorities to which preference will have to be given is contained in paragraph (b):
"people occupying housing accommodation which is temporary or occupied on insecure terms".
Therefore in the case which I gave of a person's house which is in a scruffy order being burnt down and that person being put into temporary accommodation because of that, his points allocation would not drop. But I think this is an important point. I would like to write to the noble Baroness because I would not like to mislead her.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, again I thank the Minister for that and therefore I shall now wind up this debate. I am very glad that we have had the opportunity of this exchange. Perhaps it is our fault that we did not seek to have this clarified earlier but I had assumed that people continue to carry their points with them into whatever temporary housing they went. Something that the Minister said alarmed me and suggested a "snake" possibility in which case there are, to change my animal metaphor, elephant traps that we had not even anticipated for local authorities in seeking to manage this legislation. I would be glad if the Minister could write to me as speedily as possible. That would then allow us the opportunity to revisit this issue, if necessary, on Third Reading.
Apart from that, I have very little to say, for which I am sure your Lordships will be duly grateful. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that she could not define "exceptional". The noble Earl, Lord Russell, went on to give several instances of that which illustrated the point very well for us over and beyond the situation in which the person is six weeks' away from being housed.
The Minister assures us that this point is well covered already in the Bill. I have to say we do not believe that it is. We would not be moving this amendment if it were. He accepts the principle that local authorities do have the right to exercise their discretion in these exceptional circumstances. He

37
believes it is already in the Bill but we do not see it clearly in the Bill—in other words we are now simply talking about drafting. For the avoidance of doubt, I should like to seek to persuade your Lordships that this phrase, from which the Minister does not dissent, should actually be in the Bill so that it is clear.
If that were clear and in the Bill, our advisers would not be asking us to press the amendment. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House. I do not do that because there is a difference of substance between us and the Minister but there is a difference in relation to how transparent are the Minister's words. He believes that what we want is already there but we cannot see those words in the clause. That is why I wish to press the amendment. There is no disagreement between us as regards the issue but merely about the transparency of what the Government say is the case. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister may agree to include the words:
"For the avoidance of doubt".
However, if he is not prepared to do so, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 147.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Avebury, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Barnett, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Berkeley, L.

Kennet, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Carlisle, Bp.

Lockwood, B.

Carlisle, E.

Longford, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Desai, L.

McNally, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Donoughue, L.

Methuen, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dubs, L.

Monkswell, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkland, V.

Nicol, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Palmer, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Geraint, L.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Redesdale, L.

[Teller.}

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Gregson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Halsbury, E.

Seear, B.

Hamwee, B.

Scrota, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shepherd, L.

Haskel, L.

Stallard, L.

Hayman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Taverne, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

38

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Wharton, B.

Tonypandy, V.

White, B.

Tope, L.

Wigoder, L.

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Addison, V.

Headfort, M.

Ailsa, M.

Henley, L.

Aldington, L.

Hogg, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Holderness, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hooper, B.

Ashboume, L.

Howe, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Balfour, E.

Inglewood, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Biddulph, L.

Kimball, L.

Birdwood, L.

Kintore, E.

Blaker, L.

Knutsford, V.

Blatch, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Blyth, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boardman, L.

Leigh, L.

Bowness, L.

Lindsay, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Liverpool, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Lucas, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Burnham, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Butterworth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cadman, L.

Marlesford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Moyne, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Munster, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nelson, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Newall, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Courtown, E.

Norfolk, D.

Cox, B.

Norrie, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Northesk, E.

Crathome, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cuckney, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denham, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pender, L.

Digby, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Downshire, M.

Pym, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rawlings, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Rees, L.

Elles, B.

Renfiew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rennell, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Erne, E.

Renwick, L.

Erroll, E.

Romney, E.

Ferrers, E

SL Davids, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gainford,L.

Seccombe, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sharpies, B.

Goschen, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gowrie, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Swansea, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Swinton, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Teviot, L.

39

Teynham, L.

Waterford, M.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Tollemache, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Torrington, V.

Wilcox, B.

W
yatt of Weeford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wynford, L.

Vivian, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.50 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 97, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) The provisions of this part do not apply where the local housing authority consider the welfare of a person within their area is likely to be seriously prejudiced if they do not provide him with settled accommodation.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is another attempt to skin the cat. It is a gentler attempt to skin it, if any skinning of a cat can be gentle. The amendment addresses the issue of exceptional circumstances. I hope that it may appeal to your Lordships as it is an attempt to define a little more precisely a matter which I accept is difficult to define. It constitutes, perhaps, a more lateral approach to the subject. This modest amendment would permit immediate rehousing of people who are not on the register, but only if not to do so would seriously jeopardise their welfare. The provision would be subject to Clause 152(5) which gives the Secretary of State powers to restrict or attach conditions to this paragraph. I say that with some hesitation as the views of these Benches on such powers for the Secretary of State are well known. I hope, however, that there may be a temptation to look favourably on the amendment.
The wording of the amendment borrows from that of the Children Act which provides at Section 20(3) that a local authority has to provide accommodation for a child in need who has reached the age of 16 and,
"whose welfare the authority consider is likely to be seriously prejudiced if they do not provide him with accommodation".
I wonder about the use of that infinitive, but never mind.
The amendment would enable local authorities to house a limited number of people—I believe that would include children in need as defined by the Children Act—without subjecting them to the requirements of Part VI.
The Government's consultation paper on housing allocations makes much of local discretion. The amendment is wholly consistent with the paper. It would allow flexibility within the constraints of the requirement for serious prejudice, but it would put on the face of the Bill certain exceptions. Regulations offer flexibility, but, by leaving matters to regulation, local authorities may well find it difficult to plan their provision and to develop the necessary partnerships that are required to provide assistance to certain vulnerable groups. I suggest that certain allocations should be dealt with in the manner proposed in this amendment.
On a previous amendment my noble friend gave some examples of people who might be seriously prejudiced without such an obligation. He referred to young people leaving care and those who require community care
40
services. I would add—my noble friend may have referred to this—women fleeing situations of domestic violence. My noble friend referred to accommodation which is designed to be temporary—and which in the rather ugly phrase we have developed—is "likely to silt up". I am not suggesting that people who fall in the categories that I have mentioned will necessarily be caught by the wording of the amendment. That may be the case, but the criterion will be serious prejudice and not particular circumstances. I hope your Lordships may feel that this is an appropriate matter to be included on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand that the noble Baroness is keen to ensure that everything is as right as it should be. She said there was another way of skinning the cat. I wish she would leave the poor pussy alone because it would be much easier if she did. I think the provision is unnecessary because it seeks to achieve, outside the provisions of Part VI, the very things which Part VI is intended to provide. The fundamental purpose of the reforms in this Bill is to ensure that long-term social housing goes to households which have the greatest need. That is the whole principle behind the reforms. The arrangements are designed to give local authorities the direction which is needed to meet housing need, while giving them the ability to frame their allocation schemes in a way which best meets local circumstances. That is exactly what the allocation criteria in Clause 157 are designed to achieve.
I tried to explain earlier that the structures of Parts VI and VII of the Bill should, taken together, ensure that the needs of people who are owed a duty under the homelessness legislation are properly addressed, as are the needs of people seeking long-term housing. As I said on an earlier occasion to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I direct her attention—I also direct the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to this—to Clause 157(2) at page 100 of the Bill which states:
"The scheme shall also be framed so as to secure that additional preference is given to households within paragraph (e) consisting of someone with a particular need for settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds who cannot reasonably be expected to find settled accommodation for themselves in the foreseeable future".
That is an important criterion. It would require an authority to give additional preference to someone who has a need for long-term accommodation on medical or welfare grounds, if that person could not reasonably be expected to secure that accommodation for himself. That should meet most of the anxieties of the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness said that there should be special provision for the welfare of young people. We propose to make regulations under Clause 152(4) which will allow authorities to accept referrals of certain groups, who may include young people, without applying the provisions of Part VI. We are still reflecting on the consultation on the subject which was undertaken in January this year. With those comments, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that, on the whole, we are trying to meet the points which are of reasonable

41
concern to her. It would be best if the Bill remained as it is without her amendment because, as I have said, we have catered for the anxieties of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I accept that the Government are trying to ensure that there are no holes. Certainly I am prepared to accept that for the purposes of this debate. My concern is to make sure that there are no holes. To that extent, I am going in the same direction as the Government. In accepting in debate that there may be exceptional circumstances to which a local housing authority should have regard, which so far, collectively, we have not been able to define within the Bill, the Government are accepting that there may still be holes to be plugged. That was why I felt it was important to move this amendment notwithstanding the previous debate.
Clause 157 with its provisions for giving reasonable preference is not quite the same as this amendment which states that Part VI is not to apply in the case of applicants who are likely seriously to be prejudiced in this matter.
However, I shall read what the Minister has said, together with the previous debate, and possibly come back to the matter at Third Reading. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 152 [Cases where provisions about allocation do not apply]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 98, line 10, at end insert—
("(ii) section 17(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders after overseas divorce, &c.), or
(iii) paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 6, 111, 121, 175, 176, 177, 208 and 209. I lay the blame for these amendments at the door of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. At Committee stage they taxed us with the necessity of ensuring that the various provisions for the transfer of property on matrimonial breakdown were properly reflected in housing legislation.
We resisted the temptation at Committee stage because we felt that there might be some added complexities to be dealt with. As noble Lords will appreciate from reading through the group of amendments, we were right. On behalf of her noble friend, I trust that the noble Baroness will agree that we have drafted the amendments well. If she feels that we have not, perhaps she will allow me to write to her.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it is a sensible suggestion. However, if my noble friend Lord Meston has any problems with the drafting, perhaps the noble Lord will write to him. It is sometimes difficult for Members of your Lordships' House to resist the temptation to become deeply involved in the detail of
42
the drafting. Speaking for myself, the obligation is to draw drafting matters about which we have concern to the attention of the Government, heave a sigh of relief, and leave the matter to parliamentary draftsmen to do what they will with the issue. I am grateful to the noble Lord for coming back with this long series of amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 98, line 20, at end insert—
("(ii) section 17(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders after overseas divorce, &c.), or
(iii) paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have just spoken to Amendment No. 6. In moving the amendment, perhaps I may say that Amendment No. 7 was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, with Amendment No. 2.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 153 [Allocation only to qualifying persons]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 98, line 34, at end insert—
("(1A) A person subject to immigration control within the meaning of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 is not qualified to be allocated housing accommodation by any authority in England and Wales unless he is of a class prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, in putting Amendment No. 8 I have to inform the House that were it to be carried I could not put Amendments Nos. 9 or 10 before your Lordships.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 98, line 35, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak to Amendments Nos. 11, 13, 15 and 20 to 23. All those amendments make a single point. Some are merely consequential, others deal with the identical points.
It may not have been fully appreciated among your Lordships that this is a nationalisation Bill. We no longer expect such Bills from the party on our left, but it seems instead that we have them coming from the party opposite. We do not welcome them any more from one quarter than the other.
Amendment No. 8 deals with Clause 153(2), which states that,
"The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe classes of persons who are, or are not, qualifying persons in relation to a local housing authority".
In other words, the Secretary of State is to take all the decisions about who goes on the local authority register, on what criteria they are put there, who may not be put on the local authority register, and what criteria of need may not be taken into account in Clause 157(8), on

43
which we have already touched. The Secretary of State is to make all the decisions and the local authority is merely to rubber stamp them.
That creates a paper chase. Secretaries of State, as used to be said of kings, must see with other men's eyes and hear with other men's ears. Therefore it has to be provided in Clause 154(4), that a local authority's housing register,
"shall contain such information … as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations".
Where a new need is identified, a massive flow of information has to go to the Secretary of State. Someone in Whitehall will have to read through it and it will take a long time. Then, perhaps too late to meet the need involved, a decision will flow back through a regulation, we shall assemble in the dinner break to debate it, and a new category of need will be taken into account. It is a cumbersome process. It was the kind of process of administration which used to occur in the reign of King Philip II of Spain. It took an extremely long time.
It is not only on these Benches that the issue has caused some dismay. When looking through papers I came across these words, which I shall not attribute. The speaker, a member of the Conservative Party, said:
"I have spent 15 years in local government, and all of those 15 years as a district councillor I served on the housing committee. During that time I found that gradually the management powers of the council were eroded by central government. This was a big problem for us … Here is another proposal which will mean that councils' hands will be tied and they will be restricted from exercising their best judgment".
That is not an opinion confined to one side of the House. If there is any point in having local councils—and we on these Benches believe with great passion that there is—they should be entitled to take account of local circumstances to assess local needs for themselves on the basis of first-hand knowledge. The provisions of Clauses 153 and 157 will prevent that.
One always used to hear a great deal from the Conservatives about Edmund Burke, who saw society as made up of a series of little platoons. In the cohesion of those little platoons he saw a great deal of the cohesion that makes society hang together. When we listen to Conservatives now we hear of nothing but individuals and the state. The little platoons are being disbanded; they are going the way of the Highland regiments. Among those little platoons, the local authorities have had an important place for many centuries. In taking this discretion away from them, the Secretary of State is creating a great deal of work. The measure will produce slow reactions. Despite provisions for yet more regulations which are designed to prevent it, it will produce a great deal of unnecessary uniformity. It will do a great deal of harm. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support my noble friend. My concerns about the provisions to which he has drawn attention are not as regards the paper chase. They are simpler and more fundamental. Despite the Government's lip service to the need for flexibility, for response to local circumstances, and so on—I have already said that it appears in their consultation paper
44
on allocation—they cannot bear to allow local housing authorities to take decisions for themselves. In the interests of good government I could understand an argument that the clauses should provide for classes of persons who will be qualifying persons, allowing a local housing authority to add other classes. These clauses allow the Secretary of State to prescribe classes of persons who are not qualifying persons.
It seems so harsh and centralised that it almost defies belief. Clause 157(4) states:
"The Secretary of State may … specify factors which a local housing authority shall not take into account".
I agree that a local housing authority should not take into account whether an applicant has red hair. However, I do not believe that any local housing authority whose members submit themselves on a four-yearly or annual basis to election will behave in such a silly fashion. Local housing authorities have an ability to assess qualifications, needs and so on for themselves, in the light of their own circumstances. That has already been alluded to, not only by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in moving an earlier amendment, but also rightly by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in moving the amendment, the noble Earl, with characteristic modesty, disapplied almost all the regulation-making powers in Part IV of the Bill. He went on to say that it was a "nationalisation" Bill. I fail to see the connection between the two, but the noble Earl in his wisdom obviously finds one, even if it is not shared by other people. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that the provision was harsh and centralised.
There are good reasons for having the Bill as it is. The purpose of the regulation-making powers is twofold. First, as already discussed in our consideration of the government amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Mackay earlier, we propose to use the power to remove the entitlement to social housing from certain classes of people from abroad. We may also use it to confer an entitlement on certain descriptions of people who, we believe, should be entitled to be considered for permanent accommodation by a local authority. We have in mind, for example, giving anyone over 18 who is owed a duty under the homelessness legislation a right to appear on the housing register.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, thought that the Secretary of State was taking all the decisions on who goes on the register. I remind him that in our January 1996 consultation we made it clear that we would only limit access to the register in respect of certain classes of people from abroad. However, we are minded to give entitlement to appear on the register to certain people who have clear needs—in other words, those who are owed a duty under the homelessness legislation. One might say, "Why do all that by regulation?" The answer is in order to make it flexible. We do not wish to put all possible permutations that might arise into the Bill and set them in concrete. By having orders, we can amend and adjust the provisions from time to time as circumstances change.

45
Amendment No. 15 deletes subsection (4) from Clause 154. That is the regulation-making power for the Secretary of State to prescribe the content of an authority's housing register. If a person is entitled to see his entry on the housing register, there should be a need to ensure that it contains information which is of use to him.
Clause 157 is exposed to no less than four amendments. Amendment No. 20 deletes subsection (3), thereby removing the regulation-making power under which the Secretary of State may specify further descriptions of people to whom preference is to be given. Since the power is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure—I sense the noble Earl is somewhat fonder of it than he is of the negative procedure—his amendment seems off-beam because the matter will be able to be discussed by Parliament.
Subsection (4) would be lost from the clause under Amendment No. 21. That is the regulation-making power for the Secretary of State to specify the factors which a local housing authority shall not take into account in allocating accommodation. An example would be where an authority sought to give priority to people solely on the basis that they had been born in the area. That seems unfair.
Amendment No. 22 demolishes yet another subsection of Clause 157—subsection (5). That is the regulation-making power for the Secretary of State to prescribe the principles in accordance with which a scheme for the allocations procedure is to be followed. We are minded to use the power to make regulations restricting the involvement of elected members from decisions on individual applications. Amendment No. 23 disposes of subsection (6).
That is all good, swiping draconian stuff. If we take the amendments together, they would leave Part VI open to a kaleidoscope of interpretation and application by local authorities. They could well do things quite differently. If authorities were to be left entirely to their own devices in the field of allocations, I fear that an intolerable situation would develop with inconsistencies and unfairness creeping in all over the place.
I know that secondary legislation is anathema to the noble Earl. However, in an area such as this we must have regulations. I ask him to delve deep into his conscience and realise that if we were to put everything on the face of the Bill, there would be no way of altering it, short of other primary legislation. Knowing the noble Earl's dislike, like mine, of too much primary legislation, I am sure that he will agree that it is better to have it in secondary legislation.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Earl has made the case for my amendment a great deal better than I did. In the course of answering, he entirely mistook its purpose. I am not just arguing about primary versus secondary legislation. My argument is that I do not see why the Secretary of State should have the powers at all. It seems to me an outrage that he should have them. It is a bureaucratic nightmare, a centralisation and the
46
imposition of a remote and uninformed judgment on a local and informed judgment. It is a gross constitutional impropriety.
The Minister said that it would create a kaleidoscope. But the Government have admitted in discussion of Clause 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill as well as in this Bill that different regulations may be needed for different areas. The Government admit the need for a kaleidoscope because they admit the variety of local housing circumstances. If there has to be a kaleidoscope, why should it not be judged by those best qualified to do so—those who live in the area and who meet the people there every day. They should do it rather than have it all taken into the hands of Whitehall.
I did not expect the Minister to understand what I meant when I described it as a "nationalisation" Bill. I mean that the Government are turning local authorities into departments of Whitehall. That is not what local authorities are for. Because they are elected at different times and places and because they may be of a different political complexion from the governing party, no matter which party that may be, local authorities are a necessary part of the political variety which makes this a free country. To take that away I regard as a grave error of judgment.
The noble Earl recommended the measures to me on the ground that they were designed to disentitle people from abroad. I know that he has been away and I too am glad to see him back in his place. However, if he had not been away he would not have supposed that that would act as a recommendation to me. Why is it the Government's business to decide? I understand why, once they have set out on that course, they need flexibility. Once they have taken powers that are too detailed for them to have at all, they need regulation-making powers in order to change their minds and further regulation-making powers in order to change their changes of mind. "Greater fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em" and so on ad infinitum.
Once again, I recommend to the Minister that he study the report of his noble friend Lord Renton on the drafting of legislation. He drew attention to the fact that this over-detailed, over-prescriptive, way of legislating based on a desire to foresee all possible cases—which of course no legislator ever can—necessarily leads to a multiplication of powers. Although it is moved by the pursuit of certainty, it ultimately ends in exactly the opposite.
Above all, I believe what lies behind the Secretary of State's judgment is the utter impatience felt by all executives, and even more badly by those who have been there too long, with any check to their power to do what they like. This Government have shown great impatience with anything that has impeded their will. They have shown impatience with the judges, the European Union, the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, the Church, this House, and with local authorities. We are seeing here a part of a very wide constitutional battery. It has occasionally been parodied by governments who have been in office even longer than this Government have.

47
King Xerxes was once bringing an invading army across a strait and built a bridge of boats to march it across. When a storm came up and blew away his bridge of boats, King Xerxes ordered his soldiers to whip the sea. That is what happens when people have been in power for too long. I wish to ask the opinion of the House.
5.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 147.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Avebury, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Berkeley, L. [Teller.]

McNally, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Methuen, L.

Carlisle, E.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dubs, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Serota, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Shepherd, L.

Fitt, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Geraint, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gregson, L.

Taveme, L.

Hamwee, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Haskel, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tope, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kennet, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Butterworth, L.

Addison, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ailsa, M.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Aldington, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Carnock, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Ashboume, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller]

Balfour, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Biddulph, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Blaker, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Blatch, B.

Courtown, E.

Blyth, L.

Cox, B.

Boardman, L.

Craigavon, V.

Bowness, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Crathorne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cuckney, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Denham, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Digby, L.

Burnham, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

48

Downshire, M.

Moyne, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Munster, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elles, B.

Nelson, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Newall, L.

Elton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Erroll, E.

Norrie, L.

Feldman, L.

Northesk, E.

Ferrers, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Flather, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Palmer, L.

Goschen, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Pender, L.

Halsbury, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Rees, L.

Henley, L.

Rennell, L.

Renton L

Hogg, B.

Renwick, L.

Holderness, L.

Romney, E.

Hooper, B.

St Davids V.

Howe, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Seccombe, B.

Inglewood, L.

Sharples, B

Kimball, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Kintore, E.

Skelmersdale L

Knutsford, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Strange, B

Lauderdale, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Leigh, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lindsay, E.

Swansea, L.

Liverpool, E.

Swinton, E.

Long, V.

Teviot, L.

Lucas, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tollemache, L.

McConnell, L.

Torrington, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Vivian, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Vlarlesford, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Waterford, M.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wharton, B.

Mersey, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wilcox, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wynford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 9 and 10:
Page 98, line 35, after ("prescribe") insert ("other").
Page 98, line 36, leave out ("a") and insert ("local housing authorities generally or any particular").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 along with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 11 I have to advise the House that were that to be agreed to I would not be able to call Amendment No. 12.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 98, line 38, leave out ("any such regulations") and insert ("subsection (1A) and any regulations under subsection (2)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 12 along with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 13 I have to advise the House that were that to be agreed to I would not be able to call Amendment No. 14.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 98, line 42, after ("by") insert ("subsection (1A) or").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendment No. 14 with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 154 [The housing register]:
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 155 [Operation of housing register]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 99, leave out line 18 and insert—
("( ) When a local housing authority put a person on their housing register (on his application or otherwise), they shall notify him that they have done so.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 16 I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. These amendments establish a formal review procedure for requesting a review of a decision to refuse to put somebody's name on a housing register or to remove it.
We have always been concerned to ensure that the benefits of a review procedure of this kind should somehow be made. The need for a formal review procedure is important where access to the housing register is concerned as this, in effect, controls access to long-term social housing. Your Lordships will no doubt be aware that many local authorities impose restrictions on access to their housing registers, for example, by reason of age or local connection. They will continue to be able to do so under the provisions of this part, subject to regulations made by the Secretary of State. The House has already discussed at some length the possible content of these regulations.
When the question of a formal review procedure was raised during Committee stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said that he would consider bringing forward alternative proposals at a later stage, and that is what these amendments are.
Amendment No. 16 requires authorities to notify applicants that they have been placed on the housing register. Amendment No. 17 requires an authority to notify the applicant of an adverse decision, and of his right to request a review. Amendment No. 18 deals with the review process itself and the procedure for notifying
50
applicants of a decision on a review. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations about the form that the review process should take.
I hope the noble Baroness will not mind, even if her noble friend, Lord Russell, minds, that the Secretary of State will be able to make regulations to this. I do not think the noble Baroness will mind because we have tried to meet the points about which she was concerned, and we have brought these amendments forward to do just that. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I welcome these amendments. With regard to the regulation-making powers, I retain a certain cynicism about regulation-making powers in general. There are only so many times in an afternoon when one can make the point. I accept that these things may need to be fleshed out.
I should like to ask the Minister a question as regards Amendment No. 18 which allows for provision, by regulations, in the new subclause (2),
"requiring the decision on review to be made by a person of appropriate seniority …".
Are the Government intending, by regulation, specifically to include or exclude members? Are the Government anticipating that the review will be made by a senior officer, or is it possible that members may be involved? I ask the point not in order to advocate the involvement of members—there are arguments as to whether or not that may be a good thing—but because I am genuinely interested in what the Government are proposing.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl for rising again. I welcome the amendment generally, but ask another question. Subsection (6) of Amendment No. 17, which is repeated as subsection (6) of Amendment No. 18, effectively says that:
"Notice required to be given to a person under this section shall be given in writing …"
which, normally, I would submit, would be expected to mean that a letter would be posted to the applicant advising him of the situation. Then it goes on to say:
"and, if not received by him, shall be treated as having been given if it is made available at the authority's office for a reasonable period for collection by him."
We need to appreciate, when considering this subsection, the actual situation in housing offices. Some of them are very busy indeed; some of them deal with an enormous number of inquiries by tenants and applicants for housing. One of the risks associated with this particular subsection is that it may encourage applicants who fall into this category to keep going along to their local housing office to inquire whether the relevant notices come forward. It also would imply that a local authority would not have to post the letter. It just says "given in writing". Then they have a fall-back position of saying that as long as there is a copy in the office available for collection that appears to be all right. I should have thought that that was not a terribly satisfactory way for a public service to go about its business.

51
Having said that, there is a genuine difficulty, if one considers those people who may apply to go on the local housing register and who are literally homeless and living on the street. Obviously, people in that kind of category will not be in a position, generally speaking, to receive mail from the local authority. I wonder, first, whether we could have some explanation of the Government's interpretation of how they would envisage the subsection working and whether the reference to notices being made available at the authority's office is in fact constructed to ensure that homeless and roofless people living on the streets have some mechanism for being in contact and receiving those written notifications. If that is the case, I wonder whether it might be useful to identify separately that particular category of persons. It may be that that is the Government's interpretation of that subsection anyway, but it would be useful for the House to have some explanation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, there is an interesting and somewhat unusual provision in Amendment No. 18, which states that:
"Provision may be made by regulations … requiring the decision on review to be made by a person of appropriate seniority who was not involved in the original decision".
I do not know whether anywhere else in the Bill there is a definition of "appropriate seniority" and I do not know—it is my ignorance—whether a similar provision is included in other legislation. The expression "appropriate seniority" is one on which there could be differing views. It would be helpful if my noble friend could explain exactly what the Government have in mind there and what "appropriate seniority" in this case means.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may deal at the same time with the questions of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. There are probably hundreds of thousands of decisions on housing made throughout the country. They are quite often made by relatively junior people and it is possible that there may be mistakes. The idea behind the Bill is that when a person appeals, it will go to a more senior person than the first one. It will not go to the person who made the original decision but to a more senior person. Some authorities may wish that the reviews go to one person and another authority may wish them to go to another. It is even possible, as the noble Baroness asked, that they go to members. They could be involved. The point is that they should go to a person who is above the rank of the person who originally took the decision. It will be up to the local authority to decide how best to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is worried about the notice being required to be given to a person. It shall be,
"given in writing and, if not received by him, shall be treated as having been given".
I do not believe that there is anything sinister in that. Sometimes people move away. Sometimes a person can be given a letter and, if he is in a particularly fractious frame of mind, he throws it back into your face.
52
Sometimes he might even tear it up and say, "I'm not going to take any notice of that." It is not good enough to say that a person has to have read it because a person cannot be forced to read it. If one has gone through every reasonable method of getting in touch with that person to tell him what is being done and he is either not available or refuses it, then it is lodged with the local authority and one says, "We've done our best. This is the fact, which he can come and see whenever he wants." That is the reason for having that passage in the Bill. We do not feel that there is anything sinister in it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is a similar provision in any other legislation, or is this one unique?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg my noble friend's pardon. I forgot to answer that question. If I were to have answered it, I should have had to say I do not know. I shall find out whether or not it is unique.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 155, insert the following new clause—
NOTIFICATION OF ADVERSE DECISION AND RIGHT TO REVIEW
(".—(1) If a local housing authority decide—

(a) not to put a person on their housing register who has applied to be put on, or

(b) to remove a person from their housing register otherwise than at his request,

they shall notify him of their decision and of the reasons for it.
(2) The notice shall also inform him of his right to request a review of the decision and of the time within which such a request must be made.
(3) A request for review must be made before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which he is notified of the authority's decision and reasons, or such longer period as the authority may in writing allow.
(4) There is no right to request a review of the decision reached on an earlier review.
(5) On a request being duly made to them, the authority shall review their decision.
(6) Notice required to be given to a person under this section shall be given in writing and, if not received by him, shall be treated as having been given if it is made available at the authority's office for a reasonable period for collection by him.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 with Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 155. insert the following new clause—
PROCEDURE. ON A REVIEW
(".—(I) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations as to the procedure to be followed in connection with a review under section (Notification of adverse decision and right to review).
Nothing in the following provisions affects the generality of this power.

53
(2) Provision may be made by regulations—

(a) requiring the decision on review to be made by a person of appropriate seniority who was not involved in the original decision, and

(b) as to the circumstances in which the person concerned is entitled to an oral hearing, and whether and by whom he may be represented at such a hearing.

