Sitting of 10 July 1996

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

  World Population
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
  9.34 am
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this morning's debate. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) to the debate. It is an unexpected pleasure to see him on the Front Bench, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) usually deals with overseas aid matters.
  It is a great privilege for me, as chairman of the all-party group on population, reproductive health and development, to initiate a debate on such an auspicious day—the eve of World Population Day.
  Our group owes a great deal to the late Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who founded it in 1978 and was its president from 1983 until his death this May. I send my sympathies and that of the group to his widow. He was an inspiration to the entire world population movement, and we shall miss his wise counsel greatly.
  You will know, Madam Speaker, as you take an interest in the subject, that our group is extremely active on a cross-party basis in both Houses. We have organised European parliamentary conferences, and recently a workshop at which my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker delivered a keynote speech. I am delighted to say that, as a result of that conference, we are now in contact with several European parliamentary groups. I hope that we will be able to help them form several similar groups.
  No issue is more important than population and reproductive health. Approximately 1 billion people in the developing world—one fifth of the world's population—live in