(3) The authority shall notify the person concerned of the decision on the review.
(4) If the decision is to confirm the original decision, they shall also notify him of the reasons for the decision.
(5) Provision may be made by regulations as to the period within which the review must be carried out and notice given of the decision.
(6) Notice required to be given to a person under this section shall be given in writing and, if not received by him, shall be treated as having been given if it is made available at the authority's office for a reasonable period for collection by him.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 157 [Allocation in accordance with allocation scheme]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 100, line 11, at end insert ("including disabled people occupying inaccessible or unsuitable housing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 70. Grouped with those two amendments is Amendment No. 73, which I tabled to ensure that the Government themselves tabled an amendment, as they said in Committee they would. Indeed, they have done so. It is Amendment No. 71 which, strangely, is grouped with Amendment No. 42. Even more oddly, my noble friend Lord Mottistone tabled an amendment to that amendment (Amendment No. 71), which is Amendment No. 72, and that amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 56. So there is bit of a mare's nest. However, I propose to deal now with only Amendments Nos. 19 and 70, as I said. I shall not move Amendment No. 73 in due course. No doubt some government department responsible for grouping amendments will make certain that my noble friend Lord Mottistone has word that his Amendment No. 72 (his amendment to my noble friend's Amendment No. 71) is grouped with Amendment No. 42.
Amendment No. 19 is designed to ensure that the allocation criteria for priority in social housing includes disabled people living in inaccessible or unsuitable housing. Clause 157 refers to the priorities for local authorities when allocating permanent social housing. There are serious concerns that disabled people living in inaccessible or unsuitable housing will receive no higher priority under this system than a disabled person living in accessible accommodation who wishes to move for other reasons.
There must be some mechanism for making a distinction between a person who requires settled accommodation and who is currently in reasonable accommodation and a person who requires settled accommodation who is currently in completely
54
unsuitable accommodation. This amendment seeks to ensure that the first category—category (a) as listed in the clause—is clearly applied not only to those living in
"insanitary or overcrowded or … unsatisfactory housing conditions",
but also to disabled people whose housing is unsatisfactory, not because of its condition or state of repair but due to its inaccessibility or unsuitability for the needs of that disabled person.
If reasonable preference is given to non-disabled people for a variety of reasons, including living in unsatisfactory housing conditions, the same category of preference must be open to disabled people because they are living in inaccessible housing.
At Committee stage, the Minister placed considerable emphasis on category (e), which refers to reasonable preference being given to:
"someone with a particular need for settled accommodation".
However, the Minister stated that the words "unsatisfactory housing conditions" in category (a) would cover a disabled person who occupied inaccessible or unsuitable housing. He did not, however, state that the guidance would specifically point that out to local authorities. Rather, the Minister said that guidance would draw the attention of local authorities to their responsibilities towards people with physical disabilities.
It remains a serious concern that the guidance may simply make reference to general responsibilities rather than pointing out the wider interpretation of category (a), which the Minister gave. It is still important therefore that the issue is clarified on the face of the Bill. That will ensure that disabled people and local authorities have a clear view as to how category (a) applies to those people living in inaccessible accommodation. It will further ensure that there are no disputes or legal cases surrounding the interpretation of general statements within guidance. If the Government are not prepared to add the information to primary legislation, a commitment that local authorities should include inaccessible or unsuitable housing for disabled people within category (a) should be clearly stated in guidance.
The purpose of Amendment No. 70 is to ensure that when the local authority discharges its duty towards homeless people in priority need by satisfying itself that other suitable accommodation is available that accommodation meets the needs of the household, including any disabled members of that household. This section of the legislation allows local authorities to discharge their duty towards homeless people in priority need by satisfying themselves that suitable accommodation is available in the district. It is important that that accommodation meets the needs of the household and, in particular, the needs of any disabled members of the household.
In practice, local authorities could satisfy themselves that suitable accommodation is available by being aware that local letting agencies have vacant properties or that local private landlords have vacancies. Their only duty is to provide the applicant with advice and such assistance as they consider appropriate in the

55
circumstances in any attempts he may make to secure such accommodation. Without regard to the needs of the household, particularly those of the disabled member, there could be considerable difficulties.
I am advised that RADAR is aware of a case which effectively illustrates the problems of local authorities putting homeless disabled people into completely inappropriate accommodation. A London borough agreed in 1994 that a young disabled woman was unintentionally homeless and in priority need. As it could find no suitable accommodation within its own housing stock, it gave her one offer of temporary housing association property which was completely inaccessible to her. Due to her disability, the young woman had extreme difficulty using stairs and required warm accommodation. The accommodation she was offered was on the third floor with no lift and no heating. It was also extremely expensive, requiring not only housing benefit, but also taking a considerable contribution from her small medical pension.
As she was literally homeless, with nowhere to go, the young woman accepted the offer of accommodation; it was the only offer she had. Two years later the young woman is still living in that third floor flat. She requires daily support from social services, including doing all her shopping. She cannot get out of the flat independently and her condition has worsened. The local authority agrees that she requires wheelchair accessible accommodation but has made no offers of ground floor accommodation.
During the Committee stage my noble friend the Minister stated that the homeless code of guidance already referred to the need to ensure that any accommodation provided meets the needs of disabled persons where necessary and that that advice would be repeated in the revised code of guidance. However, there appears to be no specific reference within the current code to accommodation specifically meeting the needs of disabled people. The relevant section of the code states in paragraph 12.4:
"The sort of accommodation a council can secure will depend on the circumstances of the particular household. Do they need special care and support from the health services or social services? What is their own preference? How will they pay for it?"
Local authorities must also have regard to other duties and legislation concerning slum clearance, overcrowding and houses in multiple occupation. That section does not refer to the need to ensure that any accommodation provided meets the needs of disabled people. It does not address the issues referred to in the amendment. There is no specific mention of disabled people or the requirement for accommodation to be accessible. In practice, this rather vague guidance does not have the effect of ensuring that disabled people are offered accessible accommodation which is suitable to their needs, as illustrated by the case I quoted. The result is that disabled people rely on case law definitions of suitability and contemplate legal action. That is not a good solution to the problem, particularly as people are often literally roofless with nowhere else to go and do not have the time for lengthy arguments about case law or to look at legal action.
The other suggestion made during Committee stage was that the Secretary of State should specify by order other matters which could be taken into account in determining whether or not accommodation is suitable. Surely it would be preferable to decide at this stage whether the criteria set out in the amendment should be taken into account when determining whether or not accommodation is suitable. They are the basic criteria which determine whether an individual can live in a property and are best placed on the face of the Bill rather than being left to order-making powers at a later stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support the amendment. Indeed, I wanted to add my name to it, but I was too late to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, stated the case clearly and convincingly.
It is important to include Amendment No. 19 on the face of the Bill. Inaccessible or unsuitable accommodation may have a serious spinoff or impact on disabled people and can limit their independence. Also, it can affect not only one's physical health and wellbeing, but also one's psychological and social welfare. In some instances it may retard and even prevent one's eventual rehabilitation. A case was instanced by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen.
It would also be helpful to include Amendment No. 70 on the face of the Bill. I hope that the Minister—I am delighted to see him back at his post; I believe he has been back for a couple of days, but this is the first time I have seen him—will give us an encouraging reply.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister has only himself to blame for facing this amendment. These are precisely the problems that arise when the Secretary of State takes the power to specify all the criteria for allocation of local authority housing. It means that as soon as he forgets to put anything in—as he has here—he will face well-founded, heartfelt and well-informed arguments suggesting that he do something about it. Inevitably, we will have a politicisation of the debate on the criteria for need. That debate has begun here and I cannot think of any more powerful ground on which it could have begun.
I particularly welcome Amendment No. 73. Simply to say that other suitable accommodation is available may be a temptation to a cash-strapped local authority which is very near its capping limit. And, as in the case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, other accommodation which is suitable to anyone else may be completely unsuitable for somebody who lacks the mobility to get there. I found the example given by the noble Lord extremely moving. Normally when one thinks of the homeless one thinks that the one asset that they enjoy is their mobility; their ability to come and go and perhaps sleep in a different doorway because the wind is warmer in one than another. But if one lacks mobility, one cannot do that. It makes the pain of homelessness far greater than it would be under any other circumstances I can think of. These are important amendments. If the Secretary of State intends to keep control of all the criteria of allocation, he must find some way of accepting them.
6 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. The first amendment goes to the provision in Clause 157, which refers to reasonable preference being given to people living in, "unsatisfactory housing conditions". The reason why I particularly support the amendment is that I am not yet persuaded that "unsatisfactory" refers to anything more than the housing conditions. In particular, I am not persuaded that it can be construed to mean unsatisfactory for a particular person even if it is satisfactory for another.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) for what she has said. She said that she hoped that I would give a sympathetic reply. I hope to do just that and that it will satisfy her. I also hope that it will satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, too. The noble Earl is in a combative mood today. First, he said that we should not have any regulations and he then moved a whole host of amendments to take out all the regulations. Secondly, he says that if one is to have regulations, this particular regulation has not been included. Thirdly, he then explained how Xerxes created a bridge of boats and when the wind and the waves got up, the boats were upset and the men fell in the water and they were ordered to whip the sea. As regards that amendment, I wonder whether Xerxes was more successful in whipping the sea than the noble Earl was in whipping his own troops into the Division Lobby.
The fact is that one has to have regulations. There cannot be a completely different panoply of housing rules throughout the country so that Somerset will be different from Lancashire and Yorkshire different from Birmingham. There has to be some kind of regulation running all the way through, particularly as the Government provide a very great part of the funding.
What concerns me here is that the noble Earl blames the Government for not including various items whereas I am much more concerned that we see that the points are covered. In my view—and this is where I hope to be able to satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and, with a generous attitude from the noble Earl, persuade him also—these matters are covered.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 70, to which my noble friend has spoken, both relate to the particular needs of disabled people. Amendment No. 70 would insert into Clause 185 a requirement that other suitable accommodation, which is available for occupation, must meet the needs of the household in terms of affordability and size and it must be accessible to disabled members of the household.
Clause 185 in fact provides that the accommodation must be suitable for the needs of the applicant and his household. Where the household includes a person with physical disabilities, it must be suitable for his needs as well. I draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Swinfen to the terms of government Amendment No. 71 to Clause 185. This will provide that the advice and assistance must be commensurate with the personal
58
circumstances of the applicant. I can assure my noble friend Lord Swinfen that this matter will be fully covered also in the forthcoming revised guidance.
So I believe that the concerns that my noble friend has expressed—I can well understand them and he is entirely justified to be concerned—have been met in the Bill as it is. I admit to just a twinge of regret that the amendment which my noble friend originally put down did not appear on the face of the Bill. Originally, when it appeared in the list of amendments, the authorities would have been required to meet, "the needs of any desirable members of the household". Of course, that was a misprint, but I wondered how "desirability" would be defined to the satisfaction of all parties. One also wondered what would happen to the undesirable members. If they were rendered homeless, just think what would happen then!
My noble friend has seen the folly of his ways—or at least his drafting and, possibly, even his handwriting. Even if he had written the amendment properly, which he has now done, it is still not necessary. Amendment No. 19 would insert into Clause 157 a requirement that disabled people who are occupying unsuitable or inaccessible housing should be among those to whom reasonable preference is given in allocating housing accommodation.
I hesitate to tell my noble friend, because I admire the work that he does in this direction, but this is an unnecessary amendment. Clause 157(2)(a) specifies that reasonable preference is to be given to those occupying "unsatisfactory housing conditions". In our view that description must, and does, embrace,
"disabled people occupying inaccessible or unsuitable housing".
Under Clause 157(3)(a) and (b) the Secretary of State can specify by regulations further descriptions of people to whom preference is to be given and he is enabled to amend existing descriptions.
The allocations provisions of Clause 157 grew out of Section 22 of the Housing Act 1985. We are not aware that the omission of a specific reference to disabled people has in the past caused any problems, but if it did, we have the power to put matters right in the regulations should that be found to be the case. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Swinfen for the tragic example which he gave. I shall certainly look at the provisions to see whether that kind of case will be likely to be reflected in future.
There is also the guidance. That will deal not only with homelessness and housing advice, but also with allocations. I shall look carefully at what my noble friend said about disabled people in the context of allocations. We shall try to incorporate any salient points in the guidance. In drawing up guidance on the applications provisions of Clause 157, we shall cover matters of physical accessibility.
My noble friend was concerned about the needs of the disabled not being covered by guidance, but I can assure him that we shall expand the matters on guidance. The present code was written before the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 was implemented so there is room for improvement there. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that what was

59
suitable for one person was not necessarily suitable for another. That may well be the case. The test of suitability is applied on a case-by-case basis. It should take account of the applicant's particular and peculiar needs. That is the reason why it is important that each person should be considered individually. The same applies to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who was also concerned about that matter.
I hope that I have been able to persuade your Lordships that, despite the quite correct concerns of your Lordships about making certain that disabled people are properly looked after, that is the case in the Bill as it stands. I hope that that will prove satisfactory to my noble friend Lord Swinfen; to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and to the two noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, even if one is a lady.I hope that they will both consider that their cases and concerns are met.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I raise one issue with him which he has not touched on? I did not intervene earlier because the case for these amendments had been made so eloquently and the initial response from the Minister suggested that all the points that had been raised by the amendments would be accommodated.
But the noble Earl has not touched on one particular aspect of the amendments which is quite important. Amendment No. 70 refers to meeting,
"the needs of the household in terms of affordability".
Those of us who are keenly interested in this Bill are very indebted to the noble Earl for the letter that he sent us today in which he makes reference to affordability raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, at Committee stage. In that letter the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, identified the fact that 80 per cent. of applicants for assistance receive housing benefit and that the normal limits of affordability regarding housing benefit would therefore apply. However, we are left with 20 per cent. who would not come under the general aegis of housing benefit, and the noble Earl has not said anything about the suitability of accommodation in terms of its affordability.
We must bear in mind that, because of the problems of negative equity and repossessions, significant numbers of people are now becoming homeless and are seeking support and help with their housing who would not normally be on council house waiting lists. Therefore, can the noble Earl say something about affordability in the context of the suitability of the accommodation? I hope that the Government will be able to give us some assurance on that matter. If not, I think that the text of Amendment No. 70, to which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, spoke so eloquently should perhaps be pressed.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord is relatively simple in that a house cannot be suitable for a person if he cannot afford to live in it. Therefore, "suitability" covers "affordability". The Ritz might be a suitable place in which to live, but if a person
60
cannot afford that it would be quite inappropriate to send him to the Ritz. As I have said, I think that "suitability" covers "affordability".
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before my noble friend finally sits down, I wonder whether he could clarify the phrase "unsatisfactory housing conditions". I got the impression that my noble friend was referring to more than just the physical structure of a building and its cleanliness, heating and draught-proofing. I have always understood that "unsatisfactory housing conditions" means poor quality housing and housing that should be condemned. I was referring to the "usability" of a house for a disabled person. It would be useful if my noble friend could clarify that point for me.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the phrase "poor quality housing" must cover a number of things and must relate to the person concerned. That phrase would apply if the rain was coming in and if the sewers stank. A property would also be "poor quality housing" if it comprised one bedroom and a bathroom but the occupant was a single mother with five children. That would be considered "unsuitable". Equally, a property would be unsuitable if it was at the top of a block of flats without a lift and was offered to someone in a wheelchair. That would obviously be improper. The phrase covers more than just the physical condition of the housing, but that is an important element of it.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for going just a little further on that point, which needed clarification. On the whole, my noble friend has answered all my concerns, but I should like to read what he has said and to reserve my position as to whether to return to this on Third Reading. However, given what has been said I doubt whether that will be necessary.
Referring to the first version of the amendment, I know that this was not due to my handwriting (because the amendment was handed in in typewritten form) but I like to think that everyone is "desirable" to someone. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Schedule 14 [Allocation of housing accommodation: consequential amendments]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 179, line 34, at end insert—
("Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 (c.)
.—(I) Section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 (entitlement to housing accommodation and assistance) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (entitlement to housing accommodation)—

(a) for "housing authority" substitute "local housing authority within the meaning of the Housing Act 1985", and

(b) for "the accommodation Part" substitute "Part H of that Act".

61
(3) After subsection (4) insert—
"(5) This section does not apply in relation to any allocation of housing accommodation to which Part VI of the Housing Act 1996 (allocation of housing accommodation) applies.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 24, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 251, 253, 254, 255 and 261.
As I have already said on a number of occasions, the Government are taking steps to ensure that persons who are subject to immigration control and have been given leave to remain on the basis that they will not have recourse to public funds do not have access to local authority housing.
The Government's wider policy aim of excluding such persons from entitlement to any tenancy of, or licence to occupy, council accommodation is achieved by the provisions of Clause 9(1) of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, which has been considered thoroughly both in another place and by your Lordships.
It is important that that provision should continue to apply when the Housing Bill comes into force. The purpose of this group of amendments is to bring that about. However, there would be one exception to the exclusion from entitlement to local authority accommodation of persons subject to immigration control with no recourse to public funds.
Those noble Lords who attended the House during consideration of the Asylum and Immigration Bill at Report stage will recall that Clause 9 of that Bill was amended at the request of a number of noble Lords—including some of my noble friends, but more particularly the noble Earl, Lord Russell—to enable provision to be made by order to allow local housing authorities to lease accommodation to a college or university for sub-letting to its overseas students. Subject to the accommodation being surplus to the authority's general housing needs, such leasing would be allowed regardless of whether the students being accommodated were, or were not, persons entitled to be allocated a council tenancy.
The amendments would ensure that the broader provision on exclusions in Clause 9(1) of the Asylum and Immigration Bill continues to apply in England and Wales. This is important since the housing register is not the only route by which a housing authority may make its accommodation available.
Where an authority has hard-to-let accommodation which is not desired by those on its register it may consider making this available en bloc to other organisations seeking modest accommodation. This could include organisations in the voluntary sector looking for accommodation for persons who have no claim to public housing.
The amendments would also ensure that the "leasing" provision, if I may call it that, remains in force, allowing local housing authorities to continue to lease to colleges and universities accommodation which is surplus to their requirements.
The amendments will ensure that persons subject to immigration control who are in this country on the understanding that they will not have recourse to public funds do not have access to publicly subsidised local authority housing. At the same time, they will allow an
62
order to be made enabling housing authorities to lease surplus accommodation to colleges and universities which want to provide affordable accommodation for their overseas students. From our previous debates, I am sure that your Lordships will welcome the amendments. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister warmly for this leasing concession to universities, which he originally announced when we were considering the Asylum and Immigration Bill and which he has now carried through in this Bill. I shall not say any more about the rest—and I am sure that the noble Lord is far too experienced to take that silence for consent.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 164 [Index of defined expressions: Part VI]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 102, line 13, after ("tenancy") insert ("and introductory tenant").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 25, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 26, 181, 183, 184, 256 and 257.
These amendments tidy up the definition of an "introductory tenancy" and a "secure tenancy" used in Parts V and VI of the Bill and included in the general definitions in Clause 211. They will ensure that, in line with the Housing Act 1985, where a tenant has been granted a licence to occupy a local authority house or flat, rather than a tenancy, the provisions will apply to the licence as if it were a tenancy. The amendments are for the avoidance of doubt and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 102, line 18, after ("tenancy") insert ("and secure tenant").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 165 [Homelessness and threatened homelessness]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 102, line 22, leave out ("there is") and insert ("he has").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 27 and, if I may, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 30, 32 and 34. All these amendments are small but significant, particularly as they relate to Clauses 165 and 166. The need for them has to some extent been identified by Shelter, to whom we are most grateful. The amendments are necessary because the current drafting of Clauses 165 and 166 has an effect which was not intended. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will welcome these amendments generally. The present homelessness provisions in Part III of the Housing Act 1985 deal separately with two different issues concerning whether accommodation is available to an applicant. The first condition is whether the applicant is homeless because he does not have accommodation available to him. The second

63
condition relates to the duty that he is owed once unintentional homelessness and priority need has been established. That duty is to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant and his household. Broadly speaking, the drafting restates the provisions in Part III regarding the assessment of whether someone is homeless and the question of a duty to secure that accommodation is available for an applicant.
The current drafting of subsection (1) of Clause 166 means that subsections (3) and (4) of that clause, together with all the provisions of Clause 167, which broadly deal with the question of whether it would be reasonable for somebody to continue to occupy their present accommodation, would apply also to Part VII as a whole, which includes making available fresh accommodation. This is not what was intended. It is not needed and it would upset the structure of the legislation, which follows that of the 1985 Act and the case law which is based upon it. Instead, we are seeking to apply the definitions only to the assessment of whether a person is homeless. These amendments therefore combine to rectify the drafting of Clauses 165 and 166 and in short put the situation back as it was under Section 58 of the 1985 Act. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 31, which is in the group of amendments referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. This amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Perhaps I should specify what is meant by "family member". This Bill reaffirms much of the old Section 75 of the 1985 Housing Act, that where an authority has a homeless applicant accommodation should be suitable for him and his family or
"any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside there."
In the Government's amendment, to which Amendment No. 31 is an amendment, the Government have changed the wording to,
"any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him as a member of his family."
We cannot believe that is an oversight: it must be deliberate. That would therefore exclude all those who are not considered members of his family, even though they naturally and normally reside with the applicant: for example, a carer. If somebody was severely disabled—the importance of this was confirmed by the recent direct payments Act which was recently guided through your Lordships' House—the legislation expressly forbids any resident family member from being employed as a carer. Therefore, any paid live-in carer must expressly not be a member of the family. If you therefore seek accommodation with sufficient sleeping accommodation for that carer, it will be ruled out for consideration under the Government's phraseology. It would also, I believe, possibly apply to a same-sex partner, whether family member or not.
The court rulings seem to conflict on this issue. This amendment, therefore, would allow the authorities to decide who might reasonably be
64
expected to reside with the applicant, be they a family member or not, which would be done on the individual circumstances of the case. No local authority would be exploited by this amendment, as the local authority would decide and not the applicant himself or herself. Particularly in those two situations, it seems that people who at the moment under the 1985 Act would have a right to be considered—carers and same-sex partners—would be excluded by the Government's amendment as it currently stands from acquiring accommodation which is suitable and large enough for them all. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I always long to be helpful to the noble Baroness and it would be so encouraging if I could be helpful to her. Indeed, it would be a surprise and a delight to the noble Baroness too, but she does sometimes make life terribly difficult.
When speaking to the earlier Amendment No. 30, and others, I explained that it was our intention to rectify the drafting in Clauses 165 and 166 and to return the situation to what it was under Section 58 of the 1985 Act. Therefore, we would not have expected the amendment of the noble Baroness to be necessary. However, on looking at the matter further it became apparent that in drafting the provisions which relate to other persons who might reasonably be expected to reside with the applicant as a member of his family we have in fact cut out the provisions for professional carers who may be required to live in. This was not our intention, and I am delighted to tell the noble Baroness that I shall be happy to accept her amendment. I am very grateful to her for drawing the matter to my attention.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, let me thank the noble Earl most warmly. As he put it, it has indeed been a delight.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 102, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) A person is also homeless if he has accommodation but—

(a) he cannot secure entry to it, or

(b) it consists of a moveable structure, vehicle or vessel designed or adapted for human habitation and there is no place where he is entitled or permitted both to place it and to reside in it.

( ) A person shall not be treated as having accommodation unless it is accommodation which it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 166 [Meaning of accommodation available for occupation]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 102, line 32, leave out subsection (1).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 102, line 36, leave out from ("or") to end of line 37 and insert—
("(h) any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him as a member of his family.").
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 30, Amendment No. 31:
Line 3, leave out ("as a member of his family").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, as an amendment to Amendment No. 30.
On Question, Amendment No. 31, as an amendment to Amendment No. 30, agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 30, as amended, agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 102, line 37, at end insert—
("References in this Part to securing that accommodation is available for a person's occupation shall be construed accordingly.").
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 32, Amendment No. 33:
Line 2, at beginning insert —
("Accommodation made available subject to a tenancy shall not be regarded as available for a person's occupation if he is unable to comply, or it is unreasonable to expect him to comply, with the terms of the grant of the tenancy or the terms of the tenancy at the time of the grant, having regard, where such terms relate to the payment of rent or service charges or deposits of rent, to his own resources and any public assistance as is likely to be available to him.
The Secretary of State may by order specify—

(a) other circumstances in which accommodation is or is not to be regarded as available for a person, and

(b) other matters to be taken into account or disregarded in determining whether accommodation is available for a person.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to move Amendment No. 33, standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as an amendment to the Government's Amendment No. 32. I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 92, with which it is grouped. These are a pair of amendments on an issue raised earlier by my noble friend Lord Monkswell on affordability. I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but I was not persuaded that his reply fully covered all the points that had been raised. These amendments offer alternative routes to the same goal; the first amendment is about availability and the second amendment concerns suitability. There is no disagreement between us, I think, that if private rented accommodation is to be a realistic option for homeless families, it has to be affordable. It is increasingly important, given the fact that housing benefit only covers the full rent in something like 60 per cent. of cases and that the housing benefit situation has now been tightened up even more ruthlessly.
All the research I have seen suggests that eviction from the private rented sector is probably the single most common reason for homelessness, following only
66
the breakdown of shared arrangements with families and friends. Looking at the quarterly returns to the Department of the Environment on homelessness—these are randomly chosen but fairly typical district councils—I notice that in Northampton, in the last quarter that I looked at, something like 13 of the 87 families accepted as homeless had been evicted from the private rented sector. In Eden District Council, five out of 12 had been accepted in that quarter. In Bury St. Edmunds, 12 of the 40 had been accepted in that quarter. For anywhere between a quarter and a third of homeless families, according to the statistics of district councils I have seen, the loss of private rented accommodation was the main reason for homelessness. It is often, though not always, because they cannot pay the rent and their benefit does not cover it, but it may be that the situation has been worsened because of the issues of rent deposit schemes and rent in advance.
This situation is likely to get worse, not better, given that in this Bill the Government make the six-month shorthold tenancy the residual tenancy with landlords having to opt out rather than opt in. In future, housing insecurity in the private rented sector will grow, not diminish. The Awua judgment accepted, as I am sure do the Government, that affordability is a material consideration. This is particularly a private rented sector problem. Rents in the private rented sector are likely to be anything between two-thirds and three times as much as equivalent council housing, especially in inner cities.
The Government accepted all of this in the consultation paper on allocations earlier this year. They stated that reasonable preference should be given to those with limited opportunities to secure settled accommodation to reflect the particular difficulties that some households on low income might have in obtaining such accommodation in the private sector. Such households may also find that higher rents in the private sector are a deterrent to taking employment, given the rate at which housing benefit is withdrawn. Recent Rowntree research shows that families who are locked into housing benefit face a 65p taper before adding in the taper from council tax. If they find a part-time job and are on family credit they will pay a marginal tax rate of about 97p in the pound.
The only question is whether it is better to do it through the first amendment, which regards affordability as part of the consideration of what is available, or the second amendment, which defines what is considered to be suitable. We hope that the Minister will indicate his preferred route and support one of the two amendments. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the points that have been made are important. I am happy to support them. I do not believe that it is widely understood how far housing benefit now regularly falls short of meeting the rent. Shelter has today published a survey of a number of people rehoused in the private rented sector after homelessness. It finds that one fifth of them have had to find money from their benefits to pay their private sector rents. Shortfalls met from income support range from £2.15 to £23 a week. Twenty three pounds a week

67
out of income support does not leave one with very much to buy something to eat. We would welcome an assurance that in cases like that the accommodation would not be regarded as suitable. This is particularly important now that it will be universal practice, as it has been previous common practice, for people to be given only one offer and then to be found to be intentionally homeless if they do not take it up. It is even more important than before that that one offer should be suitable.
The noble Baroness said only one thing with which I disagreed. I refer to her reading of the Awua judgment. I have read that judgment with care. The precise point in that case was that Miss Awua had received an offer of permanent accommodation which she had refused. Since that was the central issue in the case everything else in the case was really obiter. As I understand it, it was not a finding by the court that temporary accommodation by itself was enough to prevent a person from being homeless. It was temporary accommodation only in the context of an offer of permanent accommodation which had already been made and refused. According to my understanding, the last paragraph of the judgment—which I regret I do not have to hand at this moment—made that point entirely clear. Since that is to be superseded by this Bill I do not need to spend too long on it. It would be a pity if a myth entered housing law based upon a judgment which caused confusion because there were too many reasons why the judge decided the matter as he did. Therefore, to find the ratio decidendi would require a considerable number of further cases. I hope that we will concentrate on the fact that, if there is only one offer, it must be suitable. It is not suitable if one has to find a large part of the rent out of one's income support.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I use this opportunity to put two questions to the Minister. First, I seek the confirmation of the Minister as to the meaning of "available". In particular, does it retain its normal meaning as "available for occupation by a particular person", attaching the availability to the person concerned? I ask that question because later, in the context of Clause 181, the Minister has tabled an amendment to provide for satisfaction "that the accommodation was suitable for him"; in other words, it applies suitability to an individual. I wonder whether there is any difference here to which we should be alerted.
Secondly, I should like to ask the Minister about the timetable for regulations. I thank him for his long letter which comments on a number of issues. That letter arrived in the course of this afternoon. In it the Minister says that his department intends to consult the relevant interested bodies about the content of regulations to be made under Part VII and to have those regulations ready in time for commencement. Can the Minister confirm that actual regulations will be ready for commencement, not—as might be read
68
into this—draft regulations? It is important that the regulations on suitability are in place by the time that these parts of the legislation are in force.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, flushed with the success of the previous amendment, I long to be helpful again to the noble Baroness. For the moment, my basket has run out of goodies, not because I disagree with the way in which the noble Baroness puts her case but because of the way in which the amendments may operate. The noble Baroness seeks to put beyond doubt that accommodation may be regarded as available to an applicant only if he is able to comply with the terms of the tenancy, in particular by being able to afford the rent. That may seem to be a perfectly reasonable proposition. Your Lordships will be aware that there was some discussion on the question of affordability at Committee stage when the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, proposed a similar amendment. There is already a degree of case law to support the proposition that someone is homeless if he cannot afford the rent of a property and that accommodation that may be offered in discharge of a duty is not suitable if the applicant cannot afford the rent. I refer to the answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. One may be offered the Ritz but if one cannot afford it it is not much good. The noble Baroness feels that the matter is not beyond doubt and seeks to insert a provision to this effect on the face of the Bill.
In speaking to the amendment of the noble Baroness in Committee, my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said that the proper place to set out what constituted affordability was in an order rather than on the face of the Bill. I believe that that is right. Circumstances and people's expectations as to what constitutes affordability are apt to change. It is important that we equip ourselves with powers which can adapt to changing attitudes and circumstances, even if that means, by the grace of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, secondary legislation. The noble Earl asked whether expensive accommodation was suitable. Accommodation is not suitable if a person has to find a large part of the rent himself and cannot afford it from his resources. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether availability attached to a person. I answer that by reminding the noble Baroness of the example that I gave earlier. A single parent with five children may be offered one bedroom and a kitchen. That may be available to someone but it is not available to her, nor is it suitable for her.
With regard to the regulations, we intend to make an order on affordability before the commencement of the Act, I hope by October, and we will consult on the regulations and the form that they will take beforehand. It will be the final order. It will not be the draft order.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I wonder whether there is as much difference between us as the Minister may think. Unless there was some slip of the tongue, what he said is that what counts as affordable would be conveyed in guidance. He did not

69
say what counts as available but what counts as affordable would be conveyed in guidance. I absolutely agree. What counts as affordable should be conveyed in guidance but the question of affordability as part of the definition of being available or suitable should be on the face of the Bill.
I wonder if, with the leave of the House, the Minister can confirm that he did say what he meant to say, in which case he is actually supporting my argument that "affordable" should be part of the definition of the criteria of what is available or suitable, but that what counts as affordable in the light of the housing benefit situation and local reference rents should indeed be carried by guidance. In that case, there would be no difference between us. Therefore, I wonder whether the noble Lord did mean to say that what counts as affordable becomes part of the guidance or whether he meant to say what counts as available be part of the guidance. With the leave of the House, perhaps he could help me.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will try to help the noble Baroness, though of course with words such as "available", "suitable" and "affordable" it can become quite complicated. Perhaps I can set the noble Baroness's mind at rest. I always enjoy doing so, and I seem to be doing that quite well this afternoon. I can confirm to her that we intend to make use of the order-making powers in this part to address the issue of affordability. We will use those powers in order to place beyond doubt that accommodation is suitable for an applicant only if it is affordable. We intend to discuss the detail of our proposal for this order with the local authority associations and other interested parties in due course. I hope that the noble Baroness may rest her head quietly in contentment, not only with my answer but also with the fact that we shall discuss it with the local authority associations before the order is produced.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that answer. Our difficulty, of course, is that the case law has been somewhat opaque. I am simply concerned as to whether something which is quite so pivotal to the notion of accessibility—that is whether the rents are affordable—can be left to order-making powers. Obviously the Minister has said this on a previous occasion and we were not sufficiently persuaded, but we will consult and see whether his answer this afternoon still further allays our worries on the matter. With the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 33, as an amendment to Amendment to No. 32, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 32 agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 102, line 38, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 167 [Whether it is reasonable to continue to occupy accommodation]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 103, line 5, leave out from ("that") to end of line 7 and insert ("this will lead to domestic violence against him, or against—

(a) a person who normally resides with him as a member of his family, or

(b) any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him as a member of his family.

For this purpose "domestic violence", in relation to a person, means violence from a person with whom he is associated, or threats of violence from such a person which are likely to be carried out.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 35 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 37 and 76. These three amendments work together to deliver a commitment which was made in another place to broaden the definition of domestic violence so as to embrace violence from partners who are no longer living with the victim.
Amendment No. 35 expands the wording of Clause 167 so that it will not be reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable that this will lead to domestic violence against him or against a member of his family who resides or might reside with him. Of course, as in the Civil Service, the male embraces the female and therefore that refers to her as well. It specifies that domestic violence is violence, or threatened violence from someone with whom he is "associated".
The definition of "associated" brings us to Amendment No. 37 which inserts a new clause after Clause 167 setting out the circumstances in which a person is "associated" for the purposes of Part VII of this Bill. It is a long and detailed list which some of your Lordships may recognise from the Family Law Bill. Indeed, that Bill was the source of this clause.
Amendment No. 76 is a small but significant consequential amendment. By extending those definitions and importing a definition of "associated person" into this part of the Bill, we are trying to tackle the situation whereby a person is subjected to violence or threats of it by a very wide but strictly defined group of people. Our main aim is to deal with actual or threatened violence on the basis of a person's relationship rather than on the basis of what might be described as a "residency-type qualification".
These are technical but important and significant amendments. I hope that your Lordships will agree to them. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, a few moments ago, in relation to Amendment No. 31, the Minister accepted the amendment to delete the words
"as a member of his family".
It seems to me that the same point would apply to Amendment No. 35 where, again, we have the same words. In so far as the Minister suggested there had been some oversight and that Amendment No. 31 corrected this, it may well be that the same principle would apply here and the Minister would be happy, pleased or

71
delighted to accept the particular proposition. Obviously I do not have an amendment tabled to that effect, but if that were the case and the Minister were to say so, then clearly we could see what would happen at the final stage of the Bill. As is clear, the point is very different from the categories covered in Amendment No. 37, as is clear. So I hope that the Minister will see his way to agreeing that there is a small defect in Amendment No. 35 which he will put right.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I think it is the first time today in which he has participated in our discussions. The proceedings have been bereft without him, even though they have been looked after by the noble Baroness with exemplary duty. He makes a very important point. The noble Lord is a man of great perspicacity because he has, I think, found something. I believe that he is right and, if I may, I will ensure that we amend that at a later stage in the Bill. I am grateful to him for his vigilance.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I thank the Minister. It is a real delight.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the Minister leapt to his feet so fast—he is obviously getting into practice—but my noble friend and I both have questions on Amendments Nos. 35 and 37.
My first question is to ask the Minister to confirm whether paragraph (f) in the new clause (set out in Amendment No. 37), which refers to both people having had "parental responsibility", covers the situation where one person is the parent of the child and the other is a step-parent. Sadly, there are occasions when the relationship between step-parents—one a natural parent and one a step-parent—has led to domestic violence. That is my first question in relation to subsection (1)(f).
My second question relates to the definition of "domestic violence", which is referred to as being violence or threats of violence from such a person which are likely to be carried out. I am concerned about how it is possible or whether it is appropriate in that context to assess the likelihood of threats being carried out rather than approaching this on the basis of the concern of the person who may be the subject of those threats; in other words, that domestic violence should mean actual violence or threats of violence which give rise to reasonable concern that they will be carried out, thus importing a degree of subjectivity rather than objectivity which may be very difficult to prove.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for these amendments and I echo the question which my noble friend has just asked. But I believe that these amendments will sit well with Part IV of the Family Law Bill and provide a back-up where it is needed. It is a significant contribution to what the Government have done on that subject.
72
On Amendment No. 37, I should like to know that I am correct in my reading of the words and that this covers same-sex partners or carers. With that sole question, I welcome warmly these amendments.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I wish to continue the line of questioning which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, adopted, in relation to what is meant by "domestic violence". Do the Government include within that term psychological violence as well as physical violence? I bear in mind the recent successful court case where a stalker was prosecuted for psychological rather than physical damage. Is that now included in government thinking about the term "domestic violence"? Does it include psychological as well as physical violence?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I apologise for jumping up and so bouncing the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, from an opportunity to take part in the debate. I was so excited at being able to give the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, a bit of encouragement that I was accelerated in levitation and I should not have been.
The noble Baroness asked whether a step-parent would be included in these provisions. The full parent and one step-parent are covered by the term "parental responsibility". The noble Baroness was concerned also about whether violence would be carried out and about threats of violence. That depends very much on the case and whether it is a real threat. Obviously domestic violence takes a number of different forms and each case must be considered on its merits.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me whether the provision covers same-sex partners. It does because it covers cohabitants. If they are cohabiting, they are covered by the provisions of the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Earl, but subsection (3) refers explicitly to a man and woman who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife. Therefore, it appears that the definition excludes same-sex partners. I hope that what the Minister says is correct, but if it is, the definition "cohabitants" would need to be amended accordingly.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I must say that the Opposition are scoring a lot of brownie points today. They are being enormously vigilant. The information which I gave the noble Baroness is wrong and the noble Baroness is right. I apologise for misleading your Lordships. I am very glad that the noble Baroness has corrected me.
I turn now to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. He is worried about psychological violence. I cannot think why he wants to be worried about that but he is. He asks whether that is covered by these provisions. I cannot give him a very good answer. It is not ruled out, but psychological violence covers a very wide spectrum.

73
It would depend on the nature of the violence. We do not rule out the fact that psychological violence could be covered.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he confirmed that he was wrong to say that same-sex partners are not covered by the term "cohabitants". But will he confirm, as I believe is the case, that they are covered by paragraph (c)?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness asks another important question to which the answer is in the affirmative.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 103, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) "It is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if proceedings for possession of the dwelling house have commenced and the person has no defence against those proceedings.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with possession proceedings and the extent to which it is necessary to require a defendant in such proceedings to go all the way through with them, if I can use that expression.
The point was dealt with, although rather late, at the last stage of the Bill on 19th June and the Minister commented on the matter at col. 416. At that time, I argued that it was inappropriate to require people threatened with homelessness and who have no defence to go through with the expense and ordeal of a court hearing where a mandatory possession order is inevitable. Not only will those people incur expense, but so too will everybody else involved. The stress as well as the expense is an important factor in that regard.
Eviction from assured shorthold tenancies is an increasingly common cause of homelessness. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, referred to that earlier today. Some 11 per cent. of homeless households accepted for rehousing have become homeless because of the ending of an assured shorthold tenancy. The Bill is aimed at making such tenancies the default tenancies, if I can put it that way, of the future.
The Minister said that the department's recent study which evaluated the Homelessness Code of Guidance found that almost all—something like 94 per cent., he said at col. 416—authorities would take a notice to quit or a notice of seeking possession as evidence of impending homelessness. Accepting that, it nevertheless leaves some 6 per cent. or thereabouts which do not take notice to quit and so on as evidence of impending homelessness. Some authorities undoubtedly are still insisting on tenants undergoing the expense and problems associated with a court hearing to gain a possession order before they can be accepted as homeless.
I believe that that approach is counter-productive. I have referred to costs. The load of court business is also increased and I think that requiring tenants to stick it out to the very last, when inevitably they will have to leave, is contrary to the Government's own aim of encouraging landlords to let their properties.
I tabled the amendment again in the hope that the Government may agree to include some such provision in the Bill which would in no way undermine what they are intending to do. It is a practicable and sensible provision. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that she tabled this amendment again to enable the Government to reconsider it. She is right to be concerned. There are always border lines and it is always right to be concerned about those people who fall on the wrong side of the border line. The noble Baroness said that she did not want the inclusion of this amendment to undermine what we are trying to do in the Bill.
The Homelessness Code of Guidance makes it clear that authorities should not require applicants to have to fight possession proceedings where there is no chance of success—for example, when an assured shorthold tenancy is being repossessed at the end of a fixed term—before accepting that a household is being threatened with homelessness. Indeed the recent Department of the Environment study—an evaluation of the Homelessness Code of Guidance—showed that almost all authorities (94 per cent.) would take a notice to quit or notice of seeking possession as evidence of impending homelessness. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that about 6 per cent. do not do so. As the accountants would say, the arithmetic stacks up between us.
We have tried to guide the 6 per cent. to accept such orders, but we would not wish to make that mandatory in every case. That is why I am doubtful that we want the proposition advanced in the amendment. There are many different forms of tenancy, and many different grounds for possession. There are many defences which can apply in particular cases, both technical—for example, the proper service of notices—and substantive. In some cases it would be extremely difficult and costly for a local authority to make a decision without going through the facts of each case.
A possession order may take several months to come into effect. We do not believe that it is either necessary or reasonable to expect local authorities immediately to assist people in such a position. We would however expect authorities to be ready to assist people where they have been alerted to the existence of a possession order, and to make appropriate arrangements without insisting that an applicant goes to court. If it were to prove necessary, the Secretary of State could make an order under this clause—with the agreement of the noble Earl, Lord Russell—to ensure that authorities take proper account of possession orders in assessing whether it is reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy accommodation.
I understand the concern behind the amendment—the noble Baroness is quite right to be concerned—that people with no defence against a possession order should receive timely assistance. However, as the existing arrangements are shown to work well—and we can reinforce the point when we issue new guidance, as we probably shall—I advise your Lordships not to

75
introduce a new requirement which, at the margin in a difficult case, would require a local authority to anticipate the decision of the courts. I hope that on reflection the noble Baroness will agree that that is the right course to take. It has worked well and I suggest that it would be better for us to continue with it rather than to include mandatory requirements in the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I wonder whether it has worked as well as the Minister says. The percentage which he gave—and which his noble friend gave at the previous stage—of 94 per cent. was not a percentage of all cases; it was a percentage of authorities which take notice to quit as evidence of impending homelessness. That does not suggest to me that the provision is working well. Rather it suggests that some authorities take one line while others routinely do not take note of notice to quit. I am not convinced, from the way the Minister has presented this, that the code of guidance could be capable of being used to distinguish between good notices to quit and bad notices to quit, if I can put it that way. I refer to the notices which will be effective and those which may not be effective. However, perhaps this is not the point at which to pursue the matter further. For the moment we shall have to agree to differ. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 37:
After Clause 167, insert the following new clause—
MEANING OF ASSOCIATED PERSON
(".—(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person is associated with another person if—

(a) they are or have been married to each other;

(b) they are cohabitants or former cohabitants;

(c) they live or have lived in the same household;

(d) they are relatives;

(e) they have agreed to marry one another (whether or not that agreement has been terminated);

(f) in relation to a child, each of them is a parent of the child or has, or has had, parental responsibility for the child.

(2) If a child has been adopted or has been freed for adoption by virtue of any of the enactments mentioned in section 16(1) of the Adoption Act 1976, two persons are also associated with each other for the purposes of this Part if—

(a) one is a natural parent of the child or a parent of such a natural parent, and

(b) the other is the child or a person—

(i) who has become a parent of the child by virtue of an adoption order or who has applied for an adoption order, or

(ii) with whom the child has at any time been placed for adoption.

(3) In this section—
"adoption order" has the meaning given by section 72(1) of the Adoption Act 1976;
"child" means a person under the age of 18 years;
"cohabitants" means a man and a woman who, although not married to each other, are living together as husband and wife, and "former cohabitants" shall be construed accordingly;
"parental responsibility" has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989; and
"relative", in relation to a person, means—

(a) the father, mother, stepfather, stepmother, son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, grandmother, grandfather, grandson or granddaughter of that person or of that person's spouse or former spouse, or

(b) the brother, sister, uncle, aunt, niece or nephew (whether of the full blood or of the half blood or by affinity) of that person or of that person's spouse or former spouse, and includes, in relation to a person who is living or has lived with another person as husband and wife, a person who would fall within paragraph (a) or (b) if the parties were married to each other.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 35. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begins again not before five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Security Service Bill
7.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
We are now concluding our consideration of the Security Service Bill. The Bill has not been changed in the course of its passage through the House, but in no way does that detract from the rigour of the scrutiny to which it has been subjected. At Second Reading I predicted that our discussions on the Bill would benefit greatly from the wealth of expertise that your Lordships' House can draw upon. I am happy to say that that prediction was correct. We have been able to draw upon the particular knowledge and personal experience of a number of noble Lords—expertise covering the police service; the intelligence agencies; and the workings of government, from both the ministerial and civil service perspectives.
Though this Bill is short, it is significant. It will enable the Security Service to use the skills and expertise that it has built up over many years in the fight against terrorism to support the police and other law enforcement agencies in their work against serious crime. Counter-terrorism work will still remain the service's top priority but it is clearly sensible that, when resources permit, the Security Service should be able to make a contribution to the efforts that are made to combat organised crime. I am sure the House does not need me to spell out the threat to decent society that is posed by organised criminals, and therefore the importance of bringing all the means at our disposal to the battle against that threat.

77
I know that the principle underlying this Bill has received support from all parts of this House. It is important that the House has been united in its determination that everything must be done to tackle the menace of organised crime. As your Lordships are aware, this Bill is not the only piece of legislation that the Government intend to bring forward to ensure that the response of the law enforcement agencies to organised crime is as effective as it can be. This Bill is a precursor of a package of further measures. They include the creation of a unified crime squad to build on the sterling work already done by regional crime squads, and a proper statutory footing for the National Criminal Intelligence Service. We also intend to legislate on police intrusive operations. That is a subject that we have touched on at several points during our consideration of this Bill and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary gave further details of our thinking on this only last week.
This is not the occasion to debate those issues. The plans have not been finalised, but let me assure the House that they are developing well and in line with the timetable required to meet our commitment to bring forward early legislation. Importantly, they also command the support of the police. It is clear from our discussions of the present Bill that your Lordships will wish to return to a number of important issues when this House comes to consider that legislation. That is entirely right and proper. In the meantime, there is no reason why we should not proceed with the present Bill. It is a discrete measure, even though it forms part of the Government's wider strategy for tackling the menace of organised crime. It is also a sensible measure, enabling, as I have said, our law enforcement agencies to benefit, where appropriate, from the skills and support of the Security Service.
Furthermore, by passing this Bill, Parliament will also send a positive statement of our firm intent to combat the drug traffickers, the racketeers and the money launderers with every legitimate means at our disposal.
The Government are determined to address the issue by making provision to allow the expertise and skills to be brought to bear. I think that I can speak for all parts of the House when I say that there should be no doubt about the importance of tackling the menace of organised crime firmly and effectively. Bringing the skills of the Security Service into play will help us to do that. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Baroness Blatch.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister said that she thinks she can command the support of all sides of the House in our determination to fight organised crime effectively; and she is quite right. She knows that from the beginning to the end of our discussions on the Bill we have supported that aim. We have supported generally the package of measures which the Prime Minister set out in his Blackpool speech last year.
78
At the same time the Minister describes the Bill as being a "discrete" measure. I assume that she refers to "discreteness" rather than "discretion". It is not a discrete measure unfortunately. In Clause 2 it has implications for the police service and for the Security Service.
It might not have been immediately obvious when the Bill was first drafted, but I do not think that we should let the occasion of this Third Reading pass without recording that Clause 2, which deals with warrants, raises important questions of civil liberties. They were raised in Committee and in particular at Report stage, but unfortunately have not been resolved.
On the day after our Report stage, the Economist—not, I suggest, a journal particularly in opposition to the Government—had a fierce article about the Bill. It stated:
"An Englishman's home has always been his castle, inviolate from intrusion without a court warrant. No longer, it seems. As the Economist went to press, the Security Service Bill looked certain to canter through its final stages in the House of Lords on June 27th".
I do not know whether the Minister or I would call it cantering through, but the Bill went through with two Divisions. The article continues:
"The Bill casually tosses aside individual freedoms for which Britons have fought for centuries".
That is not only the view of the Economist. It was also expressed in leading articles in the Guardian and the Observer. More importantly, it was expressed in concerns by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, both in Committee and at Report stage. The noble and learned Lord described this as a "major constitutional shift". He asked three times as to whether his interpretation was right; and he did not receive an adequate answer. It is not just that the definition in Clause 2 of serious crime is very wide, although it is. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, told the House correctly at Second Reading that the definition, as we have it, could cover a common burglar and a protester against the Newbury bypass.
That is not the only issue. The power to authorise a warrant for intrusive surveillance—the Minister has referred to intrusive activities—by the Security Service is to be given not on a judicial warrant but on an executive warrant, the warrant of the Secretary of State. That is the matter which was first determined in the case of Entick v. Carrington in 1757, which is now apparently to be overturned, I suspect without malice aforethought or without adequate thought. I cannot believe that it can seriously be the Government's intention to turn aside the most important rule: that the executive—Ministers—should not have the power to intrude into the homes of the people of this country.
The powers of the police are unclear and inadequate. As Ministers have recognised, it is true that they will have to be tidied up. But that should not justify, or be thought to justify, extending the warrant powers of the Secretary of State in relation to the Security Service, as is provided for in the Bill. At the very least, there ought to be congruity between the police powers and the Security Service powers when they seek to pursue for

79
arrest and conviction, and as regards the detection of serious crime. That ought to be the minimum requirement.
There should be a further requirement that the executive, through the Secretary of State, does not have powers over the home of people in this country which have never been available previously to the executive and which have been deliberately confined to the judiciary.
We shall have to come back to many of these matters when we come to the further legislation which the Government now propose, as the Minister rightly observed. We shall have to consider police powers in particular for intrusive surveillance. There are powers for search warrants given by magistrates or judges. There are powers under the Interception of Communication Act 1985 for telephone tapping, and, presumably, also for interception of the post. But all we have for intrusive surveillance are the 1984 Home Office guidelines on covert listening devices and visual surveillance in private places. Those guidelines state only that they are applicable when normal methods have failed and when it is likely that such surveillance will lead to arrest and conviction. Those are not adequate safeguards. They have to be more precisely defined than in those Home Office guidelines.
That has been recognised by the courts. The case of Sultan Khan is now, I believe, before the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House. That case follows the remarks in the Court of Appeal by the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor of Gosforth. Those results will be of great importance to the interpretation and validity of the Bill. The European Court of Human Rights is also considering the case of Alison Halford, the former assistant chief constable of Greater Manchester Police, who has complained of the bugging of her office, and I believe her home, by police colleagues. That case could result in a judgment that the existing British law, including this Bill, is a breach of privacy without judicial warrant which could be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
It is by no means certain that the Bill will be enacted unscathed. Cases before both our courts and the European Court still leave the matter unresolved. However, as the Bill stands, I am afraid that I have to agree with the judgment of the Economist that,
"the Bill casually tosses aside individual freedoms for which Britons have fought for centuries".
To that extent the Bill is, regrettably, in default of the proper care which Government should have for the liberties of the individual citizen; and of the most fierce parliamentary scrutiny—it is partly my fault—which might otherwise have been expected.
It is because we support the objectives of the Bill that we have been perhaps calmer than we might. However, I warn the Minister that when the rest of the package of legislation comes back before Parliament in the next Session, we shall look to ensure not only that the powers of the law enforcement agencies are adequate to the serious problems which they face from organised crime, but also that the package includes proper protection of the liberties of individual citizens of this country.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, on occasions like this there is always a temptation to repeat one's excellent Second Reading speech. I shall do my best not to do so. I tried to set out the background to the Bill on Second Reading and in my view nothing has been said during the Committee and Report stages or by the noble Baroness this afternoon that has undermined the judgment I then made. It was that there was understandable anxiety in the Security Service that there would be widespread redundancies. There was a hunt for new areas of activity where it could be argued plausibly that the Security Service had a contribution to make. That is the reality of the situation that we face with the Bill.
I am not an opponent of the Bill, but am sceptical for two reasons. First, only 17 or 18 members of MI5 will be involved in work of that character in any event. Secondly, I was interested to hear the noble Baroness say a few moments ago that "when resources permit" the Security Service would become involved in the activities she outlined. That rather implies to me that the number of MI5 officers involved will not be substantial although they can make a positive contribution for the reasons indicated by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Paul Condon. I referred to that during the Second Reading debate.
The point to which I wish to return was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh; namely, the case of Khan. I have the judgment of their Lordships' Appeal Committee on the matter and wish to refer to two of the judgments given on that occasion. First, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, gave his judgment in turning down Mr. Khan's appeal. Mr. Khan was a rather unattractive gentleman in the heroin business in South Yorkshire. The noble and learned Lord said:
"Though I have no doubt in this case that the Chief Constable [of South Yorkshire] exercised his discretion fairly and bona fide I consider that fairness both to accused persons and to those who have to exercise this discretion make it highly desirable that such interceptions should be governed by legislation".
We then come to the lead judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. He said:
"The sole cause of this case coming to your Lordships' House is the lack of a statutory system regulating the use of surveillance devices by the police. The absence of such a system seems astonishing, the more so in view of the statutory framework which has governed the use of such devices by the Security Service since 1989, and the interception of communications by the police as well as by other agencies since 1985. I would refrain, however, from further comment because counsel for the respondent"—
that is the Crown—
"was able to inform us, on instructions, that the government proposes to introduce legislation covering the matter in the next session of Parliament".
The noble Baroness gave such an undertaking, but, as I pointed out, the Government have a perilously short period in which to carry through the undertaking. It is the period between November this year and April next year. After that, they have the good fortune of meeting the electorate. During that short period, the Government will presumably have to introduce the legislation.

81
They could easily be faced with a situation in which the legislation has not passed through all its stages by the time the Prime Minister has to dissolve Parliament.
On a previous occasion, one of the noble Baroness's predecessors had to approach both Opposition parties after the Prime Minister of the day indicated that there was to be a general election. The Minister had to ask what sections of the legislation we were prepared to agree to pass into law, on that occasion without adequate discussion. We undertook to allow part of the Bill to go on to the statute book because of the urgency.
I hope that if we are to have a re-run of that situation, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, there will be some form of discussion or consultation before we are faced with an approach of that kind. I would be extremely concerned at any suggestion that the person who would decide on the bugging warrants for police forces should be a Minister of the Crown rather than a judge. That is not just for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but for different reasons. I do not like the idea of Ministers of any government becoming involved in operational policing issues. I cannot see how they could avoid becoming involved in such issues if they were to have the power conferred on them to approve warrants of that kind.
Apart from anything else, it seems to me that it would be far more sensible to allow a High Court or Crown Court judge to make a decision on the matter. I hope that that will be considered by the Government between now and the time when they introduce the legislation. I repeat that I hope that we will not be asked, just after the Prime Minister announces that he will be compelled to have a general election, to agree to pass legislation of this kind in a situation where we could not give it careful consideration. Some of us would be troubled by such a power being put in the hands of Ministers alone.
7.27 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, I recognise that both noble Lords agree with my opening statement that there is unanimity among us that this is an important issue for us to address. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested that the property warrant power dealt with in Clause 2 amounts to a change of constitutional significance. For what he said he prayed in aid the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, at the previous stage of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord is not in his place.
Without presuming to get into a debate over legal interpretation, the Government's reading of the position is that the celebrated case of Entick v. Carrington established the important principle that a person's house should not be entered without lawful authority. With the passage of the Security Service Act 1989, subsequently updated by the Intelligence Services Act 1994, Parliament legislated to allow the Security Service to apply for warrants authorising entry on, or interference with, property under rigorously controlled circumstances.
Authorisation by the Secretary of State in accordance with this legislation represents lawful authority. All that has changed is that the Security Service will now be
82
able to apply for property warrants in pursuance of its new statutory function relating to serious crime, in addition to its existing national security and economic well-being functions.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, who is also not in his place, pointed out on Report that the distinction between national security and police matters is not clear cut. The police deal with counter-terrorism matters often in tandem with the Security Service. Terrorist groups get involved in drug trafficking to finance themselves. Further, no such distinction between national security and policing matters was made in the historic judgment that we have been discussing. The mischief that was being addressed in 1765 related to a case of sedition which, if anything, would be a national security case today.
In short, this Bill will not extend the Security Service's powers; it will merely extend the functions under which those powers can be applied. I do not accept that that represents a change of constitutional significance.
The noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to the lack of judicial authorisation. The Security Service is accountable to the Secretary of State. Being responsible for authorisation of the service's warrants is an important way in which he can exercise those responsibilities. It would be unprecedented and inappropriate to involve the judiciary in the intelligence gathering process, without knowledge of the target and before it was known whether criminal charges were in prospect.
Warrants can be authorised only in tightly controlled circumstances and the issue of all warrants is subject to scrutiny by the independent commissioner. He is a senior member of the judiciary and therefore provides judicial scrutiny of the decisions of the Home Secretary, applying the principles of judicial review.
I find it a preposterous idea to suggest that this Bill came about as a result of possible redundancies or, as I believe the noble Lord said, a lack of work for the Security Service. I do not believe that the Security Service has ever been more challenged than it is today. Its work is important.
That links well to the other point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hams of Greenwich; namely, my reference to "when resources permit". It must be "when resources permit", because the primary function for the security services is counter-terrorism. They will work in support of police activities, and will be requested by the police to support them in those activities. If they find that acceding to a request from the police would inhibit or thwart in any way their primary function, it would be for the security services simply to say that they were not in a position to offer that support. It must be right that the Security Service considers its primary function first.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Baroness was kind enough to refer to my speech but said it was "preposterous". If it was quite so preposterous, I am mildly surprised that she did not bother to indicate as much when she replied to the speech that I made on the matter at Second Reading

83
when, as my authority, I drew on a report by a House of Commons committee. Therefore she rather overstates her case.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have not seen a statement in any House of Commons committee report which says that the sole reason for the Bill is somehow to fill a gap for the security services and prevent redundancies. If the noble Lord can find such a quotation, I should like to see it.
The Security Service Bill fulfils a very important function. But, in the fight against organised crime—money laundering, drug trafficking and the serious crimes to which we have referred during the course of the Bill—we also believe that bringing the expertise of the security services together with that of the police is a very important measure. We believe that the intellectual validity of the Bill is well understood. It is simply not a way of avoiding redundancies in the Security Service.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, expressed his very real concern about putting on a statutory footing the surveillance work of the police. I repeat, yet again, what I have said on so many occasions: it is our intention to put it on a statutory footing. The noble Lord should not become too exercised about what would happen post-election. First, I expect that we shall still be here as the Government after the election. I know that irritates the noble Lord.
Even given what the noble Lord may be suggesting, I deduced from his remarks and from those of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that they, too, regard it as very important to underpin police activities by means of legislation. It would be a priority for any of the parties coming into power. We intend that the issue will be addressed at an early opportunity. As I said, work is well in hand, and we will keep faith with that. From remarks made, I believe noble Lords opposite support that approach. I have no doubt that, at the time, there will be arguments and lively discussions about means to an end. However, I hope that we shall now allow the Bill to receive its Third Reading. I commend the Bill to the House.
Bill read a third time, and passed.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.36 to 8.5 p.m.]

Housing Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 168 [Duty of local housing authority to provide advisory services]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 103, line 20, leave out subsection (1).
84
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is well aware that appearances are frequently deceptive. My noble friend Lady Hamwee and I have put down amendments dealing with the same point which appear to have opposite effects, but, in fact, are destined to achieve exactly the same end. We are concerned with subsection (1) of Clause 168, which requires local housing authorities to,
"secure that advice and information about homelessness … is available free of charge to any person in their district".
We both wanted to know what this clause meant. I approached that by a standard probing device of putting down an amendment to leave out the clause. My noble friend has approached it by the opposite route of laying down a more detailed specification of what it might include. We both wish to know what it does.
When I first saw this clause I must admit that I was reminded of the provision in the arrangements for the Social Fund, which deals with those who are held to be too poor to receive any assistance from the Social Fund. They are, instead, given money advice. I have always wondered what use that provision was to anybody. I am slightly more reassured about that as we have gone through the Bill, but I should like to be reassured that it does mean something a little more helpful than that.
I am reminded of an occasion when I was a first year postgraduate, and I asked for information which was available, as I subsequently discovered, in one of the standard works of reference. My supervisor told me, "There is a book in the Bodleian". It was some time before I discovered that book. Similarly, if one were to tell homeless people, "There is housing available in Tower Hamlets", it might be quite some time before they discovered that housing. That is why I should like to know that something a little more specific than what I was offered by my supervisor is offered to the homeless under this clause. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, instead of allowing my noble friend Lord Russell to act as the curtain-raiser, I wonder whether I should leave it as a sort of one-act show. The purpose of my amendment, Amendment No. 39 in this group, is to highlight the importance of the availability of services being made widely known. I propose that there should be independent and comprehensive advice, which is not only valuable in itself, but often necessary as a check on local authorities—I say that with my local authority background—to tackle the root causes of homelessness. There are many causes and complex inter-relationships of causes. It is a tool for developing a more strategic approach to the problem.
The duty proposed in the Bill does not specify that at least an element of independent advice should be included and the duty of local authorities should not be restricted to advice which seeks to prevent homelessness—although that in itself is important—but should address the strategic problem of housing insecurity by providing comprehensive housing advice. Independent advice is good because it should be accessible to those who need it. I include owner occupiers and tenants in the private rented sector. It is more accessible than perhaps a statutory service may

85
be able to provide and relevant to those groups—owner occupiers and tenants in the private sector—who may not regard the local authority as a likely source of assistance.
I mentioned the need for a check on the quality of local authority decision-making. That has been the thrust of many of our amendments over the two stages of the Bill. I believe too—again either with the benefit of my local authority background or despite it—that independent advice can often provide very good value for money. It may perhaps lend itself more than statutory advice to the settlement of disputes. We are in an age in which mediation and reconciliation are regarded as more important than perhaps they were some years ago.
I believe that the department supports independent advice. It has funded the national homelessness advice service. The interim report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on access to justice recognises the importance of independent advice. In another place the Minister said that an amendment to that effect was unnecessary and would be an additional cost to local authorities. However, although I should like to go along with the underlying notion that all local authorities carry out good practice, I fear, sadly, that that is not the case.
The amendment is based on parallel provisions in the Children Act. It is not clear why the provisions were necessary there, or at any rate acceptable, but here they are unnecessary.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I support both amendments, Amendments Nos. 38 and 39, which are grouped together, using them to make a point that we have not discussed elsewhere in the Bill. It is a point to which we may wish to return on Third Reading. It is the problem of homelessness which faces those owner occupiers in the private sector mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—those who face repossession for all kinds of reasons but who, by definition, will not currently be on the waiting list. Most other forms of housing need, if one is in private rented accommodation or the like, put one in a position to go on a housing waiting list. No local authority will accept an owner occupier on a waiting list unless there are very strong medical grounds for a change of housing.
It seems to me that we could reasonably ask local authorities to pursue rather more vigorously ways in which they can help someone facing repossession to retain his home, if not necessarily his tenure. That would mean not so much a rent-to-mortgages scheme (as when the Government pushed us so hard in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill) but that local authorities should seek to establish wherever possible a mortgages-to-rent scheme. I shall not go into the matter in any great detail tonight. It may be that we shall come back to it at Third Reading. But, given all the alterations in income support arrangements, of which Ministers on the Government Front Bench will be well aware, there is for many, particularly those who are bad insurance risks by virtue of their occupation—insecure; contract; part-time; flexible; based on commission or whatever—real difficulty in being able to retain their home.
86
I know that mortgages-to-rent schemes are not easy, especially when arrears remain as a debt. But, given the problem of negative equity, the sale of the property is not an easy option either. Also, given that there is not a low income mortgage support scheme, owner occupiers need a route into housing benefit if they are to remain in the same home and there bring up their children.
I understand that there are good examples of mixed tenure—part renting, part owning—in the social housing sector under the Joseph Rowntree Trust and other housing associations. I believe that some building societies, for example, Bradford and Bingley, have an excellent record in helping people remain in occupation of the house through a mortgages-to-rent scheme and making possible staircasing down.
I use the amendment as a hook to raise the issue. It struck me that at no stage in all our discussions have we considered the situation of an owner occupier faced with homelessness who, by definition, until the point of homelessness, was unable to go on the housing waiting list. It is important that local authorities should be encouraged, under the advice and assistance rubric, actively to enter discussions with building societies to see to what extent they can promote mortgages-to-rent schemes in their localities.
8.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was fascinated to see the noble Earl, Lord Russell, table an amendment to leave out subsection (1) and his noble friend Lady Hamwee put down an amendment to keep in subsection (1) and add a lot of things to it. I do not know whether or not noble Lords on the Liberal Democratic Benches talk to each other but on these Benches we always try, as the expression goes, to sing from the same hymn sheet. Anyhow, they have introduced two amendments which are totally different and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that she wanted to support both. So she rather indelicately sits astride the hedge and waits.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, tabled his amendment obviously from his frustrated experience as an undergraduate when he was told by his tutor to go down to the Bodleian and find a book there. I suppose that is the way you are taught if you go to Oxford. Some people who go to other places are taught differently. I can assure the noble Earl that times have moved on since 1868 and different practices occur.
The level of advice and assistance that is available to a person who may be experiencing, or is about to experience, a housing crisis varies throughout the country. Some authorities already provide good advisory services, but recent research that we commissioned showed clearly that provision is patchy overall.
We want to ensure that people are properly informed and to do that we must ensure that they have access to proper advice. In that way we can help prevent people becoming homeless in the first place. Research shows that timely housing advice can prevent homelessness by enabling a particular problem to be tackled in good time or an alternative housing solution to be found before a crisis develops. This new duty will ensure that people everywhere have the benefit of a good advisory service.

87
It will be for each authority to decide the precise issues and areas that the services should cover. Different areas will require different types and levels of service. The revised Homelessness Code of Guidance to Local Authorities when it is issued will cover that matter, but we would not want to dictate from central government exactly how the services should be provided.
Authorities will not have to provide the advice themselves, although they may if they want to do so. They can invite other agencies to act as the provider. In many areas there will already be established organisations which provide housing advice services, and the authority may want to harness existing expertise to provide the service which is required under the new duty.
Amendment No. 39, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to insert a new subsection into Clause 168, requiring authorities to publish and disseminate information about services they provide, either directly or indirectly, and to take steps to ensure that those who might benefit from the services receive that information. I understand the concern of the noble Baroness in tabling this amendment. However, I do not believe that it is necessary. The imposition of a specific requirement to publicise and disseminate advisory services would be burdensome on local authorities. Moreover, it would require the Government to be prescriptive about how it should be done. We would have to tell them what to do and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would not like that—he does not like the Government telling people what to do. We do not wish to be prescriptive: we wish to retain flexibility, so that authorities may decide what is appropriate in each case.
It is clearly in an authority's own interests to ensure that its services are brought to the attention of people in its area, in particular to help reduce the number of homelessness applications. But we do not believe it is necessary to put the requirement on the face of the Bill. We have repeatedly made clear that the revised guidance will cover advisory services, and I believe that is the right vehicle by which to persuade authorities of the benefits of publicising their services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether the advice should be independent and whether it should extend to owner occupiers and private tenants. It is for a local authority to decide what to do. Many will support independent advice either by grant or by contract. There is no reason why the advice should not extend to owner occupiers and tenants and why it should not be independent. That, too, is a matter for local authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, raised the question of mortgage-to-rent schemes. It is important, if unnecessary repossessions are to be avoided, that borrowers who are in difficulty should have access to sound advice and good counselling at the earliest possible stage. It is often the fact that borrowers in difficulty have multiple debt problems; it is not just the borrowing, there are other problems as well. The advice that they are given often needs to reflect a
88
wide range of problems as well as the procedures, benefit entitlements and possible escape routes. There is therefore a need for co-operation and co-ordinated action by the main agencies involved in order to ensure that the borrowers who are in difficulty receive effective advice and the support that they require to meet their needs.
A joint working group of the Council of Mortgage Lenders and local authority associations found that that co-ordination can be achieved through local arrears fora which are set up by the local authority and can include representatives of mortgage lenders, local advice agencies and the benefits agencies. A number of local authorities have already set up those fora and the Government recommend that other authorities should follow suit.
The noble Baroness mentioned in particular mortgage-to-rent schemes. Those are one of a range of measures operated by lenders with the help of housing associations, local authorities and others in order to avoid repossessions. Mortgage-to-rent schemes have been used successfully, notably by the Bradford & Bingley Building Society. I agree with the noble Baroness that those schemes and other mortgage rescue operations should be welcomed. Local arrears fora, which are run by local authorities, are well placed to assist with that.
To encapsulate my response: the amendments are unnecessary.
Earl Russell: My Lords, my amendment and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee work well together. Mine was meant to be the advance reconnaissance party, sent out to probe the enemy's advance. I probed and found it non-existent. My noble friend's amendment was meant to be the main body of our forces, brought along to go through the gap.
I asked the Minister what the clause would mean in practice. The Minister told me, if words mean anything at all, that he really does not know. Immediately afterwards he told my noble friend that her amendment is unnecessary. He can perfectly well have one of those propositions; I do not see how he can have both. If he does not know what will be done under the clause, how can he know that my noble friend's amendment is unnecessary.
I thought the Minister might make a great virtue on this amendment of not wanting to be prescriptive. It is strange how eager the Government are to be prescriptive when it is a matter of stopping other people from doing things and how reluctant they are to be prescriptive when it may be a matter of offering some urgently needed help. We on these Benches take the duty to supply advice very seriously. My honourable friend Mrs. Maddock in another place was responsible for strengthening the provision before us. I am glad that she did so. We would like to do more of this. We would like real advice to be available and, as my noble friend said, we would like that advice to be independent. I do not see that we have got that here.

89
I am sure that my noble friend will want to think about what she will do with her amendment at the next stage of the Bill. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 172 [Application for assistance]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 104, line 41, leave out from ("accommodation") to end of line 44.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is another probing operation. It deals with the requirement to offer assistance in obtaining accommodation. Again, I tabled a probing amendment to leave out the requirement in the hope of persuading the noble Earl to tell me exactly what it means.
"Assistance" can mean all kinds of things. It can mean anything from what I quoted just now down to a detailed list of addresses, rents and so forth. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, reminded us earlier, assistance for people with special needs may have to be extremely specialised and well informed if it is to work. Indeed, for people with limited mobility the need for advice to avoid them going all around The Wrekin looking in the wrong place may be extremely important.
We need to know what is meant by "assistance" before we can decide whether it is worthwhile. Both advice and assistance, if they are to soften the apparently harsh outlines of Part VII of the Bill—Ministers have often urged us to think that they do soften those harsh outlines—will need to be reasonably precise. One cannot soften things with hot air. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I wish to speak to this group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, mentioned earlier that there are some interesting groupings: this may be one of them.
Amendment No. 41 stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. It is an amendment to Clause 173 proposing a presumption of eligibility. It proposes that the authorities, in establishing eligibility under Clause 174 which deals with persons from abroad, shall,
"satisfy themselves, if the applicant is eligible for assistance, whether any duty, and if so what duty, is owed to him under the following provisions of this Part".
As drafted the Bill allows authorities to make such inquiries as are necessary to satisfy themselves whether a person is "eligible for assistance". It will be based on immigration status. Other noble Lords have far more experience than I do of the arcane provisions of this part of the law. It is enough to say that it is complex and, having taken part in the spectator sport of the debate on the application of certain provisions, it is certainly safe to say that housing officers are not likely to find it straightforward to apply.
They cannot be expected to be familiar with immigration law and practice. The applicant's immigration status will be a major factor. The groups who will be excluded include, of course, illegal entrants, people given temporary admission and those given
90
limited leave on the basis of having no recourse to public funds; people who fail the habitual residence test, as well as the asylum seekers. The experience of the habitual residence test in housing and income support cases suggests that the test is applied in different ways in different authorities and within authorities. This is a matter that has been referred to at an earlier stage of this Bill. The factors to be assessed include the length and continuity of residence, future intentions, employment prospects and others. As I say, it is not straightforward.
The amendment is not a weaker test. It proposes that unless there is full evidence of ineligibility based on fact, the local authority cannot refuse assistance. It may be more onerous to establish ineligibility, but that will only arise in certain cases because the majority of applicants will be eligible. It differs from the proposed test where the authority has to satisfy itself that the applicant is eligible and therefore would have to subject every applicant to the test. The test that this amendment proposes would ensure that people are not refused assistance where they are eligible, but would achieve what I understand to be the Government's intention of excluding people who are not eligible. It is particularly important in that the amendment would avoid the scope for discrimination, which would almost certainly arise under the current test where housing officers need only satisfy themselves about a person's status.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have made clear on a number of occasions that the Government attach great importance to ensuring that persons from abroad who do not have a valid claim to assistance under the homelessness legislation should not have access to it. As far as that assistance is concerned, it is pretty clearly explained in Clause 172. Just before the portion which the noble Earl would like to be removed from the Bill through his amendment, the clause refers to,
"'assistance under this Part' means the benefit of any duty under the following provisions of this Part relating to accommodation or assistance in obtaining accommodation".
So the assistance that we are referring to is the assistance which is described in the rest of Part VII of the Bill.
What we are attempting to do in this part of the Bill, and in one or two other parts of the Bill still to be considered, is to ensure that those who do not have a valid claim for assistance under the homelessness legislation should not have access to it. Therefore, it will be necessary for authorities to make sure that applicants are eligible for the assistance they seek. That is why the Bill is drafted as it is. Clause 173(1) requires authorities,
"to satisfy themselves whether [an applicant] is eligible for assistance".
This is a prerequisite if we are to be sure that costly assistance provided at the expense of the national taxpayers and the local council taxpayers is not exploited by those who are not entitled to it.
Amendment No. 41 would undermine this aim by removing the requirement for authorities to satisfy themselves whether applicants are eligible for assistance

91
under Part VII. Indeed, authorities would need only to make such inquiries as were necessary to establish whether applicants were ineligible for assistance. That changes the onus.
It might be argued that the effect of the amendment is a little different from what is currently drafted in the Bill. In that case your Lordships may wonder why we should be invited to make this change since I do not believe that it clarifies the authority's duty in this area. I believe that, if anything, the amendment seems to replace what is a very clear provision with something which is much more vague and, consequently, it is unhelpful.
Some of your Lordships have previously expressed concern that housing authorities will find it onerous to have to consider a person's eligibility, which in effect will mean probing his immigration status. If I understood the second contribution from the Liberal Democrat Benches from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that is what she was discussing, at least in part.
I have said on a number of previous occasions that authorities already have to take into account the immigration status of homeless applicants following the Court of Appeal's decision in 1993 in the Tower Hamlets case. That concerned applicants who had entered the country illegally or who had overstayed their leave to remain. No duty under the homelessness legislation is owed in either case. Following that decision, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment issued a revised homelessness code of guidance to local authorities concerning applications from persons outside the United Kingdom, including a model screening procedure for making inquiries about immigration status in a sensitive and non-discriminatory way. Indeed, I believe that I have spoken at greater length about the revised homelessness code on previous occasions.
That guidance also makes clear that information about an applicant's immigration status can be obtained by local authorities from the Immigration and Nationality Department at the Home Office, if that is necessary. We intend to issue a revised guidance on handling these aspects of homelessness applications when the provisions in Part VII come into force. It is important that authorities are under a clear obligation to determine whether a homeless applicant is eligible for assistance as part of their inquiries to satisfy themselves whether any duty is owed under Part VII.
Amendment No. 41 would undermine the provisions in the Bill which provide for that. Amendment No. 40 would remove the definition of "eligible for assistance" in Clause 172. As I have already said, the concept of eligibility is an important one. It is a thread which runs right through Part VII of the Bill. The removal of the definition would be neither helpful nor desirable. With that explanation of how the system will work, and perhaps the reference to some other speeches that I have
92
made both on this Bill and the Asylum and Immigration Bill, I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Earl can withdraw their amendments.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Of course, he is not the only one who has made other speeches. The Minister may remember a number of debates on amendments moved by his noble friend Lady O'Cathain which were concerned with the pressures on airlines of trying to judge immigration status. That case was very well made out and it was extremely persuasive. I was happy to support it. Some small part of that case has now been heard and I am glad that it has. But I do not believe that local authorities are any more competent to judge immigration status than are the airlines—indeed, they are possibly slightly less able because airlines inevitably have some knowledge of traffic from country to country whereas local authorities, by their very definition, very often do not.
So if one of these cases has prevailed and the other has not, I do not believe that it is because of the superior intellectual merits of the one which has prevailed. In saying that I do not in any way wish to denigrate the case which has been made on behalf of British Airways, with which I agree.
As for my own amendment, the Minister reminded me very vividly of an exchange which took place in another place in, I believe, 1956, between Mr. Aneurin Bevan and the right honourable Alan Lennox-Boyd. Aneurin Bevan asked when it would be appropriate to give Cyprus independence. The Minister said, "At the appropriate moment". He was asked, "What is the appropriate moment?" and the Minister replied, "The appropriate moment is the appropriate moment". The Minister has told me that "assistance under this Bill" is assistance under this Bill. I shall read what he said carefully to see whether I can find anything else in it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 173 [Inquiry into cases of homelessness or threatened homelessness]:
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 105, line 14, at end insert—
(" ( ) If the authority are satisfied that other suitable accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant and have a duty under section 185 they shall at the same time notify him of the address of the dwelling-house which they are satisfied is available for his occupation.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, government Amendment No. 71 is grouped with my amendment, Amendment No. 42. My amendment, which is very specific, is the vehicle for asking precisely how the Government expect that a local housing authority will exercise its duty and, in particular, how we can expect accommodation to be suitable for an applicant if no specific address is in mind. That links to government Amendment No. 71 and allows me to ask what is meant by subsection (3) which states:
"The duty ceases if the applicant fails to take reasonable steps to secure such accommodation".

93
I believe that "accommodation" is used there in the general sense.
My amendment deals with specific accommodation, and suggests that an applicant should be directed to a specific property which is both suitable and available. Without having the address of the property, the applicant would not be able to challenge a decision involving advice and assistance under Clause 185. It would not be possible to challenge the fact that the accommodation may be unsuitable without particular accommodation being in issue.
Perhaps I may give one example. A private landlord may own a block of flats which may generally be available to people on benefits. However, to take the sort of example which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has rightly been using, an applicant may be directed to that block in which a ground floor flat may be "appropriate"—with apologies to Aneurin Bevan and Mr. Lennox-Boyd—but the particular flat on offer may be on a higher floor and may not be accessible to someone with mobility problems. If the authority merely has to indicate that "accommodation" (in a general sense) is available, accommodation may not really be "available"—in the normal understanding of that word—to that applicant because the accommodation on offer may be unsuitable for him and he may then be unable to secure any accommodation. My amendment is designed to link a property to an applicant and vice versa. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend for tabling Amendment No. 71 which I suspect is in response to an amendment that I moved in Committee. Amendment No. 71 goes nearly all the way to meeting what I wanted. Indeed, it is so close that I do not think that it makes a great deal of difference but, as I said earlier, as a result of the tabling of Amendment No. 71, I shall not be moving Amendment No. 73, which was designed purely to make certain that the Government came up to scratch.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling an amendment to ensure that the Government come up to scratch. I cannot see why on earth he thought that it was necessary to do such a thing—the Government always come up to scratch.
I was fascinated by the anecdote given by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about Aneurin Bevan and Lennox-Boyd. The noble Earl said that Lennox-Boyd said that Cyprus would be given independence "at the appropriate moment" and, when asked what the "appropriate moment" was, said, "The appropriate moment means the appropriate moment". I remember one of his colleagues giving a different answer when asked when Cyprus would be given independence. He said "Never". That was Mr. Henry Hopkinson who later became Lord Colyton and, for that minor indiscretion, he found himself in the Foreign Office for not too long. That is why Ministers sometimes choose their words
94
very carefully. I shall endeavour to choose my words with equal care this evening so that I shall not suffer the same fate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has moved her amendment, Amendment No. 42. My amendment is Amendment No. 71 and I hope that the noble Baroness will not think it totally discourteous of me if I explain my amendment first because, when I have done so, I think that the noble Baroness will see how her amendment does or does not fit in.
Concerns were expressed by a number of noble Lords during Committee stage that the provisions in Clause 185 did not offer sufficient protection. Some noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, felt that the provisions might allow a let-out for less scrupulous authorities. In response to the noble Baroness, my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said that it was our intention to put forward amendments for consideration on Report which would clarify the level of advice and assistance which was expected of local authorities. Since Committee stage, officials have been discussing with Shelter and the local authority associations possible measures to clarify the nature of the duty. Amendment No. 71 delivers the result. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would be delighted, just as my noble friend Lord Swinfen has said that he is.
Amendment No. 71 makes it clear that an authority must be satisfied that the advice and assistance it has provided is sufficient to enable the applicant to secure accommodation. This amendment strengthens the provisions in Clause 185, while ensuring that the applicant takes some responsibility for arranging his own accommodation.
Clause 185 is an important provision: it is a halfway stage between the full homelessness duty and the purely advisory role. In order for this provision to work, it is important for the applicant to play his part in finding a solution. By encouraging people to take some responsibility for finding their own housing, Amendment No. 71 preserves the role of the individual. At the same time, it will give people the confidence that they will be given proper support in their endeavours.
The provisions in Clause 185 provide a practical way in which applicants can help themselves without having to place themselves entirely at the mercy of the local authority. Amendment No. 71 strengthens those provisions. That is the position with regard to my amendment. Amendment No. 42, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require a much increased involvement of the local authority in securing the alternative accommodation for the applicant. By requiring an authority to give the applicant the address of the property which it is satisfied is available, the amendment could come close to placing a duty on the authority actually to do the whole job of securing the accommodation for the applicant.
There will be a number of ways in which an authority can provide the necessary advice and assistance for the applicant. In some cases this may involve identifying a particular property which it knows to be available, but in others the authority may establish links with a

95
landlord who has a range of property, or with a letting agent. It may refer the applicant to that landlord (or agent) and leave them to sort out which of the properties in the landlord's portfolio the applicant is to take. Were the amendment to apply, that sort of process would not be possible.
The noble Baroness asked whether accommodation (in the general sense) has merely to be available. The answer is no; the accommodation must reflect the applicant's personal characteristics. That is explained in subsection (4)(a) which is introduced by our Amendment No. 71. The noble Baroness asked how an applicant can challenge whether alternative accommodation is suitable and available if the local authority does not specify the actual address. It is understood in the phrase "alternative accommodation" that there is a duty under Clause 185 which is not discharged if suitable accommodation is not actually secured, unless the applicant has failed to take reasonable steps to secure it himself.
I think it is necessary to ensure that the applicant does take reasonable steps to ensure these things. He ought to have advice and help from the local authority but he cannot be removed entirely from the responsibility of doing it. It would be wrong if he were, because it would or could place quite intolerable burdens on the local authority.
I would end by saying that Amendment No. 71, which is in my name, prevents the authorities from taking an unreasonably short-term view of what constitutes suitable alternative accommodation, but at the same time it places some responsibility on the applicant to take up the opportunities which are provided to him. I think that a provision like that is preferable to an open-ended duty of the kind proposed by the noble Baroness. That is why, in a spirit of total modesty, I suggest that my amendment might be better than that of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to ask the Minister two questions. The first refers to his amendment. He has directed your Lordships to subsection 4(a) which requires the authority to have regard to all the circumstances, including the characteristics and personal circumstances of the applicant. Can the Minister help me and perhaps others of your Lordships by saying what is meant by the word "characteristics"? Is that something different from need? Secondly, as regards my amendment, I am still unclear—and perhaps the Minister can give me a short answer—how, if the authority is not aware of the address of a property, it can know that it is suitable.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with regard to the first of the noble Baroness's questions, the characteristics and personal circumstances of the applicant are exactly what they are said to be, to repeat the advice of Alan Lennox-Boyd. He said, if I might transpose this, that the characteristics and personal circumstances of the applicant mean the characteristics and personal circumstances of the applicant. In other words, a person has certain characteristics; his requirements and needs
96
are of a certain nature. I have used before as an example the extreme case of a person who may be a single parent with five children, and she has certain characteristics and certain circumstances to which the housing provisions have to be made appropriate. You can find other examples among those who may be disabled, mentally ill or tied down by children. These are all the characteristics of the applicant and they must be taken into account.
The property will be suitable if in practice it meets the needs of the applicant. I cannot go any further than that, and I am sure the noble Baroness will understand why. The purpose is to ensure that a housing situation meets the needs of a particular applicant, and the needs of one applicant are different from those of another. It is the characteristics of a particular applicant which determine whether or not the housing which is available is appropriate to that applicant.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I will think about this and perhaps put down an amendment at Third Reading to change "characteristics" to "needs". I remain concerned about this because if an applicant cannot find secure alternative accommodation he will re-apply, and so we are faced with a fast-revolving door. It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Government have moved, even if not quite as far as I personally would have wished. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 174 [Persons from abroad not eligible for housing assistance]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 105, line 27, at end insert—
("provided always that no British subject shall be deemed to be, a person from abroad.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may be forgiven if for a moment I thank the Minister for introducing the case of the late Lord Colyton, formerly Mr. Hopkinson. I remember it well: Mr. Lennox-Boyd was clearing up the mess it created. By coincidence, one of my academic colleagues happened to have read in the Public Record Office, where it is now in the public domain, the brief from which Mr. Hopkinson spoke. Though it did not say "never", the word "never" was written in the margin and he made the mistake of reading it out. The conclusion I have drawn from this story, and of which I become more and more convinced, is that "never" is a short time in politics.
This amendment deals with subsection (1) of Clause 174, which provides that a person from abroad shall not be eligible for housing assistance. My amendment seeks to provide that a British subject shall not be taken to be a person from abroad. One would have thought that that amendment might have been a tautology, but sadly at present it is not. Some of your Lordships may have noticed in the Independent a few days ago a report of the case of Mr. Hussein. Anyone who was aware of what was going on at Trent Bridge on Saturday must realise that "Hussein" (however spelt) is now a good English name. This particular Mr. Hussein is a British subject resident in Kuwait and

97
married to a Kuwaiti by whom he has children. Mr. Hussein has been converted away from Islam. He has been found guilty of apostasy. He has been sentenced to separate from his wife and children and he faces the prospect of a death sentence.
As you might expect, British consular staff are involved in trying to procure Mr. Hussein's safety. In any normal circumstances, with any normal country with a dedication to protecting the interests of its own subjects, one would have thought that the advice given to Mr. Hussein might have been to go home to his own country where he has his own citizenship. But were Mr. Hussein do so he would not of course instantly be employed. Neither would he be able to obtain benefits because under the habitual residence test he would be found to be a person from abroad. To be found to be a person from abroad in your own country really is a peculiarly sadistic form of insult. It is entirely unnecessary, and deprives people of rights which everybody ought to have in a country somewhere. If by any misfortune one ceases to be able to enjoy those rights in one's own country, one ought to be able to enjoy them in another; but he has done nothing to justify being deprived of them in the country of his citizenship.
Mr. Hussein is not alone in this case. The British have always been a travelling people. That has been in our interest, as it has from time to time been in the interests of the other places to which we have gone. One thinks of people who may be wishing, for example, to return from Liberia, where they may have been working as doctors or teachers; but if they return destitute—maybe turned out by the burning down of their house—to their own country where they should have been able to come in safety, they find they are turned away as persons from abroad. I really do not understand why the Government do this. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, may be pleased to hear that only this morning I telephoned the Kuwaiti Embassy on behalf of Mr. Hussein, about whom he was speaking. However, as somebody who was involved, with many others, in the development of housing aid and advice in the 1960s, both before and after the creation of the body known as Shelter, I read with some encouragement the terms of Clause 168. The clause provides that every local housing authority shall secure that advice and information is available free of charge to any person in its district. The clause goes on to repeat the phrase "any person" no less than three times. Therefore, it is a source of grave disappointment to read further on in Clauses 173 and 174 that the duties in respect of both homelessness and other forms of housing assistance are being whittled away from any person in the district and are being made subject to all kinds of tests and discrimination.
I should warn the Government that if they continue to make things so difficult for local housing authorities in respect of asylum seekers and refugees it will be incumbent on them to make proper housing provision for such people. This will become a function of central government, as it has been made almost impossible for local government to deal with the question.
9 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in this amendment in this part of the Bill we are not talking about asylum seekers or refugees. They have been covered in other parts of the debate, and we will probably come to them later. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that anyone who seeks asylum on his arrival in this country is eligible for benefits and to be considered under the homelessness legislation. The noble Lord refers to advice which is available to any person. Under Clause 168 the advisory services are fully open to persons from abroad to help prevent homelessness. The difference is that assistance under the homelessness legislation—which means finding a house and perhaps providing one—is not available because that must accord with, and be parallel to, the person's eligibility for housing benefit. I know that the noble Lord does not agree with the Government as to that.
I believe that as a country the United Kingdom is reasonably generous to people seeking asylum. If they claim asylum at the port of entry most assuredly the benefits system will be open to them until a decision is made one way or the other by the Home Office. As far as concerns the habitual residence test, the noble Earl and I have been over this on a number of occasions. I suspect that we will never come to agreement. Although I normally obey the rule never to say "never" in politics, I believe that in this case it can be said with some safety. The noble Earl appreciates that United Kingdom citizens along with other people from the European Union are caught by the habitual residence test simply because of the rules of the European Union. Under those rules, we cannot differentiate between our citizens and other citizens of the European Union. To devise a rule to prevent people coming here and claiming benefits to which they have little or no entitlement we have had to introduce the habitual residence test. That must cover people from abroad. It applies equally to British citizens, EU citizens and settled immigrants. The noble Earl knows that that is the position. That was designed to combat abuse of our benefits system.
Listening to the noble Earl, your Lordships may have thought that we would turn people away at the front door. That is not so. Of course they are British citizens, but if they have not been habitually resident here should they be immediately entitled to these benefits just as if they had been here all their lives? I do not believe that that should be so. The noble Earl does not agree. He believes that if such a person comes here, regardless of how tenuous his links may be to this country, as long as he is a British citizen he ought to be eligible immediately for all the benefits that those of us who have lived in this country all our lives are entitled to. That is a point of view. It does not happen to be my point of view, and I do not believe that it is the view of the majority of taxpayers. I accept that there are some taxpayers, like the noble Earl, who have no problem

99
about it and will happily pay a great deal more in taxes to allow people from abroad—asylum seekers and probably many others—to receive these benefits.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, can the Minister say whether a person with a British passport, who is entitled to enter and live in this country but who happens to have lived abroad, is able to come to Britain as an asylum seeker?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is a neat question, to which the answer is no. The simple reason—which I thought would be obvious to anybody—is that if that person holds a British passport he is allowed to stay in this country. The question is whether such a person is immediately entitled to British benefit. I do not believe that he ought to be.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is the Minister saying that someone who claims asylum at the port of entry but who is not a British citizen is entitled to British benefits but that a British citizen who is under threat of persecution and applies for asylum at the port of entry, as in the case outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not entitled to British benefits?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thought that we were discussing homelessness and housing assistance, not benefit.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry to say that we are talking about benefits because the two are tied together. If people have lots of money they will not need to be considered under the homelessness legislation. If they do not have lots of money they will need either housing benefit or the local authority to pay for them. They will need benefit from the British taxpayer or the British council tax payer one way or another.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, if a British citizen goes to live in Australia his pension is frozen at whatever the rate is at the time. If that person returns to this country the pension is immediately reinstated at the current rate. I know a number of people who regularly return to England in order to have their pensions upgraded. I wonder how that affects this issue. I am sorry to put a fly in the ointment in this way.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as my noble friend will know, if a person is entitled to a British pension he will have paid contributions while resident in the United Kingdom. The pension rules allow such an individual to come back and establish himself here, receive an upgrade of pension and then return to Australia—if he must. The pension is then frozen again. However, that is an entirely different issue. The noble Baroness may laugh but I would just like to get it on record that I presume the Labour Party will repeal the habitual residence test if it wins the election and will allow people to come here from wherever it is in the world and link themselves in to the United Kingdom benefit system—whatever that may cost the British
100
taxpayer. I presume that is the Labour Party's policy. I certainly know it is the Liberal Democrats' policy because the noble Earl has told me on a number of occasions.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister asked me a question. I am delighted to see that he is practising for the position of Opposition by interrogating noble Lords on these Benches as to the implications of our policies. I am sure he will get even further practice of that in future. I simply asked him a question which he may go on to answer but I think he thought he had passed by our point. Why is it acceptable that someone coming out of a situation, as outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in Kuwait or Iran who is not a British citizen would be entitled to means-tested benefits but someone who is a British citizen coming out of the same situation of persecution would not be entitled.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, your Lordships will have noticed that the noble Baroness evaded the question about what the Labour Party's policy would be. I presume that means that it does not have a policy. Maybe it is under review. Or perhaps there is to be a referendum on it. I must conclude that the Labour Party would be prepared to allow all the people we are excluding from benefit to have access to the benefit again. If that is the case, then, in accordance with what I will call the "Brown doctrine", savings will have to be found elsewhere in the British benefit system in order to pay benefits to people from abroad and asylum seekers, presumably, who come here saying they will not live off the British taxpayer and then, when they get here, decide to claim asylum. All that money will have to be found from elsewhere in the social security budget. I imagine that means that other British citizens will have to lose some of their benefit.
I am asked the question about British citizens. I am afraid the noble Lords opposite are becoming confused. All we are discussing with the habitual residence test is whether or not a person who is not an habitual resident here, including an EU citizen—because we must remember that they can be EU citizens as well as British citizens—has a right immediately to claim United Kingdom benefits. We say they should not have. The Opposition clearly say they should. What is the difference between a returning British citizen and an asylum seeker? The difference is that a returning British citizen is immediately entitled to go to work. He does not need to wait for the six months. There are no problems about working immediately he reaches this country. Therefore, if the gentleman from Kuwait comes here, he can use his undoubted talents to start work immediately. He is in quite a different situation from an asylum seeker who, of course, is not allowed to work until at least six months have passed in this country.
We look for a number of factors in deciding whether somebody is habitually resident: a claimant's future intentions, the reasons for his coming to the UK, his employment record, and the continuity of residence in another country. All claimants are subject to the habitual residence test when making application for benefits.

101
It is only fair that British subjects who may have lived abroad for a great many years—and in some of the examples we have had even retain property and interests abroad—should be required to establish whether they are habitually resident here when they wish to claim assistance provided by resident British taxpayers.
As I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, earlier, local authorities normally rely on housing benefit to defray a considerable part of the costs of their homelessness duty. Nevertheless, providing assistance under the homelessness legislation still involves them in expense. Were this amendment to be passed it would prevent our aligning entitlement under the homelessness legislation with entitlement to social security benefits and could result in an even greater cost to the local authorities.
I understand the noble Earl's concern about the habitual residence test. I understand that the noble Earl is opposed to it absolutely and that he would be prepared to live with what, when this issue first came to our attention, were called "benefit tourists".
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister is putting words into my mouth. He knows perfectly well that, like the Social Security Advisory Committee, I believe that the actively seeking work rules are much better designed to catch those people than the test. I ask him to withdraw the remark he has just made.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry if I misquoted the noble Earl. I am happy to withdraw my remark. I am not entirely sure how the actively seeking work test would help in the cases that we saw last summer and the summer before that.
However, be that as it may, the position is that the habitual residence test is a clear test which must be applied to United Kingdom citizens returning here just as it must to European Union citizens and other people with settled status here. I believe that it is a perfectly sensible protection for the British taxpayer. I am sure that the majority of my fellow countrymen agree with me, although I accept that others do not. It seems to me that we should make sure that we use our benefit system and the considerable amount of money which the taxpayer entrusts to us to run that benefit system for the purpose for which it was intended; namely, to help those of our fellow citizens resident in this country who have fallen on hard times.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I really rather enjoyed that. I am grateful for the support that I received from all sides of the House. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for giving more information about the case of Mr. Hussein. I am grateful to those on the Opposition Front Bench for their extremely useful questions about the relationship between an asylum seeker and a British person suffering under the habitual residence test.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for reminding us of the problem of the Australian resident pensioners. That is a serious problem
102
to which we must return. However, I fear that the noble Baroness was perhaps unwise to draw the Government's attention to the practice of people returning from Australia to up-rate their pensions. The Government will stop that next. If the noble Baroness wishes to join me in challenging them when they do that, I shall be happy to have her support.
Before moving the amendment, I should have declared a non-pecuniary interest because for a period of five years or more, I have twice been resident outside the United Kingdom. Therefore, if I had returned home destitute as a result of any misfortune, if it had been in place then, I would have been caught by this test. Therefore, when the Minister says that British subjects returning from abroad who are caught by this test have a very tenuous connection with this country, I find those words personally offensive and I should be grateful if the Minister would also withdraw that allegation.
As always, the Minister had a great deal to say about the taxpayer, who is, of course, not singular. Of course the interests of taxpayers need to be taken into account but the Minister's success in doing that has not been very great, in particular in relation to the people whom we are considering. If they are denied benefit, they become homeless, destitute and probably patients in a hospital where they will be a charge on public funds.
But if they are able to obtain work—and hardly anybody can do so who is sleeping rough on the street—they will become taxpayers. The Minister knows perfectly well that that is the way in which I believe the interests of the taxpayer should be served.
The Minister is right about our policy but he must not put into our mouths what he believes the consequences of that policy will be. We believe that he is very deeply mistaken in that calculation. I was very surprised by what the Minister said when he referred to the advice clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, drew attention. The Minister said that persons from abroad will be entitled to advice about how to avoid homelessness. But when they are not entitled to work and have no money—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Earl really must not go on about not being entitled to work. If the people concerned are British citizens they will be entitled to work immediately on their return here. That is quite a different category from asylum seekers who are not British citizens.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I had temporarily slipped a gear and I thank him for pulling me up.
The fact remains that even if you are entitled to work, not everybody who is so entitled is of an age and has the health which permits them to do so. The Minister will recall one particular case about which we have corresponded at very great length where that was definitely the case. Therefore, in those cases, I should be grateful to know precisely what advice those people will be given. I presume it will be the traditional Irish advice that they should not have started from here in the first place; but I do not know what else they should have done.

103
The noble Lord should also look very carefully at the judgment of Lord Justice Neill in the Kihara case in the Court of Appeal which drew attention to the combination of pressures that a number of people in that situation face.
Rather unwisely, I thought, in the context of previous discussions, the Minister told me that he would never agree with me about the habitual residence test. I must ask him the traditional question: what, never? There is an appropriate response; I hope he can give it. The Minister will go on about taxation. I think he is going the wrong way about it, but we shall not agree about that either, and we shall have plenty more opportunities to return to it. So, ready for the next round, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 105, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) A person who is subject to immigration control within the meaning of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 is not eligible for housing assistance unless he is of a class prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 44 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49. I believe I have already explained to your Lordships—in the context of moving amendments to Clause 153 of Part VI of the Bill, dealing with those who may or may not be a qualifying person for the purpose of housing allocation—that the Government are concerned to put beyond doubt the question of the lawfulness of excluding certain classes of persons subject to immigration control from entitlement to housing assistance. I remind your Lordships that this concern arises because of the recent Court of Appeal decision which stated that the regulations which we passed at the end of January were unlawful insofar as they deny council tax benefit, housing benefit or income support benefit to asylum seekers whose claim has not been finally determined.
Amendment No. 44 is similar to Government Amendment No. 7—which I moved earlier this evening—which has already been considered under Part VI. Amendment No. 44 will make clear on the face of the Bill that persons subject to immigration control are not eligible for assistance under Part VII, and will put beyond doubt—in primary legislation—that such persons are ineligible unless otherwise prescribed by regulations. Other than clarifying the issue of the lawfulness of any exclusions from eligibility under Part VII, the practical effect of this amendment is, like Amendment No. 7, nil because the classes of person which we intend to exclude from eligibility are unchanged.
We intend that regulations should specify that the following classes of person subject to immigration control are eligible for assistance under Part VII: refugees; persons granted exceptional leave to remain, or having indefinite leave to remain; asylum seekers (and the dependants of asylum seekers) whose asylum
104
claim has not been turned down and who either applied for asylum at the port on arrival, or applied for asylum within three months of a declaration by the Home Secretary that their country of origin has undergone an upheaval. As with regulations to prescribe persons subject to immigration control who are qualifying persons for the purpose of Part VI, we intend that regulations prescribing those who are eligible for assistance under Part VII should be made at the outset, on commencement of this Bill. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, it is of course confusing and difficult to have so many government amendments at this stage of the Bill. I am bound to say that it has been difficult to examine these amendments in the time available, to test whether they are innocuous or whether they contain a sting. I listened hard to what the Minister said in introducing these four amendments. The difficulty is that as we have two Bills proceeding through Parliament at the same time there is some overlap. I am bound to say that had the Government kept the housing provisions either in the asylum Bill only or in the Housing Bill only, it would have been much easier than having similar groups of people covered in both Bills. That has certainly caused me confusion, but I fear it has also caused the Government confusion, and that makes it worse.
When the Minister talked about the people who would be eligible for assistance he did not mention asylum seekers who claimed asylum within three days of arrival in this country, as was established in a previous amendment. I do not wish to have too suspicious a mind about this, but I wonder whether Amendment No. 48, which seeks to remove subsection (3) of Clause 174, is intended in some way to circumvent that three-day amendment that this House accepted. It certainly could, on one construction, be seen to be doing that. I hope that is not the case because if it were I should have thought that it is not totally above board and is not the right way to take this matter further.
Regrettably, because we are dealing with the issue at Report stage and not in Committee, other than asking for leave of the House to make further interventions, it is much harder to establish the truth of the matter. That is another difficulty in having a raft of government amendments at this late stage of the Bill. I should like some assurance that nothing the Minister has said will, directly or indirectly, affect the amendment passed by this House: that asylum seekers claiming asylum within three days of arrival will have the same entitlements to benefits as those who claim asylum at the port of entry.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord has made an extremely important point. I, too, am anxious to hear the assurance for which he asks.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, when the Minister replies will he explain to the House the meaning of the wording in Amendment No. 49, "whether another person". It does not seem plain.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Minister read a list of categories of people who would be eligible.

105
He referred again to the concept of an individual applying for asylum at the port of entry. My noble friend Lord Dubs queried whether the Government recognised that there was an amendment at Committee stage.
Perhaps I may put another category to the Minister; he may not have considered it. A rich person comes from a country where he would be subject to persecution. There are special categories or criteria by which people with large amounts of wealth can come to this country without difficulties with immigration control, and so on. The wealthy person comes to this country but loses his wealth after being resident for some time. It may be a bad Stock Exchange investment—stocks can go down as well as up. He becomes destitute in this country with no visible means of support. Would the Government entertain an application for asylum for that person even though the application was not made within three days of arriving at the point of entry?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as these are my amendments, I can sum up this short debate at Report stage. I do not believe that there is any problem about the procedure of the House. Therefore, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
I shall not pursue the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, down his hypothetical path. I am always intrigued at the manufacture of hypothetical cases. If a rich asylum seeker comes to this country, his asylum application will be treated in the same way as anyone else's and he will clearly not be eligible for benefit on any specific count even if he applies at the port of entry. So far as I am concerned, he will not be eligible for benefit, although one never knows the view of the Opposition parties on that. I gather that they would not consider him eligible for benefit either.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, he is an asylum seeker. I thought that asylum seekers were more deserving of benefit than anyone else.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe that the Minister has misunderstood my comments. I was talking about someone who was rich and is now destitute. What is the Government's position?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would give me a moment or two to answer. A person does not come to this country rich and in the twinkling of an eye suddenly become poor. After a few months of putting money on the wrong horse, or whatever it may be, he then ends up poor. I guess that by that time the asylum application would have been considered. If the person had been granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain and then became poor, he would be eligible for benefit. However, if he had not been granted asylum and became poor, he would be like anyone else not granted asylum: he would not be eligible for benefit. That is a pretty clear answer.
106
To return to more serious matters, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about "whether another person", the words in my amendment. It is simply a re-drafting amendment with no practical change in effect from the provisions drafted in Clause 174 (4). With the assurance that there is nothing underhand or devious intended, I hope that the noble Lord can be comforted.
Amendment No. 48 would remove subsection (3) of Clause 174. The subsection provides that regulations that prescribe classes of persons who are ineligible under Part VII may make reference to housing benefit legislation. While it remains our broad policy aim to align entitlement to assistance under the homelessness legislation with entitlement to housing benefit, we do not intend to make direct reference to social security legislation for the purpose of making regulations under Part VII. That is the position.
As to the three days, nothing takes away from the general principle of aligning the benefit regulations with the asylum provisions which apply at the port of arrival. I have mentioned before that we are considering what we should do about the defeat which I suffered a week ago in your Lordships' House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 105, line 27, at end insert—
(" ( ) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall render ineligible under this Part any claimant pursuing an appeal under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and with it I wish to speak to Amendment No. 46. I should not have tabled the amendment if I had not listened to and then read carefully the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, at the Report stage of the Asylum and Immigration Bill. I found his answer so unsatisfactory that I thought it appropriate, on a more limited basis, to put this amendment forward.
I wish to make two points. First, I shall deal with the point that the noble Lord made about equating benefit entitlement for asylum seekers with the same system of benefit entitlement for normal UK residents. The Minister said that, while an appeal is taking place, a UK resident does not receive benefit and the situation is similar with asylum seekers. However, the point is different; it has been made before but must be repeated. If a UK resident is held not to be entitled to a particular benefit and chooses to appeal, the appeal is based on the decision to refuse the benefit.
In the case of an asylum seeker who is turned down by the Home Office in his asylum claim, if he appeals and then has his benefit stopped, the appeal is not about entitlement to benefit but the right to asylum. Yet, if the Government have their way, the asylum seeker will lose his benefit while the appeal is going on. It is because the subject of the appeal is different that it is not straightforward and not fair to equate the two processes. It is not right to say that one is treating all people equally.
The main point of the amendment is to put right something unacceptable. If an asylum seeker does things properly and claims asylum at the point of entry or within three days—if the amendment holds, as I hope it will, in its passage through the other place—then the asylum seeker is entitled to various benefits, including homelessness accommodation. If the Home Office turns down the application, all the benefits stop unless and until the asylum seeker is successful in carrying out an appeal.
I believe I have got it right as regards financial benefits. The Government have said that a successful asylum appeal to an adjudicator or an immigration appeal tribunal will result in the asylum seeker getting back the financial benefits that he lost during that period. But as regards homelessness accommodation, that clearly is not possible. Not many asylum seekers are eligible for homelessness accommodation because they are not in the priority categories. But, as the Minister confirmed, if an asylum seeker is entitled to homelessness accommodation, as soon as the local authority is aware that the Home Office has turned down the asylum application it will have to turn him out. It need only reconsider the claim as and when the asylum seeker wins the appeal. That period between being turned down by the Home Office and having an appeal resolved can be weeks, is likely to be months, and could be years.
It is quite appalling that an individual who is deemed homeless and who, quite properly under the law, is put into homelessness accommodation by the local authority should then be made homeless from homelessness accommodation. That is absurd. I cannot believe that the Government could on a clear day, thinking about it, wish that to be the outcome. It is not comparable to loss of financial benefits. The Government are saying that that person and the family will be thrown out.
If there are children, the local authority will continue to bear the responsibility. It then has to go through the complicated process of assessing the family under local authority provisions in order to see whether it can step in and help that particular family. The process is complicated and bureaucratic. It is bound to be expensive for a local authority.
It is curious, to say the least, that the Government are telling a local authority which has housed an asylum seeker that the day after an asylum claim is turned down it has to throw the individual out while assessing, under other provisions put forward by the Government, whether to do something for the family, or at least take the children into care. I suggest that the whole procedure is likely to cost a great deal of public money—probably more than any perceived saving. It is a clumsy attempt to try to be consistent as between the policy on financial benefits and that on homelessness accommodation. It surely cannot be humane or sensible. I repeat: it cannot make any sense to turn people out of homelessness accommodation and make them homeless in the process. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, this is an important amendment, even though it affects only a small group
108
of people. If the consequence of withdrawal of benefits is homelessness, that will be a very strong incentive to asylum appellants to abandon their appeal or to withdraw from it. If that happens, it will negate the whole appeal procedure which has been built up over a long period of years.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I shall not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said. He put the case extremely well. I shall merely refresh the point that benefit withdrawn after appeal can be backdated and repaid. You cannot repay a home after an appeal. That is a vital distinction and I am most grateful to the noble Lord for it.
I am sure the Minister will recall a speech made at Third Reading of the asylum Bill by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in support of an amendment moved from these Benches by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby. The noble and learned Lord argued that the right to appeal is a fundamental judicial matter and that, by completely removing all means of support during an appeal, the Government might be thought to be frustrating the right of appeal itself. If the Minister has read the Court of Appeal judgment he will understand the reasoning behind the noble and learned Lord's thinking. It is a powerful and compelling point. The Minister will, of course, need to remember that the point of the Court of Appeal judgment was that the denial of benefits threatens the very right to seek asylum itself. I know he does not agree with that, but the question is one to be determined by the courts and not by the Government.
The amendment which was carried in this House in relation to entry will be, I believe, sufficient to protect the Government against that charge. Were they to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, they would be protected against the second plank of that charge. The Minister should remember that although Parliament can do whatever it likes, it is incumbent upon Parliament to do something before the courts can understand what it has done. If Parliament enacts a contradiction, the courts cannot be certain which part of it Parliament intends.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, Amendment No. 45 would prevent an asylum seeker, who is pursuing an appeal under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 from being prescribed as ineligible for assistance under Part VII of the Bill.
The amendment goes to the heart of the steps the Government are taking to reduce the number of asylum seekers who come to this country and lodge appeals that have no real basis. I shall remind your Lordships of the figures. Only three out of 100 appeals are found to be genuine asylum seekers. The other 97 are not. Those are the figures on appeals. I have advised your noble Lords on other occasions of those figures, and I apologise for doing so again, but I think it is well worth keeping in front of us the fact that only 3 per cent. are successful on appeal. Therefore, a very large number of asylum seekers pursue an appeal once the Home Office has refused their initial claim, and they do not succeed. Of course, all the time social security benefits and

109
assistance are being given, and to date they were considered for help under the homelessness legislation while they pursued these asylum claims.
We have been over this ground on a fair number of occasions, and this House and the other place have decided on various parts of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, which will, in fact, enact what I have been advocating for some time, and the parties opposite, of course, have been disputing for some time. Genuine asylum seekers come to this country to escape persecution and not to obtain benefit. As I have said on a number of occasions, it is as much in the interests of those who are genuinely seeking asylum, as it is in the interests of our own taxpayers to reduce the number of economic migrants currently clogging up the asylum system.
The Government are taking action to remove entitlement to benefits and to assistance under the homelessness legislation from people who enter this country on the understanding that they will support and accommodate themselves, or indeed people who come here illegally, but who then change their minds and decide to claim asylum, and then have their claims for asylum turned down by the Home Office.
I pointed out last week that since the social security regulations were introduced earlier in the year removing benefit entitlement from these groups, the number of asylum applications in March, April and May has reduced; indeed the number reduced quite dramatically in May. Excluding these groups from entitlement to assistance under the homelessness legislation is a logical extension of that policy. Moreover, it would not be acceptable to place local housing authorities under the additional, onerous, burden of having to meet the full housing costs of applicants accommodated under the homelessness legislation, who were unable to claim housing benefit.
Amendment No. 45 would undermine our policies of removing the incentive for economic migrants to come to this country and pursue unfounded claims for asylum, and, more generally, of aligning the entitlement of persons from abroad to assistance under the homelessness legislation with entitlement to housing benefit.
Earl Russell: My Lords, could the Minister tell the House how he knows the claims have been unfounded before they are heard?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have been over this a great many times. Out of every 100 claims decided by the Home Office only five are granted asylum. Out of every 100 claims going to appeal only three are granted asylum. Those are the 1995 figures. The 1994 figures are somewhat similar. The position is there; it is quite clear and quite obvious. That is the evidence. I do not think one requires any more evidence. The position is perfectly clear. As I said, Amendment No. 45 would undermine our policy.
Amendment No. 46 would remove the regulation-making power which allows the Secretary of State to prescribe that certain groups of persons from
110
abroad are not eligible for assistance. As I hope I made clear, the Government are clear that persons from abroad who do not have a valid claim to public assistance—and that includes assistance under the homelessness legislation—should not have access to it.
It is important, therefore, that there should be scope to prescribe those classes of person who are not eligible for assistance under Part VII. Our policy is that entitlement to homelessness assistance should align with entitlement to housing benefit. The groups of persons we intend to prescribe as not eligible under Part VII will be precisely those groups which are excluded from entitlement to housing benefit under social security regulations.
Amendment No. 46, like Amendment No. 45, would undermine that policy, and I cannot recommend either of the amendments to the House.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, in his comments the Minister seemed to imply that, despite doing the right thing by applying at the port of entry, such people should still be deterred from seeking to come here. That has taken the argument several stages further than the Government's original proposition, which was to draw a distinction between those claiming asylum at the ports and those who failed to do so but claimed asylum when they had been in the country for some time.
The Minister thought that such a distinction would help the Government to control things on their terms. We on these Benches were not happy about any of that, but for the moment I accept the Government's argument. We have now taken the matter a great deal further. The Minister is now using the same type of emotional reasoning—if one can talk about emotional reasoning—or argument against those asylum seekers who have done as the Government said: they have claimed asylum at the point of entry; they have done everything properly and have had homelessness accommodation, if they were in the priority category, as only a small proportion of them would be; they are then turned down by the Home Office, maybe nine months, a year or two years later; and they then appeal.
If there is any virtue in having a system of appeals, it is to ensure that justice is done to asylum seekers. Yet the Minister says, "No, no—most people do not win their appeals and so forget about justice to those people". That is what the Minister said tonight. That is what he said in this House on 24th June during the Report stage of the Asylum and Immigration Bill. He said:
"Frankly, unless their case is extraordinarily strong, my advice would be that they should consider returning home".—(Official Report, 24/6/96; col. 715.)
He made the point on a number of occasions.
If there is a concept of justice, it is not one that can be modified by statistics. Justice is for every single individual. It is not good enough to say that 3 per cent. win their appeal. Those 3 per cent. surely have certain basic rights. The Minister says, "We will forget about those rights; 3 per cent. is not enough to bother about and they ought to go home". That is the nub of the

111
Government's argument. Furthermore, in quoting the 5 per cent. who obtained asylum status and the 3 per cent. who won appeals, the Minster forgot about the others—the 20 per cent. or so who obtained exceptional leave to remain.
But my key point is that if there is an appeal system, it ought not to be undermined by coercing people to leave the country and possibly face danger if they have to return to where they suffered persecution.
Finally, the Government conceded that, where there are cash benefits which are lost to asylum seekers during the period between being turned down by the Home Office and winning an appeal, those who win appeals will obtain financial recompense. Not a word has been said about recompense to people who have lost their homelessness accommodation. I should have thought that justice and equity demand that the Government do something for those people who have lost out even more badly, because in the end they will end up on the streets, compared with those people—and it is bad enough—who have lost their financial benefits. So the Government even within their own policies are inconsistent.
I do not know whether the Minister wants to comment further. Regrettably, we are now at Report stage. But I think the Government are wrong. They are behaving badly. They have not made their case. The right of appeal is a right of appeal for every single individual. The Government are seeking to undermine that right for individuals who may well have to face danger in the country from which they have fled. I think it is shameful. I think it is shabby. In the absence of any further comment from the Minister, I very reluctantly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 47 to 49:
Page 105, line 28, leave out second ("the") and insert ("other").
Page 105, line 31, leave out subsection (3).
Page 105, line 34, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("( ) A person from abroad who is not eligible for housing assistance shall be disregarded in determining for the purposes of this Part whether another person—

(a) is homeless or threatened with homelessness, or

(b) has a priority need for accommodation.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 175 [Asylum-seekers and their dependants]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 105, line 39, after second ("asylum-seeker") insert ("who is not by virtue of section 174 a person from abroad who is ineligible for housing assistance,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 50, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 51 to 53. Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 are simply drafting amendments which clarify the provisions in subsection (1) of Clause 175. They do not alter the substance of the clause and, with your Lordships' agreement, I do not intend to dwell on them further.
Beyond subsection (1), the provisions in Clause 175, as drafted, largely re-state existing provisions in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, which provide a statutory framework for the Home Office to advise local housing authorities about the status of homeless applicants who are asylum seekers.
Under the present homelessness legislation, authorities need to know whether an applicant is an asylum seeker, as that will affect whether a duty is owed and, if so, the extent of the duty. Broadly speaking, no duty is owed to asylum seekers who have accommodation—however temporary it is—which is available to them. Where they do not have accommodation available to them and they meet the normal statutory homeless criteria—that is, they are unintentionally homeless and in priority need—the duty owed is to secure temporary accommodation pending resolution of their asylum claim.
Under the present legislation, authorities need to know when the status of asylum seekers whom they are accommodating changes: if their asylum claim fails they are no longer entitled to homelessness assistance. That will remain broadly the same, but Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 update the provisions in the Bill to reflect the revised information needs of housing authorities in the light of the new position on asylum seekers' entitlement to benefits.
Authorities will continue to need to know whether an applicant is an asylum seeker but, additionally, they will need to know the circumstances which will determine whether the applicant is eligible for assistance under Part VII—such as whether he claimed asylum on arrival. The new clause after Clause 175, which would be inserted by Amendment No. 53, will provide for that. Amendment No. 52 paves the way by deleting the associated provisions in Clause 175 which would no longer be required. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, again this is an amendment which we have not had time to examine in the detail in which we would have wished. However, I wish to make some comments, particularly on Amendment No. 53. I appreciate that in some respects the point of Amendment No. 53 is not totally different from the equivalent clause as already stated on the face of the Bill. Nevertheless, I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions.
First, I should like some assurance that information that goes from a local authority to the Secretary of State will not be passed on to the Home Office. I say that because it is accepted practice in this country—sometimes breached—that when government seek information for one purpose, they will not use that information for other purposes. It would be a matter of assurance to individuals if that information were not

113
directly passed to the Home Office. There may be arguments to the contrary, but there is a point at issue there and there may be some anxieties.
Perhaps I may continue with my questions. Secondly, have the Government assessed how much work this will involve for the Home Office, the Secretary of State for the Environment and for local authorities? There is a danger that all of them will be put to a great deal of work and effort. I wonder what the implications are in that connection. Thirdly, what happens if a local authority actually passes a name to the Secretary of State for the Environment and nothing is known of that individual by the Home Office or by the Secretary of State? I find this matter quite complicated. There may well be people who the local authority suspects are asylum seekers, but it has no way of determining that and so the local authority will pass names to the Secretary of State and he will then have to make a decision. As regards my first question as to whether information will be passed to the Home Office, I suspect that the answer is that information will be passed because only that department can give the answer. I can see a rather difficult, circular argument.
Fourthly, what happens if nothing is known of the individual? There will be difficulties. The local authority may consider the case of a black person who is thought to be an asylum seeker, even though that person was born in this country and has lived with his family here for more than one generation. There may be the difficulty that an attempt is made to investigate the individual, who is British in every possible sense, having been born here, and who does not come under these provisions. That means there is the danger that there will be discrimination by local authorities who will not want to get involved in all the complexities of the matter.
Those are four questions, and I have a fifth, which applies to these amendments as it did to the others, but the Minister did not answer it. What recompense is to be given to an asylum seeker who is thrown out of homelessness accommodation for the reasons discussed in the previous short debate? What recompense is to be given if and when that asylum seeker is given refugee status or exceptional leave to remain as the result of an appeal? Surely some recompense is there by right. Will the Government make some available?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has picked up the clause and the amendments wrongly because the Secretary of State involved is the Home Secretary. The Secretary of State for the Environment does not come into this issue at all. The information seems to be going in the opposite way because the new clause in Amendment No. 53 states,
"The Secretary of State shall, at the request of a local housing authority provide the authority with such information as they may require".
So the information is going the other way, from the Home Office to the local authority, after information has been requested on the person before it.
114
I have already mentioned on a number of occasions the code of guidance and the information that already exists for local authorities when they ask people for their details. The local authority has to ask everyone particular questions when they present themselves under the homelessness legislation. It has to be established whether they are homeless, where they have been living, how many children there are and what is the position. All these questions have to be answered. I believe that the local authorities, as I have said before, have plenty of experience to be able to decide when they may have to ask a question about immigration status. That is perfectly clear. I imagine that many people will just say, "Yes, I am an asylum seeker and I claimed at the port of entry". It will then be fairly easy for the local authority to check that information. If the applicant is not telling the truth to the local authority then the Home Office will be unable to confirm that the person is an asylum seeker who claimed asylum at the port of entry. Therefore, I do not believe there is a great problem there. These procedures have to take place already in certain cases under the 1993 Act. I do not believe that there will be any great difficulty about the information which will pass largely from the Home Office to the local authority regarding the individual under consideration. Of course, nothing may be known about a person.
As I have said, the code of guidance on the screening procedure applies to absolutely everyone. We shall discuss the code with the Commission for Racial Equality, as we did with the last code. To be honest, there is no evidence that the current procedures are not working well. I believe that that answers the points raised about the code of guidance and the information passed to the Home Office, which will largely be sufficient information to allow the Home Office to identify a person and to check whether he is who he says he is.
On the question about workload, the arrangements provided in the new clause, which is Amendment No. 53, are broadly the same as the present arrangements which are provided under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. Therefore, I do not believe that there will be any great increase in the workload.
The noble Lord also asked about recompense. As he knows, if somebody appeals against an asylum decision and wins that appeal, I announced a fortnight ago today—we introduced legislation last Monday to give effect to this—that that person's benefits will be backdated. On the point about recompense in relation to the homelessness legislation, that does not involve money one way or the other so there will be no recompense for that aspect. However, if somebody who has been helped by a charity wins his appeal—I have explained that only three in 100 do so—his benefit will be backdated and he will be able to pay back some of the money that he has received from the charity or whoever has helped him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 51 and 52:
Page 105, leave out lines 42 to 44.
Page 106, line 21, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 53:
After Clause 175, insert the following new clause—
PROVISION OF INFORMATION BY SECRETARY OF STATE
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall, at the request of a local housing authority provide the authority with such information as they may require—

(a) as to whether a person is or has become an asylum-seeker, or a dependant of an asylum-seeker, and

(b) to enable them to determine whether such a person is eligible for assistance under this Part under section 174 (persons from abroad not eligible for housing assistance).

(2) Where that information is given otherwise than in writing, the Secretary of State shall confirm it in writing if a written request is made to him by the authority.
(3) If it appears to the Secretary of State that any application, decision or other change of circumstances has affected the status of a person about whom information was previously provided by him to a local housing authority under this section, he shall inform the authority in writing of that fact, the reason for it and the date on which the previous information became inaccurate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 176 [Interim duty to accommodate in case of apparent priority need]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 107, line 6, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 54, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 57 to 59, 65 to 67 and to Amendment No. 75. These amendments seek to disapply the "alternative accommodation" provisions of Clause 185 in cases where only a minor duty is owed to households accepted as homeless. These are people who are intentionally homeless or not in priority need. The provisions are also disapplied in cases where there is a referral on the grounds of local connection.
We wish to ensure that these provisions apply only in certain limited circumstances: we do not want authorities to be required to consider whether suitable alternative accommodation is available in every single case.
We shall shortly be considering a further amendment to this clause. We are proposing to strengthen the provision so that the authority will be under a duty to provide such advice and assistance as the authority considers is reasonably required to enable the applicant to secure such accommodation. In the light of that strengthening of the duty, we do not think it right that authorities should be subjected to it in cases where it is clearly inappropriate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 177 [Priority need for accommodation]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 107, line 18, at end insert—
(" ( ) a person who qualifies for advice and assistance under section 24 of the Children Act 1989.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. It seeks to add another category of people who have a priority need for accommodation to those listed in Clause 177(1). In this case we seek to specify that young people leaving care have a priority need.
This amendment is not dissimilar to one moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. His amendment went to the issue of suitability. Section 24 of the Children Act 1989, to which I referred, places a duty on a local authority which has been looking after a child to advise, assist and befriend the child with a view to promoting his welfare once he ceases to be looked after by a local authority. It is a limited duty. A person qualifying for advice and assistance means a person within the area of the authority under 21 and one who, after reaching the age of 16, was looked after by the local authority, accommodated by and on behalf of a voluntary organisation, accommodated in a registered children's home, by a health authority, an LEA, a residential care home or privately fostered.
Most young people leave home in their early 20s. The average age for people leaving home among the general population is, I understand, 22. People leave with the support of their family, no doubt taking their washing back at weekends—we have all either done that or had it done to us—and find their feet over a period. Approximately 8,000 young people leave care before their 18th birthday. For them it is a much sharper, more sudden and clearer demarcation. Some continue to receive support from a statutory or voluntary agency to find suitable accommodation. Many will set about the task of finding a home on their own, with little or no support or chance of returning to their family. The lack of family cuts them off not only from minor things like taking the washing home, but help with rent deposits and even help with finding a place to live. Young people leaving care are, I believe, particularly vulnerable to homelessness.
At present some local authorities carry out assessments on homeless young people and may provide them with accommodation if they consider them to be vulnerable; but only just over half the local authorities regard homeless 16 and 17 year-old care leavers as vulnerable in every case. The amendment is intended to ensure that the vulnerability of young people is recognised on the face of the Bill.
At the last stage on 25th June, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said (at col. 875 of Hansard) that he regarded the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, as unnecessary. He talked of the obligations of a housing authority, but the

117
housing authority only has a duty to comply with a request from social services in this context if that does not conflict with its other duties. So if the housing authority's other duties do not include preference for care leavers then these young people will be in no better a position than anyone else. On a more practical level, people working as housing officers are rather more versed in housing law than in social services law. So I think it would be better to have an explicit duty on the face of the Bill. I do not believe that it is unnecessary; nor indeed do I believe it is a duplication. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should have liked to support this amendment when it was previously moved by my noble friend Lord Northbourne. I think it is a fact that provision for young people leaving care varies enormously across the country. Some excellent work has been done on it by such voluntary bodies as the Coram Foundation and various children's societies. Nevertheless a considerable number of young people do leave care without assistance from anybody. They are particularly vulnerable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has pointed out and, in my view, they are extremely likely to drift into crime, to be drawn into crime or to find themselves before the courts for one reason or another. The amendment highlights a very sensitive situation. It is a valuable proposal that should be accepted by the Government.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is right that the noble Baroness should draw attention to the situation of children because they are very important. However, I am bound to tell her that I do not believe that the amendment is needed. The first reason is that children leaving care may well be determined by the local authority as vulnerable within the categories specified in subsection (1) of Clause 177 and will therefore be in priority need for accommodation. The department's homelessness code of guidance for local authorities picks up the point. It states that some groups of young people will be less able to fend for themselves than others and gives those leaving local authority care as a specific example of how the provision should be applied.
The second reason is that the Children Act itself makes provision to ensure that support will continue for young people leaving care. Apart from defining who such people are, Section 24 also requires social services authorities to advise, assist and befriend young people when they leave their care. Further, a social services authority, under Section 27 of that Act may call on the assistance of a housing authority in discharging its duty to that young person. If such a request is made the housing authority is under a duty to comply with it. There are already two statutory safety nets for children leaving care—the vulnerable category in Clause 177 of the Bill and the provisions
118
of the Children Act 1989. I suggest that there is no need to identify them specifically on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am not sure that the provision in Clause 177 is as obvious as the Minister suggested. He refers to the vulnerable category in Clause 177(1)(c):
"a person who is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason".
There follows a provision which allows the Secretary of State to specify further descriptions. The Minister referred to the homelessness code of guidance. That is a code, not a statutory provision. He also referred to the section of the Children Act which requires the local authority to advise, assist and befriend. That is not a requirement to provide accommodation. I would have wished to see the direct obligation on the face of the Bill. I anticipated that the Minister would tell me that the housing authority had a duty but I am advised that the duty is to be observed if it does not conflict with other duties. For that reason, I am concerned that if the other duties do not include preference for care leavers this group of young people will not be covered.
I am not sure that we will get any further tonight. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. There appears to be a difference of interpretation between myself and the Government. Perhaps I should look at the matter again.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the noble Baroness. Clause 177(1)(c) refers to
"a person who is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason".
The courts have held that those other special reasons can also include young vulnerable people. So I think she will find, as far as concerns the results which have appeared in the court, that young people fall in the category to be found in Clause 177(1)(c).
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, that is obviously helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 178 [Duties to persons becoming homeless intentionally]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 107, line 31, after ("satisfied") insert (", after a medical examination and report if there is reason to suspect that a person may be suffering from mental illness,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 56 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos 68, 69 and 72. As your Lordships will see, Amendments Nos. 56 and 68 are similar. They are designed to ensure that Clauses 178 and 183 give proper consideration to fair treatment for people who are specifically mentally ill.
Your Lordships may wonder why I picked out these particular people. As I see it, the reason for their inclusion on the face of the Bill, in addition to the point

119
that my noble friend Lord Ferrers has just drawn to our attention in Clause 177, is that from time to time, unlike other disabled people who are not mentally ill, as well as other homeless people, people who are severely mentally ill are sometimes not responsible for what they do. I made this point to your Lordships in Committee at col. 851 on 25th June so I shall not press that point any further at this stage.
Amendment No. 69 makes a similar point—but from a slightly different point of view because of the text of the clause—in relation to Clause 184. I suggest to the Government that in the case of Amendment No. 72, which seeks to amend Amendment No. 71, the local authority should take into consideration an applicant's health including, but not by any means exclusively, mental illness. That is important for all people who are affected by Clause 185, as are characteristics and personal circumstances. It seems to me that that would be a very important further aspect which Clause 185 needs to cover.
I truly believe that these particular points need to be included in the Bill. They are very small points and I hope that my noble friend will feel that he can accept them. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, when we discussed this in Committee one of the distinctions drawn by noble Lords on these Benches was that we believed, and pressed the Minister, that somebody who suffered from mental illness or a severe learning difficulty whose actions gave rise to some concern about anti-social behaviour, may very well need to be rehoused because their behaviour may be intolerable to other tenants who may themselves be frail and elderly and have a need for quiet enjoyment. But though they may need to be rehoused in a different form of accommodation they should not be regarded as making themselves intentionally homeless, which is what these amendments address.
At the time, when we pressed the Minister on this with the help of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, he said he believed that such people would have made themselves intentionally homeless. But I believe that the Government may now be able to widen that point—I try to put it diplomatically—to suggest that there may be other considerations and it may not be the case that such people have made themselves deliberately homeless if they were not aware of the consequences, or could not appreciate the consequences, of their activities.
I repeat, that does not remove the need—not invariably but very probably—to rehouse such a person if their behaviour is intolerable to others who may be equally frail. But at least it would ensure, if that is the case, an ongoing duty of responsibility to the local authority, which is clearly appropriate in these cases.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. A number of people will be in that position because of the closure of mental hospitals and because they are no longer able to have a bed there as a result of the Government's care
120
in the community policy. I feel that this is part of care in the community and will assist in their care. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is a rather difficult area of life with which we must deal. Again, I believe that my noble friend and other noble Lords are quite right to draw attention to it because those who are mentally ill have a way of behaving which makes it difficult sometimes to assess whether their behaviour is due to their illness and they do not know what they are doing or whether they know perfectly well what they are doing and, therefore, their behaviour cannot necessarily be ascribed to their illness.
All these amendments seek to ensure that the local housing authority shall have regard to the physical or mental health of the applicant when it fulfils certain of its duties under the provisions of Part VII. In particular, the amendments would require authorities to have regard to that when considering the vexed issue of what is rather indelicately called "intentionality".
I believe that these amendments are not necessary. Your Lordships will recall that this matter was discussed in some detail in Committee when the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked whether someone suffering from mental or physical ill health would be regarded as intentionally homeless if his behaviour was such as to cause the local authority to evict him. My noble friend Lord Lucas wrote to the noble Baroness on 3rd July about this matter and he copied his letter to all who spoke in the debate on Parts V and VII of the Bill. He arranged that a copy should be placed in the Library.
My noble friend made it clear that under Clause 179 a person becomes homeless intentionally if he deliberately does or fails to do anything in consequence of which he ceases to occupy accommodation. The same consideration applies to becoming threatened with homelessness. The action or inaction must be deliberate and, clearly, it would be for the local housing authority to determine in each case whether a person's actions or inactions were deliberate and therefore whether the extent of the authority's duty towards the person under the homelessness legislation continued.
The homelessness code of guidance will be revised. The existing code advises that an authority should not, as a general rule, consider certain situations to be deliberate. One of those is that the authority had reason to believe that the applicant is incapable of managing his affairs—for example, as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap. The revised guidance will reiterate that point, but the assessment of whether actions or inactions are deliberate must rest with the authority and must be determined in each separate case.
The issue of vulnerability, in whatever form it comes, is, in the long term, bound to be one for the authority to determine. It would be wrong to tie down the authorities in their consideration of individual cases in the way in which my noble friend's amendments propose. Therefore, I understand my noble friend's concerns and I think that he is quite right to raise them. But in the

121
end, the vulnerability must be a matter for the authority to determine. Therefore, the Bill as it stands covers the matters about which my noble friend is anxious.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I appreciate what the Minister said and that he understands why I have tabled these amendments. I thank also my noble friend Lord Lucas for sending me a copy of his letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, which took us a little further in that direction.
However, the Minister said that he thinks it is unnecessary to include this provision in the Bill. My reason for believing that it is necessary is borne out by what he went on to say, namely, that the guidance will be re-written. One always knows that guidance that is being re-written is something over which Parliament has little control. At present the guidance refers to a housing authority having reason to believe a particular circumstance is occurring. That is how I understand the matter. However, since housing authorities were set up, we have had care in the community. The noble Earl and his department have perhaps been thinking about housing and that side of local government. However, that is quite different from social services which work now with health authorities to provide assessments of people who are severely mentally ill.
My amendments, Amendments Nos. 56 and 68 state,
"after a medical examination and report".
I rather think that that was what my noble friend considered unnecessary, because a housing authority would make its own decision. We now have a system—which is written into the law—of having assessments made of people who are mentally ill, or who are suspected of being mentally ill. Therefore, there is a source of information which can be referred to over and above an opinion which a housing authority may have. It would seem to me there is a worthwhile opportunity for my noble friend to consider returning with an amendment of his own at Third Reading to seek to take advantage of the care in the community facilities relating to the mentally ill. Those facilities would be worth referring to rather than depending rather vaguely on amendments to the guidance. I hope the House will allow my noble friend to tell me whether he would consider doing that between now and the next stage.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, of course I shall consider what noble Lords and my noble friend have said. The important point to remember in all this is that one can, if one is not careful, cut up the legislation—if I may use that phrase without being too vulgar—with all sorts of provisions which may in the long term be undesirable. That is why one has codes of guidance. They fill in what one might describe as the loose spots. The legislation ought to give the whole picture as a generality. The code of guidance then explains how the provision should be carried out.
In the case we are discussing the code of guidance pre-dates care in the community and requires updating in the light of experience. We intend to do that by consulting the Department of Health. Therefore I believe the code of guidance constitutes the best way of
122
approaching the matter. Of course I shall take into account what my noble friend and others said. If there is any way I think the provision ought to be altered before the next stage, I shall let my noble friend know. However, I do not wish to raise his hopes too high. I believe the provision is best kept as it is, and that the matter is addressed by the code of guidance. However, I shall certainly consider what my noble friend said.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for undertaking to consider the matter further. I wish to leave him with one point which I tried to make earlier; namely, there is a difference between people who are mentally ill, and other patients, in that unlike other people the supposition is not that they might be pulling a fast one under circumstances in which their mental illness is taking effect. Often when their mental illness is taking effect they can fool people into thinking that it is not; and then people get killed.
Having heard that, and hoping that my noble friend will budge a little before the next stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 107, leave out lines 32 and 33.
The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 57, 58 and 59 with Amendment No. 54. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed.
Clause 180 [Duty to persons not in priority need who are not homeless intentionally]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 58 and 59:
Page 108, line 20, leave out subsection (1).
Page 108, line 22, leave out from ("authority") to ("but") in line 24 and insert ("—

(a) are satisfied that an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, and

(b) are not satisfied that he became homeless intentionally,").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 181 [Duty to persons with priority need who are not homeless intentionally]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 108, line 38, after ("period") insert ("unless the Secretary of State prescribes otherwise,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be brief. The amendment provides a way of allowing the Government to expedite what we all wish to see.
The Government expect local authorities to house the great majority of homeless families within two years. For those years local authorities have a responsibility, a duty, to ensure that there is temporary housing while those families wait. Thereafter, the local authority must review the circumstances and may extend their responsibility beyond the two years. As we rehearsed earlier today, in many parts of the country—London, the South and rural areas—homeless families will have to

123
wait longer than two years before their time comes through. Equally, if they have special needs, and are hard to house—those who are disabled, those who require a larger property—they are also likely to have to wait for two years.
Given by definition that homeless families are entering a common waiting list—people other than homeless families will now have additional preference—it means that homeless families will be waiting longer, and are less likely to be housed within the two years.
The amendment allows the Secretary of State to review the situation: whether the majority of applicants in a local authority are housed within two years; whether there has been a build up of households in temporary accommodation; and whether this leads to unjust and unacceptable treatment of homeless people. If so, the Secretary of State can extend the minimum duty beyond the two years. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, one of the central aims of our reform of the homelessness legislation is to ensure that local housing authorities are the last resort—not the first resort—for people who find themselves in a housing crisis. It is vitally important that there should be a safety net to help people who find themselves in difficulties through no fault of their own, and who are unable to resolve those difficulties without help.
The present homelessness legislation was intended to provide that. But, increasingly, it has become clear that the present statutory framework provides an incentive to some people simply to turn to their local housing authority for help without first making any effort themselves. I do not think that that is right, and I doubt whether any of your Lordships think it right either. Everybody must be expected to take some responsibility for meeting their own needs within the limits of their own capabilities.
The provisions in Part VII will ensure that local authorities must continue to provide a safety net for families and vulnerable people who have become homeless through no fault of their own. Where the authority is not satisfied that there is suitable other accommodation available, it will have a duty to secure accommodation.
When these provisions were first introduced in another place, it was proposed that this duty should last for a minimum of 12 months. But in response to representations made at that time, the minimum period was extended to two years.
In most areas I believe that that should be sufficient time for the household to be allocated a social tenancy through the housing register, if that is what they require. Let us remember that at least three-quarters of all people allocated council housing get it within that period. If not, the authority has a discretionary power in Clause 182 to continue to secure accommodation for up to a further two years, and possibly beyond if necessary.
An authority can continue to secure accommodation for a household for as long as it wishes. That is a generous provision. Two years is far longer than most
124
people in most circumstances will need to find longer-term accommodation. There is a provision for continuing assistance, but it must be subject to periodic review. I do not see that there is justification for adding legislation to the Bill which will alter the provision. Nor do I see why it should be subjected to prescription by the Secretary of State. I hope that the noble Baroness will be content with that position which is a great improvement on what it was in the first place.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, occasionally one sees the size of the gulf between us. The Minister's reply was to make comments such as: "People should not get council housing if they have not taken responsibility for themselves". It is as though getting a council house is an act of dependency. Like other people in your Lordships' House, I have been involved in the provision of council housing for a quarter of a century. I find that attitude unfortunate and wrong.
Council housing is provided by citizens of a local authority for each other. The assumption seems to be that you help yourself if you go into the private rented sector and pay more for less, but that you are being dependent if you go into a council house provided by yourself, as a citizen and local taxpayer, and you are being less than upstanding and independent. I find that a serious misreading of what council housing has been about since it was first instigated under the Addison Rules.
I wish that the Government would understand what council housing has done over the generations. I will tell the Minister what it has done. It has broken the link between poverty and lousy housing for generations of people in this country. Nor has it come by courtesy of a subsidy from the taxpayer. That is another myth regularly propagated by the Government. Over the past decade, little new capital money has come into council housing, the subsidy comes not from central government to council tenants, it comes as a result of rent pooling and therefore a mutual subsidy from one tenant to another. The notion that such tenants are getting a freebie from the taxpayer is wrong.
The third point I wish to tackle in the Minister's reply is that he continually said that council housing is such a scarce resource that we must not allow permanent housing to go to the undeserving. If it is such a valuable resource, why have the Government refused to allow local authorities to add to it by allowing them to recycle their capital assets? If it is such a valuable resource, why may not local authorities multiply it and meet housing need in the way they should? If that were to happen we would not have some of the problems that we face with the Bill.
If the Government Benches refer to council housing, I hope they will recognise it for what it is: a community asset provided by the local community for its citizens through the mutual pooling of rents. That is how it is formed and run. The notion that somehow you are being a less than upstanding citizen if you seek a council house and that therefore the Government must narrow the entry to it because local authorities cannot be trusted

125
to do so is an unfortunate and undesirable response. There is no meeting of minds on this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 109, line 26, after ("satisfied") insert ("that the accommodation was suitable for him and").
The noble Earl said: After that diatribe from the noble Baroness, perhaps we may turn to Amendment No. 62. It relates to concerns which were expressed during Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that under the clause an authority may be able to discharge its duty prior to the end of the two-year period required by subsection (3) with an offer, through the housing register, of unsuitable accommodation. The noble Earl said that it had been the practice of some authorities to offer unsuitable accommodation to people whom they did not want to house; the duty would end if an applicant refused the offer.
It has always been our intention to ensure that the duty may only he discharged if the accommodation offered is suitable. We have had the opportunity to consider the implications of subsection (3) further. Although it is my view that the provisions in the subsection would provide the protection which the noble Earl seeks, it is important to put the matter beyond doubt. Amendment No. 62 does so; an authority must satisfy itself that accommodation offered through the housing register is suitable before it discharges its duty. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very warmly for this provision. I agree with him: I believe it does put the matter beyond doubt. I hope it will make things work a good deal better in practice, and I thank him for that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 182 [Power exercisable after minimum period of duty under s. 181]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 109, line 40, at beginning insert ("Unless the Secretary of State otherwise prescribes,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 64.
In a rather throw-away line in responding to Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 the Minister seemed to dispose of these amendments by saying that he saw no need to dispense with the review. Nevertheless, I introduce them in order to obtain a slightly longer response.
Clause 182 allows a local housing authority to continue to provide accommodation after the minimum period but only when it has carried out a review of the matters set out in Clause 182(2). This small set of amendments seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to set aside the requirement for a review.
We have heard on a number of occasions of the quite possible but almost absurd position that an authority may have to turf a family out of temporary accommodation
126
after two years if in its view at the end of the period no other suitable accommodation is available in the district, even if the family is "nearly there" and could expect an offer of permanent accommodation quite quickly.
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to give a local housing authority a discretion as to whether or not to secure accommodation depending on the circumstances of the individual case. I cannot see that this would lead to any danger that authorities would leave families in temporary accommodation needlessly, since such accommodation is likely to be more expensive than permanent accommodation. It would be quite irrational for an authority not to re-house a family as it reaches the head of the queue for permanent housing.
The Bill allows the Secretary of State to do a very great deal by regulation. This amendment would leave Clause 182(1) intact and gives him the possibility of allowing something not to be done, but to pass the discretion to the local housing authority. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the provisions in Part VII will ensure that local authorities must continue to provide a safety net for families and vulnerable people who have become homeless through no fault of their own. I move with hesitation lest I stimulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, into a twizzle again and she lacerates me on my understanding—or misunderstanding in her view—of the object of council houses. I will ask her to be quiescent over that.
We have already discussed, in dealing with Amendments Nos. 60 and 61, the extension of the minimum period to accommodate to two years. The authority also has a discretionary power in Clause 182 to continue to secure accommodation for up to a further two years and possibly beyond if necessary.
If the authority declines to exercise that power and if the household believes that it is still entitled to assistance, then it can make a further application. Authorities will recognise that it is not in their interests to provoke further justifiable applications in this way and will wish to think carefully about whether to continue providing accommodation.
When the authority decides to exercise its power to provide accommodation beyond the initial two-year period it must check that the household is still eligible for assistance. For example, it would have to check whether the children, who might have formed the basis of the priority need in the first place, are still part of the household. It must also satisfy itself whether other suitable accommodation is now available in the area. Those are the criteria which determine whether a household is eligible for the two year homeless duty. It is perfectly reasonable and logical that they should be the same criteria which must be satisfied before an authority can exercise its power to continue to secure accommodation.
Clause 182 allows an authority to continue to secure accommodation for a household for as long as it wishes. That is a generous provision, but it is inherent in the policy that such assistance should only be available to people who need it, and there must be reasonable periodic checks

127
to ensure that people retain the basic entitlement to it. The review requirement in Clause 182 achieves that. I do not see any reason, or indeed any justification, for adding provisions to the Bill which would allow those fundamental provisions to be suspended.
The noble Baroness was concerned that the local authority may have to turn a family out after two years. Theoretically it could do so, but, of course, there is no point in doing so. If the household is still in priority need and there is no alternative accommodation, then there will have to be a new duty for two years if the household re-applies. Therefore, I think that is a situation which is unlikely to materialise in fact, even though in theory it might be possible.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, might I say that only the rules of order have hitherto restrained me from saying that the noble Baroness did not speak only for herself.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for that. I do not think that he was restrained by any rules of order from saying so, in the same way as I do not think I was restrained by any rules from saying that I thought the noble Baroness had gone a bit far.
Baroness Hamwee: No, my Lords, the noble Baroness did not speak only for herself. It is with a little difficulty that I am not starting on my own diatribe. I think one could add, for instance, the use of housing revenue accounts by some authorities over the years, to give but one example.
The Minister says that the local housing authority must check certain things. This is circular. It "must check" only if the Bill requires that it shall check. The Minister says that this is a generous provision, as if somehow the provision of housing is a gift. He goes on to say that as a matter of fact a local housing authority probably would not find itself in the position that I have posed. The Secretary of State has so many powers to make prescription and to make regulations that I am rather sorry that the Minister is not accepting the offer of another one, simply to help matters along. However, I can see that he is not going to accept this gift from me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Clause 183 [Duties in case of threatened homelessness]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 110, leave out lines 26 and 27.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 54. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 110, line 33, at end insert—
("This subsection has effect subject to section 185 (duty where other suitable accommodation available).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 110, line 34, leave out ("This") and insert ("(2A) Subsection (2)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 184 [Becoming threatened with homelessness intentionally]:
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Clause 185 [Duty where other suitable accommodation available]:
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Cox): My Lords, I should point out that if Amendment No. 71 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 73 because of pre-emption.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 111, line 36, leave out from ("case,") to end of line 38 and insert ("their duty is to provide the applicant with such advice and assistance as the authority consider is reasonably required to enable him to secure such accommodation.
(3) The duty ceases if the applicant fails to take reasonable steps to secure such accommodation.
(4) In deciding what advice and assistance to provide under this section, and whether the applicant has taken reasonable steps, the authority shall have regard to all the circumstances including—

(a) the characteristics and personal circumstances of the applicant, and

(b) the state of the local housing market and the type of accommodation available.

(5) For the purposes of this section accommodation shall not be regarded as available for occupation by the applicant if it is available only with assistance beyond what the authority consider is reasonable in the circumstances.
(6) This section does not affect the duty of a local housing authority under section 176 (interim duty to accommodate in case of apparent priority need).").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 42. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 72, as an amendment to Amendment No. 71, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 71 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Clause 186 [Referral of case to another local housing authority]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 112, line 1, leave out ("shall") and insert ("need not").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 54. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 112, line 14, leave out from ("whom") to ("or") in line 16 and insert ("he is associated").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 35. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 112, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert ("—

(a) the applicant was on a previous application made to that other authority placed (in pursuance of their functions under this Part) in accommodation in the district of the authority to whom his application is now made, and

(b) the previous application was within such period as may be prescribed of the present application.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, This amendment seeks only to clarify the current wording of subsection (4) of Clause 186. It does not seek to alter the substance of the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 190 [Right to request review of decision]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 114, line 21, at end insert ("or
( ) any decision of a local housing authority as to the suitability of accommodation offered to him in discharge of their duty under any of the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (b) to (e).").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 and 83A.
The House will be aware that there was considerable discussion at Committee stage of the period in which an applicant could request a review of a decision on his homelessness application. We were treated to some eloquent expositions by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and other noble Lords on the circumstances in which applicants might be unable to lodge a request within 14 days.
Amendment No. 79 would extend the time in which an applicant may request a review to 21 days. I believe that this will provide ample time for people in the circumstances envisaged by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and by other noble Lords, to request a review. As my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said during Committee, it is in the interests both of applicants and local authorities to ensure a swift resolution of a homelessness application. It is in no one's interest to encourage applicants to delay putting in their appeal.
Amendment No. 80 will allow an authority, should it choose to do so, to extend the period by informing the applicant in writing. That will enable authorities to make exception in any case where they consider that an applicant may have difficulty in meeting the deadline.
Amendments Nos. 81, 82 and 83 address concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, during Committee stage. They create an avenue of appeal to the county court for applicants who are dissatisfied with the results of an authority's own review.
These amendments build on provisions already contained in the Bill to safeguard applicants' rights to a fair hearing. Clause 190 contains a new requirement for local authorities to establish a procedure for reviewing decisions that they have made as to the discharge of their duties. The review procedure in Clause 190 covers all the main areas in which the applicant has a substantive right.
Amendment No. 82 deals with the review procedure itself.
I am happy to go into the details of the other amendments. They mostly answer points raised by noble Lords opposite. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said in a moment of despair a short while ago that she was not going to get anything out of the Government, I hope that she realises that she has actually got something; and quite a bit. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have a brief query. The amendment is welcome. It confines itself to 21 days. I wonder whether we could persuade the Government to come back with an amendment including the words "or with good cause" either at Third Reading or at some later date. That would cover the cases where somebody with a physical illness or disability who may be in hospital, or somebody with a mental illness or learning difficulty who may have a problem meeting the 21-day deadline, may not fully understand the import.
The situation must be carefully watched so as to ensure that it is not a source of abuse. But perhaps the Minister will accept that in a few cases there may be good reason for not meeting the 21-day deadline. Under those circumstances the local authority should be required to receive appeals beyond the 21 days. I would have no objection to it being done through the code of guidance. Perhaps the Minister can help us on that point.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I recognise something that is even more than crumbs of comfort: a genuine movement on the part of the Government. The noble Baroness is quite right. Mixing my metaphors, it would be a shame to spoil the crumb for a ha'p'orth of tar.
I tabled a manuscript amendment and perhaps I can explain it at this stage as it is an amendment to the Government's Amendment No. 83. Amendment No. 83A seeks to omit the word "may" and insert "shall"; in other words, to provide that the authority shall continue to secure accommodation during the period for an appeal if and until an appeal is brought. It is a simple but important point.
In tabling the amendment I suggest that the interim duty should continue until final determination of the matter. After all, it is the point of the right of appeal. It should not be argued—anticipating what the Government may say—that somebody may use the right of appeal to stay in accommodation. The matter is not at an end until the appeal procedure has been exhausted or the right to appeal has not been used. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that point.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in joining in the thanks, I should like to join with what the noble Baroness,

131
Lady Hollis, said in regard to "good cause". On the CSA in 1991 I tabled an amendment almost equivalent to that suggested by the noble Baroness. It came up well past one in the morning and I did not move it. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack incorporated it in the Bill at the next stage as a government amendment. I have had many notable courtesies from the Government, but that one takes some beating.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am more than flattered that so many noble Lords should be grateful to me—they are right to be grateful because I have gone a long way to try to help them. But there may be a moral in what the noble Earl says; that is, if he does not move some of his amendments we may accept them without his argument; if he argues them they may become less attractive. However, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that kindness.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, rose to speak and asked if we could extend the time a little longer, I wondered whether she had ever sold a horse—she would do jolly well at it. First, we put in 14 days and the noble Baroness, at Committee stage, wanted 28 days. We then thought again about it and decided that 21 days would be a good compromise, but the noble Baroness comes back with, "What about a little bit more?".
We believe 21 days is actually right, but the noble Baroness should not get too excited. If the noble Baroness would like to address her mind to Amendment No. 80, she will see that it says,
"or such longer period as the authority may in writing allow".
That covers her point, which is that it should be 21 days or longer, under those circumstances.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned her Amendment No. 83A. That seeks to change the power to provide accommodation into a duty. That would place a more onerous requirement on an authority than exists under the present legislation or than is provided for in Clause 176 when the authority carries out a review of its own. I do not believe that we want that. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that that might be going, to use a colloquialism, over the top. I am grateful to her for putting down that amendment and for making us look at the matter again, but the Bill is better without the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 79 to 82:
Page 114, line 24, leave out ("14") and insert ("21").
Page 114, line 26, at end insert ("or such longer period as the authority may in writing allow").
Page 114, line 28, leave out from ("decision") to end of line 41.
After Clause 190, insert the following new clause—
PROCEDURE ON A REVIEW
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations as to the procedure to be followed in connection with a review under section 190.
Nothing in the following provisions affects the generality of this power.
(2) Provision may be made by regulations —
132

(a) requiring the decision on review to be made by a person of appropriate seniority who was not involved in the original decision, and

(b) as to the circumstances in which the applicant is entitled to an oral hearing, and whether and by whom he may be represented at such a hearing.

(3) The authority, or as the case may be either of the authorities, concerned shall notify the applicant of the decision on the review.
(4) If the decision is—

(a) to confirm the original decision on any issue against the interests of the applicant, or

(b) to confirm a previous decision—

(i) to notify another authority under section 186 (referral of cases, or

(ii) that the conditions are met for the referral of his case,

they shall also notify him of the reasons for the decision.
(5) In any case they shall inform the applicant of his right to appeal to a county court on a point of law, and of the period within which such an appeal must be made (see section (Right of appeal to county court on point of law).
(6) Notice of the decision shall not be treated as given unless and until subsection (5), and where applicable subsection (4), is complied with.
(7) Provision may be made by regulations as to the period within which the review must be carried out and notice given of the decision.
(8) Notice required to be given to a person under this section shall be given in writing and, if not received by him, shall be treated as having been given if it is made available at the authority's office for a reasonable period for collection by him or on his behalf.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 83:
After Clause 190, insert the following new clause—
RIGHT OF APPEAL TO COUNTY COURT ON POINT OF LAW
(".—(1) If an applicant who has requested a review under section 190—

(a) is dissatisfied with the decision on the review, or

(b) is not notified of the decision on the review within the time prescribed under section (Procedure in connection with review),

he may appeal to the county court on any point of law arising from the decision or, as the case may be, the original decision.
(2) An appeal must be brought within 21 days of his being notified of the decision or, as the case may be, of the date on which he should have been notified of a decision on review.
(3) On appeal the court may make such order confirming, quashing or varying the decision as it thinks fit.
(4) Where the authority were under a duty to the applicant under section 176 (interim duty to accommodate in case of apparent priority need), they may continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation—

(a) during the period for appealing under this section against the authority's decision, and

(b) if an appeal is brought, until the appeal (and any further appeal) is finally determined.").

[Amendment No. 83A, as a manuscript amendment to Amendment No. 83, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 83 agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 84:
Before Clause 191, insert the following new clause—
DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS: INTRODUCTORY
(".—(1) The following sections have effect in relation to the discharge by a local housing authority of their functions under this Part to secure that accommodation is available for the occupation of a person—
section 191 (general provisions),
section (Discharge of functions: provision of accommodation by the authority) (provision of accommodation by authority),
section (Discharge of functions: out of area placements) (out-of-area placements),
section (Discharge of functions: arrangements with registered social landlord) (arrangements with registered social landlord).
(2) In those sections those functions are referred to as the authority's "housing functions under this Part".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 85 to 87. Amendments Nos. 87A, 88 and 88A will also come within its purview, as will Amendments Nos. 89, 90, 100 and 252. All these amendments relate to the discharge of functions by local housing authorities under Part VII.
Clause 191 contains a number of important provisions which govern the way in which authorities may carry out their duties. They make clear, for example, that an authority may provide accommodation itself or it may secure accommodation from somebody else. It also provides that if an authority uses its own stock to rehouse somebody, then it may only do so for two years in every three. The exception is where the accommodation is a hostel or is leased. The clause also allows an authority to make a reasonable charge for the accommodation which it provides. In many cases that will be met in part or in full by housing benefit.
A number of noble Lords voiced their concern during Committee stage that the provisions in Clause 191 did not give local authorities sufficient flexibility to discharge their duties. In particular, concern was expressed about the two years in three years provision. Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 are paving amendments. They broaden the scope of the supplementary provisions in Part VII by giving effect to the new clauses inserted by Amendments Nos. 87, 89 and 90.
Before I turn to Amendments Nos. 86 and 87, perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the purpose of the two years in three years provision in Clause 191. They enable an authority to use its own long-term stock for providing accommodation for no more than two years. Thereafter it may not accommodate the same household in such stock until the elapse of a further year. The aim of the two years in three years provision is to preserve the principle of a single route into long-term social housing. Some authorities may want to set aside part of their housing stock for short-term use in the discharge of their homelessness duties. That is entirely reasonable. But it would not be reasonable for an authority to accommodate someone indefinitely in its own stock on this basis. It would create a back-door route into long-term social housing, which would be grossly unfair on people on the housing register.
Some noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, expressed concern in Committee that the provision may cause hardship in some cases. We have listened sympathetically to the arguments put to us by the noble Baroness and others. We have made clear our willingness to consider alternative propositions, provided these met our objective of ensuring a single route into social housing.
Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 address the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness and other noble Lords. They replace the provisions in Clause 191 with a new set of provisions. The new provisions contain a direction-making power to enable the Secretary of State to waive the provisions where an authority would otherwise be unable reasonably to discharge its duties under this part. The waiver would apply to specified types of applicant—for example, large families or people requiring specially adapted housing—and may last for up to a year. This would have the effect of extending the two years in three provision to a three years in four provision. If an authority wishes to extend the period further, it must apply for a new direction, and demonstrate that it still needs the flexibility that a direction would allow.
The waiver may be subject to a number of conditions. These may require the authority to review its priorities or its allocation scheme to ensure that the problem did not recur. It is our belief that, wherever possible, authorities should address long-term needs through the housing register.
Amendments Nos. 87, 87A, 88 and 88A seek to remove limitations set on the use of the direction-making power. Amendment No. 87A, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would allow the power to be used even where an authority could otherwise be able reasonably to discharge its housing functions.
Amendment No. 88, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, seeks to extend the period during which a direction may apply and to remove the Secretary of State's powers to impose conditions.
Amendment No. 88A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would allow the provisions limiting the effect of the direction to be waived.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that my amendments substantially meet the concerns expressed at earlier stages by your Lordships. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, yes indeed, but I am never content to let the matter rest there. The noble Earl referred to my manuscript amendment, to which I should like to speak so that we may explore the point a little further. I should perhaps say now that I shall not be moving Amendment No. 88A. Amendment No. 87A seeks to amend subsection (4) of the new clause set out in Amendment No. 87 and to add at the end of that subsection:
"or if it appears to him that notwithstanding such exclusion or modification the authority will be able reasonably to discharge their housing functions under this Part".
Perhaps I may put it a little more simply. If an authority can discharge its functions even if it uses ordinary accommodation—in other words, stock other

135
than hostel or short-life accommodation—it should be able to do so. I do not believe that my amendment threatens what the Government are attempting to do, and although the Minister dismissed the point, I hope that it warrants a little consideration.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may move Amendment No. 88 and speak to the others in the group, including the substantive amendment, Amendment No. 87. I should like to explain that when we pressed this in Committee and talked about the two in three-year rule, what we were not seeking to do was to have a short-cut, in the phrase the Minister used again tonight, into "long-term housing". Certainly from my own knowledge, local authorities who use their own stock as temporary housing use hard-to-let housing, which is unattractive and very often unacceptable to those on the waiting list. Homeless families going into that hard-to-let housing are not in competition with families on the waiting list.
There may be exceptions to that, but that is generally done. I hope that the Minister accepts it from us so that there are no more suggestions that we are somehow trying to subvert the Bill, make short-cuts, queue-jump and the rest of it: we are not. We are saying that, where there is hard-to-let housing, local authorities choose to use it in such cases, possibly because there is a shortage of private rented housing. Those people who are allocated such housing should not come within the two in three-year rule. They are not in competition with those seeking permanent housing from the waiting list.
However, it is indeed true that we welcome the Government's modest concession, following the debates that we have had. We on these Benches are pleased that the Government recognised that there was a black hole, so to speak, for a few—I hope only a few—hard-to-house families. It means, in other words, that the local authorities will no longer be required to evict from their own temporary housing a hard-to-house family which has not yet come to the top of the queue in two years.
There are a couple of points which I hope that the Minister will be able to answer. The first concerns the working of the extension by one year. The Minister has said that it could be three years out of four, or four years out of five: in other words, each and every extension would have to be negotiated with the Secretary of State. We are grateful to the Minister for having made the position clear. However, I should like to ask the Minister why he is binding himself in primary legislation so unnecessarily. Our amendment would remove subsection (5). I would actually be happy with a more modest amendment, to which we might return on Third Reading: to leave out the words,
"which shall not exclude one year."
In other words, it means that the Secretary of State, whether he wants to or not, has to limit the local authority's use of this for one year, except where it may be extended by his express consent for a further year. I can understand why the Secretary of State may wish to limit local authorities in what they can do by saying,
"for such period as the Secretary of State may determine"
136
but I do not understand why he has to bind himself in primary legislation. I have been puzzling over this amendment for some time, but of course we are dealing tonight with some 80 government amendments out of the 122 tabled and it is actually quite difficult to be sure that we understand all the ramifications.
It seems to me, if I understand it correctly, that the regional office will have to consider each and every case, each and every family and examine each and every case file before permitting local authorities to house that family for an additional year in their own hard-to-let housing. Really? Let me put some figures to the Minister. I could be wrong, but somewhere between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of homeless families will not come to the head of the waiting list in two years: 60 per cent. of those are likely to be in London and they are not usually housed in the local authority's own stock, simply because the pressure in London is so much greater than outside. But outside London for the 40 per cent. most local authorities will use their own hard-to-let housing as temporary accommodation for homeless families apart from bed and breakfast accommodation. I calculate that between 5,000 and 10,000 individual families—it may be the lower figure—will need to have an exemption offered to them by the local authority, if it is thought reasonable. To get that exemption the local authority will have to seek consent from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State—or the regional DoE officers—will have to assess between 5,000 to 10,000 case histories a year in addition to the normal workload. They will become assistant housing managers.
Is this a sensible use of officer time at regional DoE headquarters? How do the Government expect to find efficiency savings if they throw 5,000-plus extra cases each and every year at the DoE? There may be up to 1,000 at each regional office. Are the regional offices so overstaffed that they can absorb that work without difficulty? Where will the Government find efficiency savings? It is daft to ask regional officers, acting as untrained surrogate assistant housing managers, without the necessary skills and qualifications and possibly all the case notes before them, to do this on a case-by-case basis for up to 10,000 homeless families each and every year. It is an absurd waste of highly trained expensive official time. These officers will be doing something for which they are not qualified.
I believe that what is required is either the amendment that was narrowly defeated in this House, which would leave the matter to local authority discretion, or the ability of individual local authorities to make application to the Secretary of State in the light of local circumstances for a general dispensation. If a local authority has a general problem it needs a general dispensation. That should be granted by the Secretary of State. He should not bind himself in primary legislation by limiting that discretion to one year only. We wonder whether the Government understand the caseload implication of the amendment as it stands, unless there are category exemptions as opposed to individual case history exemptions. The workload is more than that which is dealt with by two or three average local authorities in a year.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No.87, which I welcome. There does not appear to be much commonsense in putting someone out of a hard-to-let property which is not needed by anyone else. It is not desirable to move people unnecessarily from such a property. I strongly support the Government's view that there should not be yet another way to enable people to jump the queue by a loophole of this kind. I and other noble Lords feel strongly about this. No doubt the Minister will say whether or not the words of the amendment mean exactly what I believe they mean.
I believe that the amendment will address inner city areas, particularly in London, about which I have spoken. As I understand it, there would be no question of the Government or any person having to act as a surrogate housing officer to deal with individual cases. I agree that that would be impossible. I imagine it is intended that local authorities will apply for an exemption—the word "dispensation" has been used by the noble Baroness—either for a category of person or a particular hard-to-let area of accommodation. There would be ways of simplifying the situation rather than having to deal with the 5,000 or 10,000 cases to which reference has been made. It is interesting that when we debated this matter earlier the tiny number of cases then referred to has suddenly grown enormously tonight. When I spoke against the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, which was so narrowly defeated, certainly there was no mention of 5,000 to 10,000 cases. But tonight it seems that that figure suits her and therefore it has come back again. However, I welcome the fact that the two years could become three years in really necessary cases and cases where the accommodation would otherwise be surplus and perhaps unused by anyone. Also, my noble friend the Minister did say that the authority could apply for even further time beyond the three years. That shows great flexibility and sensitivity whatever the situation may be. I support Amendment No. 87.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for supporting Amendment No.87. I am glad also that I was able to clear up some concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about whether we could have three years out of four, or four years out of five. I am glad that she understands that. The noble Baroness asked why we bind ourselves in primary legislation. The purpose of primary legislation is, of course, to set the direction of a policy and not to give the Secretary of State unfettered discretion. Indeed, I do not think that that is what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, wants either.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that the regional office would have to handle every case. She referred to 5,000 or 10,000 cases and said we must be "absolutely daft" to introduce such legislation. I quite agree; we would be absolutely daft if we had introduced such legislation. I can assure her that we have not. Perhaps I can explain why.
138
Most local authorities will not need to apply for the extension. If they do, they will apply en bloc for a class of family, not for individual cases. As an example, one might say that they had run out of houses for families requiring four bedrooms. It is those categories that would be applied for. They would be applied for en bloc, not in individual cases.
The direction will therefore apply to categories of household type, where necessary. I remind the noble Baroness of what I said earlier. The waiver would apply to specified types of applicant; for example, large families or people requiring specially adapted housing. It might last for up to a year and would have the effect of extending the two years in three provision to a three years in four provision. If an authority wished to extend the period further it would have to apply for a new direction and demonstrate that it still needed the flexibility which a direction would allow. That would refer, as I say, to classes of housing as opposed to individuals.
I turn to the manuscript amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. As I explained earlier, local authorities should seek to use their older stock, wherever possible, for meeting long-term needs. We believe such needs are most effectively addressed through the housing register. There should be no need for an authority to use its own stock to house people under the provisions of Part VII for long periods. If their needs are of a long-term nature, these should be reflected by their position on the housing register. If an authority consistently finds that people whom it has rehoused in its own stock under the homelessness duty are still there after two years, this could be because it has set aside too much of its stock for short-term use, because it has framed its allocation scheme incorrectly or because it has failed to plan for needs of certain types of household in its housing strategy.
Only if these circumstances do not apply—where, for example, there is a shortage of a particular type of property such as housing with four or more bedrooms—will a direction be appropriate. We believe that the direction-making power should only be used in limited circumstances; for example, in the case of applicants requiring specially adapted housing where an authority would otherwise be unable to carry out its duties effectively. We think that it should be regarded as a temporary measure, subject to annual review, to deal with the circumstances which happen to prevail at the time. It is not intended to provide a general or a continuing exception.
I refer also to Amendment No. 89, which strengthens the provisions governing out-of-area placements. Clause 191 allows authorities to secure accommodation for homeless applicants outside their district should they so wish. We should prefer to see authorities placing people within their own areas but we accept that there are circumstances in which that may not be possible. Therefore, we do not wish to prohibit an authority from securing accommodation for applicants outside its area.
Amendment No. 90 replaces the provisions in Schedule 15 relating to the type of tenancy which may be offered under the new duty. Under Schedule 15, if a

139
registered social landlord offers to provide housing for someone in discharge of an authority's duties under this part, the tenancy will not be assured. My right honourable friend the Minister responsible for housing indicated that it was our intention to reconsider that provision, and Amendment No. 90 provides that, generally, landlords may provide assured tenancies for people being assisted with accommodation under this part.
I hope that I have been able to allay some of the fears of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Even though I have not been able to agree with the manuscript amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I hope that she will understand the reasons why we think that it would not be suitable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 191 [Discharge of functions by local housing authorities]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 114, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 115 and insert—
("( ) A local housing authority may discharge their housing functions under this Part only in the following ways-").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 115, line 8, leave out subsections (3) to (5).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 87:
After Clause 191, insert the following new clause—
DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS: PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATION BY THE AUTHORITY
(".—(1) A local housing authority shall not under section 191(1)(a) discharge their housing functions under this Part by providing accommodation other than—

(a) accommodation in a hostel within the meaning of section 622 of the Housing Act 1985, or

(b) accommodation leased to the authority as mentioned in subsection (2) below,

for more than two years (continuously or in aggregate) in any period of three years.
This applies irrespective of the number of applications for accommodation or assistance in obtaining accommodation made by the person concerned.
(2) The accommodation referred to in subsection (1)(b) is accommodation—

(a) leased to the authority with vacant possession for use as temporary housing accommodation on terms which include provision for the lessor to obtain vacant possession from the authority on the expiry of a specified period or when required by the lessor,

(b) the lessor of which is not an authority or body within section 80(1) of the Housing Act 1985 (the landlord condition for secure tenancies), and

(c) in which the authority have no interest other than under the lease in question or as a mortgagee.

(3) The authority shall not discharge such functions in relation to a person who—

(a) normally resides with another person as a member of his family, or

140

(b) might reasonably be expected to reside with another person as a member of his family,

in such a way that subsection (1) would be contravened if the functions were discharged in relation to that other person.
(4) The Secretary of State may, on the application of a local housing authority, by direction exclude or modify the operation of subsection (1) in relation to that authority if it appears to him that the authority will not otherwise be able reasonably to discharge their housing functions under this Part.
(5) Any such direction shall have effect only—

(a) with respect to applicants of a description specified in the direction, and

(b) for a period specified in the direction, which shall not exceed one year,

and may be expressed to have effect subject to any conditions specified in the direction.
(6) Where the Secretary of State gives or has given a direction under subsection (4), he may give the authority such directions as he considers appropriate as to the discharge of their housing functions under this Part in cases affected by the direction having or ceasing to have effect.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 87A to 88A, as amendments to Amendment No. 87, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 87 agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 89:
After Clause 191, insert the following new clause—
DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS: OUT-OF-AREA PLACEMENTS
(".—(1) So far as reasonably practicable a local housing authority shall in discharging their housing functions under this Part secure that accommodation is available for the occupation of the applicant in their district.
(2) If they secure that accommodation is available for the occupation of the applicant outside their district, they shall give notice to the local housing authority in whose district the accommodation is situated.
(3) The notice shall state—

(a) the name of the applicant,

(b) the number and description of other persons who normally reside with him as a member of his family or might reasonably be expected to reside with him as a member of his family,

(c) the address of the accommodation,

(d) the date on which the accommodation was made available to him, and

(e) which function under this Part the authority was discharging in securing that the accommodation is available for his occupation.

(4) The notice must be in writing, and must be given before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the accommodation was made available to the applicant.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 90:
After Clause 191, insert the following new clause—
DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS: ARRANGEMENTS WITH REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD
(".—(1) This section applies where in pursuance of any of their housing functions under this Part a local housing authority make arrangements with a registered social landlord to provide accommodation.
(2) The tenancy granted in pursuance of the arrangements to a person specified by the authority cannot be an assured tenancy unless it is an assured shorthold tenancy.

141
(3) The registered social landlord cannot convert an assured shorthold tenancy granted in pursuance of the arrangements into an assured tenancy which is not an assured shorthold tenancy unless the accommodation is allocated to the tenant under Part VI (allocation of housing).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 192 [Suitability of accommodation]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 115, line 43, after ("to") insert ("whether any convictions under section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 have been recorded and to").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals again with the issue of suitability and would have the effect of requiring local housing authorities to satisfy themselves, when they consider whether private rented accommodation is suitable, that the landlord and the landlord's managing agent do not have a record of offences for harassment or illegal eviction under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. They would have to consult their records, their legal departments and tenancy relations officers about the record or lack of record of the landlord.
We have discussed suitability in terms of the physical provision of the accommodation in question. This amendment addresses the management of the accommodation. It is perhaps rather late to go into great detail, but I ask your Lordships to exercise some imagination to understand that some landlords—and I do not begin to suggest that all landlords are bad—can harass tenants in quite imaginative ways. For example, they may pay constant visits without warning at unsocial hours; offer money to tenants to get out; make threats—that is an obvious strategy; allow the property to get into a state of such disrepair that it is dangerous to stay there; cut off services; start building works and leave them unfinished—that must be a particularly distressing form of harassment—or harass tenants because of their age, sex or sexual orientation. In 1990 the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys found that 9 per cent. of private tenants could have experienced some form of harassment or attempted illegal eviction.
Having read of a number of examples of harassment, one in particular reminded me of how tenants might have felt. A tenant returned to her property and found the agent had let himself in and was using her vacuum cleaner to hoover up. She did not think agents were allowed to enter a tenant's house without asking. When I was a student I rented a flat. I recall the landlord letting himself in, repainting the kitchen and painting round the towel that was hanging on the back of the kitchen door. I would not have classed that as harassment, but I felt affronted by it. That is perhaps a minor example of the breed. I may joke about that, but the issue is a serious one. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness stimulates our imaginations by referring to her former landlord painting her kitchen door with her towel still hanging on it. I thought that showed a great deal of prudent landlord behaviour in accepting his
142
responsibility to make sure the flat of the noble Baroness was kept in a clean and proper condition. The noble Baroness has asked us to exercise our imaginations as regards the amendment. Normally I regard my imagination as rather like that of a fossilised potato chip, but to exercise my imagination at this hour of the day will be a struggle, but I shall do the best I can.
Clause 192 sets out matters which must be taken into account by an authority in determining whether accommodation is suitable for use in the discharge of its functions under this part. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish spoke at considerable length during Committee stage about what the clause does. I do not say that in a derogatory way as it was important that he spoke at considerable length. Broadly speaking, Clause 192 re-enacts provisions contained in Section 69 of the Housing Act 1985. Section 69, which we introduced in order to strengthen the homelessness provisions, requires authorities to have regard to the parts of that Act which deal with slum clearance, overcrowding and houses in multiple occupation. In addition, we are taking new order-making powers which will allow the Secretary of State to specify circumstances in which accommodation is or is not to be regarded as suitable for someone; and matters which are to be taken into account or disregarded in determining whether accommodation is suitable for someone. These powers will provide an important safeguard for homeless people.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require an authority to have regard to whether the landlord has been convicted of harassment or illegal eviction under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. I would be the last to underestimate the distress that harassment or illegal eviction must cause to tenants who are subjected to it, but it is important, in considering the noble Baroness's proposals, to put the problem in its proper context. The Survey of English Housing reports that the vast majority of tenants say they are on good terms with their landlords. Only a small minority of landlords are likely to harass their tenants or take illegal action to get them to move, or paint kitchens while their tenants' towels are hanging on the towel rail.
The proper disclosure of relevant information about convictions is a matter which the Government take seriously. However, there would be serious practical difficulties in putting into practice the proposal envisaged by the noble Baroness. The police are responsible for carrying out criminal record checks and they are already hard pressed to meet the existing demand for checks within the constraints of the resources available to them. If we were to accept this proposal, it would further increase the pressure on the police.
As the House will be aware, the Government recently published a White Paper on the disclosure of information from criminal records for employment and related purposes. I believe that provisions on disclosure in the circumstances described by the noble Baroness might best be considered in the context of the proposals

143
that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs will be bringing before Parliament at a later date.
For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand why I find it difficult to advise the House to accept her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 115, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) In particular, the authority shall not consider accommodation in a house in multiple occupation suitable for a person unless the house is registered under a registration scheme, as provided for in Part XI of the Housing Act 1985.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 93 amends Clause 192 as regards the question of suitability. It proposes that an authority shall not consider accommodation in a house in multiple occupation to be suitable unless it is registered under a registration scheme.
It will remain within every local authority's discretion whether or not to make a registration scheme for HMOs in its area. The amendment requires certain conditions to be met before such registration. Therefore one would hope to set a minimum standard.
I anticipate that the Minister may say that the Bill makes registration schemes a matter for discretion. Perhaps I may use the amendment to ask him what guidance the Secretary of State will be giving in the order provided for under Clause 192 in respect of houses in multiple occupation. I imagine that the Secretary of State has it in mind to give specific guidance. Unless he outlaws the use of HMOs for homeless households, in particular families with children, then by definition he will consider such accommodation suitable. I have reservations about whether HMOs are suitable. Therefore the use and content of guidance concern me. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as your Lordships know, Part II of the Bill contains a package of provisions designed to achieve a marked improvement in the condition of houses in multiple occupation. The package contains a number of separate provisions. There has been considerable debate in your Lordships' House and in another place about whether local authorities should be required to introduce a registration or licensing scheme to cover all houses in multiple occupation.
The Government's view is that local authorities are being given a wide range of powers to enforce standards in houses in multiple occupation and that they should retain a discretion about whether or not to introduce a registration scheme.
I believe that the provisions in Part II of the Bill will bring about a substantial improvement in the standard of houses in multiple occupation. The noble Baroness's amendment is therefore unnecessary. I also think that it would be inappropriate to impose the
144
type of restrictions envisaged by the noble Baroness's amendment on the discharge of an authority's homelessness functions. This could limit the amount of accommodation available—much of it perfectly adequate—which authorities would be able to use in the discharge of their functions.
The general guidance on suitability will apply to houses in multiple occupation in the same way as it applies to all other types of occupation which an authority may use to discharge its duty. The guidance will stress the need for accommodation to be suitable. Houses in multiple occupation cover a range of properties, some poor, but many quite good.
We are taking order-making powers to enable us to specify the term "suitable" and will not hesitate to use the power, if necessary, to safeguard the rights of people who are accepted as homeless. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: There is some circularity in that. I shall read what the Minister said, but his point was: HMOs will be suitable if they are suitable. That is what it amounted to and I am not sure that it took us any further. In putting down the amendment, I suggest to the House that HMOs tend not to be suitable or are more likely than other forms of accommodation to be unsuitable. However, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 193 [Protection of property of homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 116, line 19, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 95, 96 and 97. They all introduce a new provision which will enable the individual to have a say in where his property is moved. The new provision fulfils a commitment given by my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing in another place to accept the substance of an amendment tabled by the honourable Member for Sheffield Attercliffe, but to reconsider the drafting so that the local authority is not left with an undefinable liability which would be difficult to discharge. I believe that we have achieved that.
The redrafting of Clause 193 and the insertion of the new clause combine to clarify the position and also to insert an important new provision. As amended, the clauses allow a local authority to deal with any personal property of an applicant in any way which is reasonably necessary, in particular by storing it or arranging for its storage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 95 and 96:
Page 116, line 33, leave out subsections (6) to (8).
Page 117, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) Section (Protection of property: supplementary provisions) contains provisions supplementing this section.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 97:
After Clause 193, insert the following new clause—
PROTECTION OF PROPERTY: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
(".—(1) The authority may for the purposes of section 193 (protection of property of homeless persons or persons threatened with homelessness)—

(a) enter, at all reasonable times, any premises which are the usual place of residence of the applicant or which were his last usual place of residence, and

(b) deal with any personal property of his in any way which is reasonably necessary, in particular by storing it or arranging for its storage.

(2) Where the applicant asks the authority to move his property to a particular location nominated by him, the authority—

(a) may, if it appears to them that his request is reasonable, discharge their responsibilities under section 193 by doing as he asks, and

(b) having done so, have no further duty or power to take action under that section in relation to that property.

If such a request is made, the authority shall before complying with it inform the applicant of the consequence of their doing so.
(3) If no such request is made (or, if made, is not acted upon) the authority cease to have any duty or power to take action under section 193 when, in their opinion, there is no longer any reason to believe that there is a danger of loss of or damage to a person's personal property by reason of his inability to protect it or deal with it.
But property stored by virtue of their having taken such action may be kept in store and any conditions upon which it was taken into store continue to have effect, with any necessary modifications.
(4) Where the authority—

(a) cease to be subject to a duty to take action under section 193 in respect of an applicant's property, or

(b) cease to have power to take such action, having previously taken such action,

they shall notify the applicant of that fact and of the reason for it.
(5) The notification shall be given to the applicant—

(a) by delivering it to him, or

(b) by leaving it, or sending it to him, at his last known address.

(6) References in this section to personal property of the applicant include personal property of any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 194 [Co-operation between relevant housing authorities and bodies]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 117, line l9, at end insert—
("(1A) Where a social services authority request a relevant housing authority or body to assist them in the discharge of their functions under the Children Act 1989 or in the provision of community care services, the authority or body to whom the request is made shall co-operate in securing that accommodation is available for the benefit of any person (including a child) in respect of whom the request is made or in rendering such other assistance as is reasonable in the circumstances.
146
(1B) Where a social services authority which is also a local housing authority is subject to a duty to provide community care services or services under the Children Act 1989 for the benefit of any person (including a child), and the authority determines that such services comprise or include the provision of accommodation for that person, the authority shall secure that suitable accommodation is available for occupation by that person.
(1C) In this section "community care services" has the same meaning as in section 46(3) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (which for the avoidance of doubt, shall include services provided under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am sorry that this amendment comes so late, perhaps we should have grouped it more brutally. Even though it is late I still wish to air the issue. The amendment concerns co-operation. As we know, it is not just housing departments who have housing responsibilities. Social services may have them as a way of discharging functions under the Children Act 1989; social services may also have a housing function as part of the community care package.
I think we all agree that it is essential that housing services should avoid being splintered. It is essential that housing policy be integrated with social services child care and community care policies, otherwise, some of the most vulnerable, homeless children and those who are, mentally and physically ill may slip into the gap between providing authorities.
Section 17 of the Children Act states that a local authority has the general duty to promote the welfare of children, including providing them and their families, if appropriate, with accommodation. Section 20 includes an explicit additional duty for the local authority to care for homeless children of 16 or 17. The local authority can meet those duties with its own accommodation or by ensuring that privately registered accommodation is available. Similarly, under the National Assistance Act 1948 the local authority may make available residential accommodation for those who are vulnerable through age, disability or illness. In other words, most children and most vulnerable people come within the categories of allocation policies in Part VI, but not all of them—and those others remain the responsibility of social services.
Perhaps I may give some examples of those remaining at risk. There are the children of parents who become intentionally homeless. Perhaps the family fails to keep up mortgage repayments which a reasonable person might judge they could pay. There are the children of someone who is homeless and who has refused an offer deemed suitable by the local authority. There are children fleeing, for example, racial harassment, where the local authority believes it is reasonable that the family should continue to live in their former accommodation but the family does not. Another example would be a 16 year-old who has left home following family breakdown, whom the local authority does not accept as vulnerable. Someone may need accommodation suited to his disability or to support from a carer but is nonetheless not regarded as homeless by a local authority. There may be a case where a single person has been discharged from a psychiatric or other hospital whom the local authority

147
has not accepted as vulnerable. An asylum seeker may have applied in country, be destitute, have serious medical, physical or psychiatric problems, have no income, be unable to work, have nowhere to live and fall within community care responsibility.
I have listed just eight examples. I could add many more. All of those groups might be entitled to help from social services, even though they had been refused help by housing departments.
What happens then? Either social services have to become a housing department as well, and may therefore need to acquire a stock of dwellings or may need to place people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation; or we need to ensure that co-operative arrangements are in place. Co-operative arrangements, while desirable, are especially difficult where there is not a unitary authority. All social services can do is make a request, under Section 27 of the Children Act, or invite help under community care arrangements.
I remind the noble Earl of the case of R. v. Northavon District Council ex parte Smith 1994. The House of Lords held that Northavon District Council was entitled to refuse a request by Avon County Council social services department for assistance in housing a family with young children on the basis that the family was intentionally homeless.
This amendment would allow local authorities' social services departments to acquire and secure effective co-operation from housing departments while still leaving it open to the housing authorities to decide whether or not to secure accommodation or help social services in some other way.
At the moment the requirement of housing departments to respond to a social services request is too weak given the responsibility of social services under the Children Act and under community care. This amendment would strengthen the position of social services vis-à-vis housing departments and therefore, I hope, ensure that co-operation follows. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the most remarkable example of inconsistent provision I know was in the regulations for the Civil Service in Northern Ireland about 30 years ago. Women in the Northern Irish Civil Service were allowed up to three children—but they were not allowed to be married. That is the result of applying to them the regulations about children which were designed originally for men while putting in a separate regulation prohibiting marriage. I am thankful to say that that is no longer the case.
These particular cases of inconsistent provision are mostly ones about which I remember my noble friend Lady Seear warning the House during the 1990 National Health Service and Community Care Act. Most of the fears she then expressed have proved to be justified. The purpose of the noble Baroness's amendment is only to connect. I think it is good advice and I am happy to support it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell never ceases to fascinate me. His researches go a long
148
way. To think that he found out that the Northern Irish civil servants could have three children but they must not be married seems to me quite extraordinary. I cannot think how he found that out. I can only assume it was what he found out when his tutor told him to go down to the Bodleian Library.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it so happens that my best man was the son of a Northern Irish civil servant.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that casts quite a lot of doubt somewhere, but I am not quite sure where. Perhaps we had better address ourselves to the amendment.
Under Clause 194 there is a specific duty of co-operation between local authorities and social service authorities. The Children Act of 1989 already incorporates the provisions sought by the amendment, specifically in respect of young people. Section 27 allows a social services authority to call on the assistance of a housing authority in discharging a duty to a young person. The housing authority is also under a duty to comply in such circumstances.
Community care is dealt with under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, to which the amendment refers. Section 46 of that Act includes a specific requirement that local housing authorities are to be consulted in the drawing up of plans for community care services. It is for these reasons that we feel that the points which the noble Baroness seeks to cover are already covered. We do not regard the provisions which are sought by the amendment to be necessary. They are in statute already. That is why I hope the noble Baroness will realise, despite her indicating dissent, no doubt as a result of a discussion with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. I wonder whether he has checked the wording of the Children Act or the community care Act of 1990. I invite him, in all seriousness, to do so before Third Reading. My understanding is that currently all that social service authorities can do is to request co-operation. That request can be ignored. Social services have no come-back. They request co-operation under the Children Act; they invite co-operation under the National Health Service and Community Care Act. And that request can be ignored.
That is my reading of the situation. If I am wrong I am very happy to be corrected by the Minister. The Northavon case I quoted to the Minister upheld the housing authority's right to ignore the request. The amendment says that where a request is made the housing authority shall co-operate. It does not mean that it has to agree. But it may not ignore. It must consider and shall co-operate.
Obviously, at this time of night I shall be seeking permission to withdraw the amendment, but I ask the Minister to assure himself that the wording in the Children Act and the community care Act does what he believes it to do. I do not believe it does. If I am wrong I am genuinely happy to be corrected and have my fears

149
laid to rest. Certainly, court cases suggest that my fears are well founded and that social services do not have the leverage that the noble Earl and I would like. If the Minister wishes to intervene I would welcome his doing so.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House, the noble Baroness makes a perfectly reasonable request. She asks me to look at what she has said and to check over the two Acts; I shall certainly do so.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. I seek permission to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 196 [Regulations and orders]:
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Schedule 15 [Homelessness: consequential amendments]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 180, leave out lines 21 to 28.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 84. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 198 [Minor definitions: Part VII]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 118, line 41, at end insert—
("(3) References in this Part to the district of a local housing authority—

(a) have the same meaning in relation to an authority in England or Wales as in the Housing Act 1985, and

(b) in relation to an authority in Scotland, mean the area of the local authority concerned.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 102 and 103.
Amendment No. 101 seeks to add a further definition to Clause 198 to ensure that references in these provisions to the district of a local housing authority retain the same meaning in England and Wales as in the Housing Act 1985. This amendment will also ensure that in relation to an authority in Scotland references to the district of a local housing authority would mean the area of the local authority concerned.
Amendments Nos. 102 to 107, which are also grouped together, are technical amendments. I commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 199 [Index of defined expressions: Part VII]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 102 to 107:
Page 119, line 6, at end insert—
("associated (in relation to a section (Meaning of associated person) person)")
Page 119, line 6, at end insert—
("assured tenancy and assured
shorthold tenancy section 211")
150
Page 119, line 6, at end insert—
("district (of local housing authority) section 198(3)")
Page 119, leave out lines 13 and 14 and insert—
("load' housing authority—
-in England and Wales section 211,
-in Scotland section I98(2)(a)")
Page 119, line 8, at end insert—
("housing functions under this Part (in sections 191 to (Discharge of functions: arrangements with registered section (Discharge of functions: social landlord)) introductory)(2)")
Page 119, line 21, at end insert—
("registered social landlord section 211")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Flather Baroness Flather moved Amendment No. 108:
Before Clause 200, insert the following new clause—
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
(".—(1) A local housing authority may provide, inside or outside its area, facilities whereby occupiers of dwelling houses or other residential accommodation may, by agreement, be connected to an emergency communication system.
(2) A local housing authority may make facilities provided by it under subsection (1) above available for use by such persons as the authority thinks fit either without charge or on payment of such charges as the authority thinks fit.
(3) The powers conferred by this section are without prejudice to other enactments.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the provision of alarm systems to people living in council areas. I moved the amendment at Committee stage. It seeks to regularise a position which exists at the present moment.
Councils up and down the country provide such alarm systems not only to their own tenants but to housing association tenants as well as home owners. There is considerable doubt as to whether they can charge for that service from those who are not council tenants. The doubts have been expressed by the Audit Commission, which has not yet mounted a challenge. But the auditors are warning the councils to be careful in case such a challenge is mounted in the future.
When I brought forward this amendment on the previous occasion, my noble friend Lord Lucas assured me that there would be a consultation process which would start shortly. He has since very kindly written to me, putting forward one or two points about which he was concerned in the amendment which I brought forward earlier. They were points about whether the alarm systems should be restricted to the vulnerable and the elderly, whether they should be provided in the area of the council by that particular council and whether there could perhaps be more flexibility about their provision.
The amendment before your Lordships seeks to include those points. Since then, the agency has also consulted the other councils, local authority associations, the AMA, the ACC and indeed the social services. They have also taken into account the fact that alarm systems can be provided to anyone living in any particular council area by any council at all. There are

151
quite a lot of partnership schemes taking place at the moment where one particular council specialises in the provision of the systems while the others take advantage of the provision. It would be detrimental to local authorities if such partnership schemes could not go ahead. In my council of Windsor and Maidenhead, the systems are provided by Wrekin and it works far better because it can be much more cost effective. We would not wish in any way to confuse the issue on that.
There is very little more that I can usefully add to what I said on the last occasion, except to emphasise that this is a totally benign amendment. It seeks to regularise an existing position. It enforces nothing; no one is forced to have such an alarm system. It gives local authorities the opportunity and ability to provide such a system. I beg to move.
Midnight
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I supported this amendment at Committee stage and put my name to it on this occasion. As my noble friend said, Amendment No. 108 is purely an enabling amendment. It states that,
"A local housing authority may provide";
it is not compulsory; it is only permissive. Subsection (2) provides that,
"A local housing authority may make facilities provided by it under subsection (1) above available for use by such persons as the authority thinks fit".
After Committee stage my noble friend was kind enough to send me a copy of his letter to my noble friend Lady Flather. I understand that the provision of community alarm systems is not simply a housing issue. However, as he wrote, local housing authorities can provide alarm systems for their tenants. Social services authorities, whether or not they be housing authorities as well, may provide the systems to certain defined vulnerable groups.
The provision exists in bits. It is like the curate's egg: some is good and some is not so good. I suggest to my noble friend that he takes this opportunity to accept the amendment and, if he needs to, he can amend it on Third Reading to cover the aspects with which he is not entirely happy. Alternatively, he may give an undertaking that he will bring forward his own amendment on Third Reading. As I said in Committee, it seems daft not to take the amendment on board at this stage. When are we next going to have a Bill in which this provision can be included? I do not see another one coming up for a very long time. I should grasp the opportunity now and run with it. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I, too, hope that the Minister will be able to support the amendment moved so persuasively by his noble friend Lady Flather. This is a grey area of law. Local authorities want their position clarified so that they can do what they judge is best in their interests, without fearing that they may meet some legal challenge under the auditor's procedure.
152
I hope that the Government do not drag their feet any further. The amendment is not ideological; it is not contentious; it is entirely discretionary. It allows local authorities to recoup some of their costs. I hope that the Government can do as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said: accept the amendment and, if necessary, adjust it at Third Reading if in any sense it is technically deficient. That would be a great delight—to use the Minister's words—to local authorities.
Earl Russell: My Lords, at this time of night I say only that this amendment enjoys support in every quarter of the House.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am therefore very sorry not to be providing a midnight delight for all our delectations. I listened carefully to the arguments of my noble friend and all other noble Lords in support of the amendment. But this clause is not the right way forward on this issue.
The present statutory position is that the law is clear that local housing authorities can provide alarm systems for their tenants. Equally, the law is clear that social services authorities can provide such facilities to certain defined vulnerable groups. At root, the concern of the local authority associations, as explained by my noble friend, is that the law is not clear about local authorities providing community alarms in any other situation.
To resolve this lack of clarity, we need first to address a number of fundamental questions, and this we are doing. In essence, we need to decide which local authorities should be able to provide community alarms. Should, for example, all local authorities—counties, districts, unitaries, and perhaps police authorities—be able to provide alarms or should it be restricted to certain authorities? Should authorities be able to provide this service to anyone resident in their area, or should provision be restricted to certain vulnerable groups or specific categories such as local authority tenants as at present? Should authorities be able to provide and charge for alarms to people outside their area or to business people? How would any general power to provide community alarms interact with authorities' other responsibilities in the fields of housing, social services and crime prevention? Should there be any restriction on precisely the kind of system which local authorities can provide? How would we define this adequately? What is the role of the private sector, and would it be right for local authorities to compete in the market for electronic communication systems?
It is these and other questions that we are addressing. We have not yet reached our conclusions nor, would it seem, has the noble Baroness. Once we have completed our work, it is our intention to consult the local authority associations and other interested parties on our conclusions, including any proposals for legislation.
My noble friend's amendment does not address the full range of issues. It is silent about authorities which are not housing authorities. On the other hand, it would open up the possibility of a particular class of local authority (housing authorities) being able to trade throughout the country in a market for emergency communication systems. That is a very broad term.

153
Although we have not yet completed our analysis, we do not see a case for such wide ranging powers. My noble friend Lord Swinfen invited us to join the permissive society or, at least, this aspect of it. We do not feel ready to do so.
We are committed, as both I and my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Regeneration have made clear, to resolving the present legal uncertainties. It is our aim that these should be resolved in a commonsense and practical way, ensuring that local authorities have the powers they need to provide those community alarm services, which would be best provided by local government.
I do not argue with my noble friend's description of the present situation being like the curate's egg. We are committed to arriving at the bishop's chicken, which I believe will be tasty throughout and altogether a better developed bird. This amendment does not achieve that. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw it. I understand her disappointment at our not being in a position to move ahead now on this matter, but there is a great deal of work that remains to be done. A great deal of consultation is required before we can go ahead. There is not the time in the time scale of this Bill to enable us to do that. I am sure and confident that in due course there will be other legislative opportunities to incorporate our conclusions in legislation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the Minister sits down, perhaps he can answer this question. He said that further consultation is needed and that a legislative opportunity will present itself to the House. I am not quite sure why he has that confidence. He may be telling us something about the Queen's Speech in the autumn. If the Government were persuaded of the substance of the amendment, particularly following consultation with the local authorities who, I am sure, will say the same as has been argued here today, is there any way that they can amend the situation by regulation or will it require primary legislation? To stress the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, when will the opportunity present itself? Can the Minister help on that? Is there some possibility that it does not require the vehicle of primary legislation to address this matter?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sad at not being able to enliven this late hour with a description of what will be in the Queen's Speech. I have no knowledge of it. The noble Baroness is usually ahead of me in these matters and perhaps she is on this occasion.
Legislation which can have housing aspects is not that infrequent in this House. Even in my few years here I have seen plenty of it. It is our clear understanding that primary legislation will be required to do the sort of things which it is required should be done. That illustrates the fact that we are some way short yet of reaching our conclusions on what should be done.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I must express my disappointment at my noble friend's response. Given the lateness of the hour, analogies with food do not exactly
154
appeal. I am sure that when they read Hansard tomorrow, some noble Lords will wonder whether what has been said is common sense.
The questions that my noble friend posed are probably totally unanswerable because, unless some direction is given, there will be no end result. Given that this matter has been on the Whitehall merry-go-round for some two years—to use my noble friend's own words—I hope that there is not to be a further two years on an even longer and larger merry-go-round. The questions that my noble friend posed lead me to fear just such a merry-go-round.
In the meantime, I hope that at the very least my noble friend will give local authorities an assurance of some kind that no action will be taken on what has already been done because there is a possible danger of some such action in the near future.
Questions such as, "What about the private sector?" and, "What about other authorities?" arise. On the one hand, my noble friend said in his letter that this must not be restricted to the vulnerable and the elderly while on the other hand he himself says, "What about the private sector?". I am surprised that he did not mention that in his letter as well as extending the provisions to everyone in a local authority area.
I am very disappointed by what has been said and I am not filled with expectation. If all provisions had had to be subjected to that kind of nit-picking we would not have had to amend the number of Bills that we have, even in my time in this House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 109:
Before Clause 200, insert the following new clause—
MORTGAGE REPOSSESSIONS
(".—(1) For the purposes of section 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and section 8 of the Administration of Justice Act 1973 (under which a court has power to delay giving a mortgagee possession of the mortgaged property so as to allow the mortgagor a reasonable period to pay any sums due under the mortgage) there shall be a presumption that the full remaining period of the mortgage term is the reasonable period.
(2) The court may exercise any of its powers under this section notwithstanding that the court may have exercised its powers under this section on a previous occasion.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is the House's misfortune, as it is mine, that it has fallen to me to move two of the longest and most technical amendments to the Bill at 12.10 a.m. I am sorry that it is so and I shall do my best to be as fast as I can, but the material is difficult.
The amendment concerns mortgage repossessions—a problem that will not go away; first, because the private sector mortgage debt is now 62 per cent. of GNP or £362 billion. When this Government came into office, it was 26 per cent. of GNP. That is one reason why the feel-good factor has not come back. The second reason is the deregulated labour market. There is a potential conflict between a labour market in which people are expected to change jobs frequently and one in which they are expected to pay mortgages regularly. In fact,

155
research from the DoE shows that 70 per cent. of repossessions are caused by job loss. In 1995, 49,410 properties were repossessed compared with only 19,300 10 years ago.
There is a conflict of legitimate interests in mortgage repossessions. The lender's interest is legitimate, as is that of the borrower, but hasty action tends to leave the lender saddled with an asset which, sold rapidly, does not generate what is wanted. A lot of action is taken in that regard which is not in anyone's interests.
Amendment No. 109 deals with the "reasonable period" set out in the 1970 Act during which mortgage arrears are to be paid off. It seeks to incorporate in statute the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v. Norgan, which laid down that the reasonable period for clearing mortgage arrears should start from calculating the remaining term of the mortgage. Since that judgment exists, the Minister may wish to assure me that this amendment is unnecessary. I wish that were so. A great many judgments are coming out, especially in the lower courts, in ways which are wildly inconsistent with the Court of Appeal. A district judge in Lancashire recently said that he expected all arrears would normally be cleared within two years, and that four should be the maximum. That has come out since the Court of Appeal judgment.
The other reason why the Court of Appeal judgment has not achieved what is required is that a great many litigants appear unrepresented. People who are suffering mortgage repossession are not normally in a good position to pay for lawyers, and in the light of forthcoming cuts in legal aid the proportion of mortgage repossession cases where the applicant is unrepresented is likely to go up. So then they become homeless and there is a considerable cost to public funds. I think there would be a great asset, in terms of consistency and security, in expressing this principle clearly in statute law. It would be easier for the lenders to become familiar with it and it would be easier for the lower court judges to become familiar with it.
Obviously the lenders might wish to object that they were being asked to accept an unsecured loan, but in so far as there is negative equity that is true already. There are a lot of cases, and I fear that I must quote one or two to show how things are being done which are not in the interests of either party and where everyone would be better off if this were adopted. Take, for example, the case of a woman who was made redundant, claimed income support and was told by her lender that if she made no payment for eight weeks possession proceedings would be instituted. That would have left the lender with an expensive asset and a "fire sale" which would not realise its true value. If people are to be expected to change jobs, some arrangement must exist for tiding over intervals like that. This amendment seeks to provide that. I believe it to be in the interests of all parties and I believe it to be practical. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am a little confused as to whether the noble Lord was talking to Amendment No. 110 as well as to Amendment No. 109.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am dealing with Amendment No. 109, but I inadvertently let fall a single sentence which referred to Amendment No. 110. That was my error.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl. We share the view that unnecessary repossession should be avoided, but the courts already have the discretion which this amendment appears to try to give them. The recent Appeal Court case of Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v. Norgan makes it clear that the remaining term of the mortgage should be taken by judges as the starting point for determining what constitutes a reasonable period for the repayment of arrears outstanding on a mortgage.
We feel it would be unhelpful to fetter the court's discretion in the way that this amendment does. In any individual case, what constitutes a reasonable period for repayment of arrears will depend on the circumstances of that particular case. This is a matter for the judge to decide after looking into the borrower's financial circumstances and the lender's position. As I have just said, the Appeal Court has made it clear that the starting point is the remaining term of the mortgage. Obviously there will be situations where that is entirely inappropriate: where the remaining term of the mortgage is so short that no reasonable repayment can be made over it, and where the remaining term of the mortgage is very long and the borrower has other assets which can easily be sold in the reasonably short term to provide the necessary additional payments.
These are situations where the courts need the flexibility they have at present in order to make the proper decisions. It has been suggested that case law alone will not lead to a change in the practice of mortgage lenders. We see no reason why this should be so. Indeed my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration has received a letter from the Director General of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which acknowledges that lenders will have to take account of the Appeal Court judgment in dealing with future arrears and possession cases.
To the extent that there is any inconsistency in the exercise of the discretion of judges as to what constitutes a reasonable period, that may be due to inadequate guidance. Perhaps the case cited by the noble Earl is an example of that. Action has been taken to remedy it. Detailed guidance is set out in the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Judicial Studies Board, which provides notes for the guidance of district judges in the exercise of their discretion, has updated the notes to alert judges to the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
The guidance for judges will ensure that the Court of Appeal judgment is quickly disseminated and is duly reflected in court decisions and lending practices. The noble Earl raises the question whether the

157
amendment will benefit borrowers particularly when they are not represented in court. The best way to protect borrowers is to ensure that judges hearing those cases are fully aware of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and that is already in hand. We believe the amendment to be unnecessary. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. What he said about guidance went a long way to meeting my concern. But I ask him not to overrate the awareness of all judges, especially in lower courts, with the latest decisions. In the reign of Elizabeth I, judges discovered that for 18 years they had been hanging people under a repealed statute. I am not suggesting that any such errors occur today. But, when we consider our own inability to recollect conflicting provisions in Bills that we have passed within the past five years, we must be understanding.
I must ask the Minister to think seriously and consult his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor about the cost to public funds of people who become homeless because they are unrepresented at repossession hearings. It may wipe out the whole of the saving. However, that is for the future. For the time being, I am content to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 110:
Before Clause 200, insert the following new clause—
NEGATIVE EQUITY
(".—(1) The power of the court under section 91 of the Law of Property Act 1925 ("the 1925 Act") to direct a sale of mortgaged property, on such terms as it thinks fit, shall, in respect of a dwelling house or part of a dwelling house occupied by a mortgagor in possession, include power to direct a sale free of the mortgage by the mortgagor, notwithstanding that the sum secured by the mortgage exceeds the sale price, and so to direct on terms that the mortgagor shall be entitled to deduct from the gross proceeds of sale his reasonable costs and expenses of effecting the sale before accounting to the mortgagee for the net proceeds.
(2) Where an application is made to a court by a mortgagee or any other interested person under section 91 of the 1925 Act for a direction that a mortgaged property to which subsection (1) applies be sold, the court may if it thinks fit suspend the making of the direction for a reasonable period to allow time for redemption or for the payment of any mortgage money or for sale by the mortgagor.
(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other enactment, a County Court shall have jurisdiction under section 91 of the 1925 Act to determine an issue arising under this section whatever the amount owing in respect of the mortgage charge.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 110 also deals with mortgage repossessions, in particular reasonable settlements of mortgage debts. It has three parts. It provides a power to direct a sale free of the mortgage, which means that what is left over is debt minus the net proceeds. It gives power to suspend the direction for a sale for a reasonable period. It also makes clear that jurisdiction should lie with the county court.
158
The same points made earlier about the need for reasonable settlements in the interests of all parties apply here, and I need not repeat them.
At the moment, a considerable number of cases that are going through are not in the carefully considered interests of either party. It may be that a junior official in a bank feels a cold breath down his neck. Not every junior bank manager has the benefit of the legal advice of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. Let us take as an example a case in Sussex where the borrowers fell into arrears on the mortgage. They tried to agree with the lender to sell the property for £115,000. They were refused permission to do so. The property was repossessed. A year later the lender sold the property for £90,000. By that time arrears had increased by a further £9,000. The final unsecured, unmet debt was £53,000. Clearly, that was not in the interests of anybody.
Another case concerned a woman separated from her husband. A buyer was found for the property and an offer of £19,000 was made. The lender refused to allow the sale to go through because it would not cover the outstanding loan which totalled £26,000. The property was repossessed. Eventually, the lender had to sell it, not for £19,000, but for £9,000. That was not in the interests of the lender, borrower or anybody else. I believe that this amendment would do something to meet a very real need.
It was at this point that I inadvertently allowed a line about unsecured debt to wander from one amendment to another, which I believe disconcerted the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He could see, I think, that it belongs here where it should have been in the first place. Again, there is a Court of Appeal case—the Barrett case—which bears that out. But once again district judges do not know it, unrepresented borrowers do not know it, and it is not being acted on. I hope the amendment would clear up the situation. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in the Government's view, Amendment No. 110 is unnecessary. It seeks to insert into the Bill proposals which reflect the recent decision of the High Court in the case of Barrett v. Halifax Building Society. In that case the court decided that the borrowers could sell their property to their buyer against the wishes of their lender because the lender could not in the foreseeable future improve upon the price agreed. The court therefore decided that its power to order a sale under Section 91 of the Law of Property Act 1925 was unfettered, though it was to be exercised judicially by having due regard to all the interests concerned. The court also decided that the borrowers could deduct reasonable costs of the sale before accounting to the lender.
The case followed the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Palk v. Mortgage Services Funding in 1992, which decided that the court has the power to order a sale against the wishes of the lender if it was just and equitable despite the fact that the mortgage debt would remain unsecured. Again, the power has to be exercised judicially by taking account of the interests of all the parties.
The two judgments therefore make it clear that the courts already have the power to order a sale in the circumstances set out in the amendment. Furthermore, it is clear that the courts already have the power to suspend

159
an order for sale to allow the owner time to negotiate a sale. The first two parts of the proposed new clause therefore add nothing to the present position under law. We are quite clear that the Council of Mortgage Lenders is fully apprised of the effects of these court cases in looking at the way in which its members should conduct their business in future. I do not have with me the guidance issued to district circuit judges as a result of the cases, but I shall obtain a copy and send it to the noble Earl before Third Reading.
The third part of the amendment seeks to extend the jurisdiction of the county courts in cases of this kind, regardless of the amount owed on the mortgage. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has given jurisdiction under Section 91 of the 1925 Act to the county courts where the mortgage debt does not exceed £30,000. As your Lordships will know, the report of the review of civil litigation carried out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, is due to be published later this summer. As part of his review, the noble and learned Lord has been considering the appropriate forum for housing cases and the distribution of work between the High Court and the county courts. It seems to me that the appropriate course is for my noble and learned friend to be given the opportunity to take account of the aims of this part of the amendment in the context of the implementation of the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. For all these reasons, I hope that the noble Earl will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I agree with what he said about the, Barrett judgment. I agree with what he said about the Council of Mortgage Lenders. Not every junior manager is fully aware of every decision of the Council of Mortgage Lenders. Again, there is a problem in current cases of applying the Barrett judgment.
In a recent case in west London, where there was a mortgage of £68,000 and arrears of £8,000, the lender took possession proceedings. The client found a buyer for £72,000. The lender refused to let the sale go ahead on the ground that it would not cover the outstanding debt. I think it covered far more of it than would have accrued otherwise. By making representations, the citizens advice bureau was able to persuade the lender to change its mind. But I fear that the present state of the law means that one cannot get the benefit of the Court of Appeal judgment unless one enjoys the support of a citizens advice bureau making representations. And although I am second to none in my admiration for citizens advice bureaux, it is not realistic to expect every single litigant to have one to represent him.
I believe that the amendment does meet a need. However, the Minister has gone a long way towards meeting my concerns. I thank him for doing so and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
12.30 a.m.
Clause 203 [Miscellaneous minor amendments]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 111:
160
Page 121, line 40, at end insert—
("Part IIA relates to orders in relation to property in family and matrimonial proceedings, &c..").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Miscellaneous provisions]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 182, line 47, leave out ("income and expenditure is") and insert ("items or amounts are").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 113 to 120. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Part II of Schedule 16 add three new sections into Part VI of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. These will enable the Secretary of State to give directions which will give authorities more discretion over how they account for certain items of expenditure and income. Amendments Nos. 112 to 120 are purely technical. They are designed to clarify the scope of the Secretary of State's powers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 113 to 120:
Page 182, line 49, leave out ("flats in") and insert ("parts of').
Page 183, line 4, leave out ("income and expenditure is") and insert ("items or amounts are").
Page 183, leave out lines 8 to 10.
Page 183, line 14, leave out ("flats in") and insert ("parts of').
Page 183, line 16, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 18 and insert ("which has successfully bid for the work on a competitive basis.").
Page 183, line 29, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 30 and insert ("Directions under subsection (2)(a) may make provision for determining the amount to be treated as the amount of the authority's successful bid.
References").
Page 183, line 44, leave out ("may be") and insert ("he thinks fit").
Page 184, line 7, leave out ("may determine") and insert ("thinks fit").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 185, line 36, at end insert—
("PART IIA
ORDERS IN RELATION TO PROPERTY IN FAMILY AND MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS, &C.
Housing Act 1980 (c.51)
6A. In section 54(2) of the Housing Act 1980 (prohibition on assignment of protected shorthold tenancy or protected tenancy of dwelling-house), for "except in pursuance of an order under section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973" substitute—
"except in pursuance of an order under—

(a) section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (property adjustment orders in connection with matrimonial proceedings);

(b) section 17(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders after overseas divorce, &c.), or

(c) paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents).".

161
6B.—(1) Section 39 of the Housing Act 1985 (exempted disposals) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for paragraph (c) substitute—
"(c) it is a disposal of the whole of the house in pursuance of any such order as is mentioned in subsection (3);"
(3) After subsection (2) add—
"(3) The orders referred to in subsection (1)(c) are orders under—

(a) section 24 or 24A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (property adjustment orders or orders for the sale of property in connection with matrimonial proceedings),

(b) section 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (orders as to financial provision to be made from estate),

(c) section 17 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders or orders for the sale of property after overseas divorce, &c.), or

(d) paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents);".

6C. In section 88(2) of the Housing Act 1985 (cases where secure tenant is a successor) after "proceedings)" insert "or section 17(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders after overseas divorce, &c.)".
6D. In section 89(3) of the Housing Act 1985 (succession to periodic secure tenancy) for the words from "under" to the end substitute—
"under—

(a) section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (property adjustment orders in connection with matrimonial proceedings),

(b) section 17(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders after overseas divorce, &c.), or

(c) paragraph 1 of Schedule I to the Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents).".

6E. In section 90(3) of the Housing Act 1985 (devolution of secure tenancy), for paragraph (a) and the word "or" at the end of the paragraph substitute—

"(a) the vesting or other disposal is in pursuance of an order made under—

(i) section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (property adjustment orders in connection with matrimonial proceedings),

(ii) section 17(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders after overseas divorce, &c.), or

(iii) paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents), or".

6F. In section 91(3) of the Housing Act 1985 (cases where assignment of secure tenancy permitted), for paragraph (b) substitute—
"(b) an assignment in pursuance of an order made under—

(i) section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (property adjustment orders in connection with matrimonial proceedings),

(ii) section 17(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders after overseas divorce, &c.), or

(iii) paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents);".

6G. In section 99B(2) of the Housing Act 1985 (persons qualifying for compensation for improvements) for paragraph (e) substitute—
"(e) a person to whom the tenancy was assigned by the improving tenant in pursuance of an order made under—
162

(i) section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (property adjustment orders in connection with matrimonial proceedings),

(ii) section 17(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders after overseas divorce, &c.), or

(iii) paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents);".

6H. In section 101(3) of the Housing Act 1985 Act (rent not increased on account of tenant's improvements: qualifying persons) for paragraph (c) substitute—
"(c) a person to whom the tenancy was assigned by the tenant in pursuance of an order made under—

(i) section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (property adjustment orders in connection with matrimonial proceedings),

(ii) section 17(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders after overseas divorce, &c.), or

(iii) paragraph 1 of Schedule I to the Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents);".

61.—(l) Section 160 of the Housing Act 1985 (exempted disposals in relation to right to buy) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for paragraph (c) substitute—
"(c) it is a disposal of the whole of the dwelling-house in pursuance of any such order as is mentioned in subsection (3);".
(3) After subsection (2) add—
"(3) The orders referred to in subsection (1)(c) are orders under—

(a) section 24 or 24A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (property adjustment orders or orders for the sale of property in connection with matrimonial proceedings),

(b) section 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (orders as to financial provision to be made from estate),

(c) section 17 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders or orders for the sale of property after overseas divorce, &c.), or

(d) paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents);".

6J. In section 171B(4)(b) of the Housing Act 1985 (extent of preserved right to buy: qualifying successors of tenant), after sub-paragraph (ii) insert—
"or
(iii) a property adjustment order under section 17(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders after overseas divorce, &c.), or
(iv) an order under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents),".
6K. In paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 6A to the Housing Act 1985 (obligation to redeem landlord's share: excluded disposals), for paragraph (c) substitute—
"(c) it is a disposal in pursuance of an order under—

(i) section 24 or 24A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (property adjustment orders or orders for the sale of property in connection with matrimonial proceedings),

(ii) section 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (orders as to financial provision to be made from estate),

(iii) section 17 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders or orders for the sale of property after overseas divorce, &c.), or

163

(iv) paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents),".

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (c.31)
6L. In section 4(2) of the Landlord and Tenant 1987 (right of first refusal: excluded disposals), for paragraph (c) substitute—
("(c) a disposal in pursuance of an order made under—

(i) section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (property adjustment orders in connection with matrimonial proceedings),

(ii) section 24A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (orders for the sale of property in connection with matrimonial proceedings) where the order includes provision requiring the property concerned to be offered for sale to a person or class of persons specified in the order,

(iii) section 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (orders as to financial provision to be made from estate),

(iv) section 17(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders after overseas divorce, &c.),

(v) section 17(2) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (orders for the sale of property after overseas divorce, &c.) where the order includes provision requiring the property concerned to be offered for sale to a person or class of persons specified in the order, or

(vi) paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents);".

Housing Act 1988 (c.50)
6M.—(1) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 11 to the Housing Act 1988 (repayment of discount on disposal: exempted disposals) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), for paragraph (c) substitute—
"(c) it is a disposal of the whole of the house in pursuance of any such order as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) below;".
(3) After sub-paragraph (3) add—
"(4) The orders referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(c) above are orders under—

(a) section 24 or 24A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (property adjustment orders or orders for the sale of property in connection with matrimonial proceedings),

(b) section 2 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (orders as to financial provision to be made from estate),

(c) section 17 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders or orders for the sale of property after overseas divorce, &c.), or

(d) paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 (orders for financial relief against parents);".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 122, I should point out that there is a printing error. The amendment should refer to Page 188, line 28.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 188, line 28, at end insert—
("Overcrowding
Part X (Overcrowding) of the Housing Act 1985 is amended as follows—

(a) in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 325 for the words from "locality" to the end, substitute "as a bedroom"; and

(b) in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 326 for the words from "locality" to the end, substitute "as a bedroom".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. The current standard of overcrowding concerning fitness and so on is based on the 1935 housing legislation which takes into account living rooms and not merely bedrooms, so that two adults and two children under ten would not be regarded as being overcrowded if they lived in a one-bedroom flat because the living room would be taken into account as a room available for sleeping in.
Most local authorities have long since passed that 1935 standard and seek to use instead, perfectly properly, a bedroom standard of accommodation so that a couple with two children under the age of ten, of either the same or different sexes, would be entitled to two bedrooms rather than one. However, the legislation should be updated. It goes back to 1935 and is anachronistic. I hope that even at this late hour the Minister will undertake to tidy up this area of the law at a later stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall try to be similarly brief. I suspect that there is more to this amendment in terms of the length of the reply that I might give and the advocation which the noble Baroness might have used than we have been treated to this evening.
Clearly, as the noble Baroness said, this legislation was passed a long time ago. Very few houses fail even the advanced standard which she advocates and most of those are in the private rather than the rented sector. About 5 per cent. of local authority properties would fail the test which she proposes.
Turning to the subject of being homeless by reason of overcrowding—if I may phrase it that way—if accommodation is not available for occupation, a person is considered to be homeless. Overcrowding is a factor which can properly be taken into account in this context, but there is no requirement to take into account the definition of overcrowding in Part X of the Housing Act 1985. It would be my understanding therefore that there would be no need to amend the 1985 Act—with all the ramifications that might have for enforcement of this legislation in private housing and other areas—in order to deal with the problem the noble Baroness has raised on how this would apply to the homelessness legislation. It is a subject I should be happy to discuss with the noble Baroness before Third Reading if she thinks there is something further that needs to be gone into.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that offer. I accept that it is late at night, but if I may I should like to receive a fairly full letter from the Minister on this subject, because it is absurd to

165
operate dual standards—a bedroom standard, whichhow local authorities allocate; and a living room standard by which they determine whether or not a family is in overcrowded housing, and therefore comes within everything from HMOs to being on the route to homelessness. We need to explore this matter further, but I accept the Minister's gracious offer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
166
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before one o'clock.

  Council of Europe Committee of Ministers: Compliance Report
  Council of Europe Committee of Ministers: Compliance Report
  Asylum Appeals Referred for Further Consideration
  Asylum Appeals Referred for Further Consideration
  Transport Council, 17th-18th June
  Transport Council, 17th-18th June
  Employment Policy
  Employment Policy
  Government Department Records: Private Sector Purchase
  Government Department Records: Private Sector Purchase
  Asylum Seekers: Dublin Convention
  Asylum Seekers: Dublin Convention
  MoD Contracts: Invitations to Tender
  MoD Contracts: Invitations to Tender
  Ministers' Political Advisers
  Ministers' Political Advisers
  International Whaling Commission Meeting, 24th-28th June
  International Whaling Commission Meeting, 24th-28th June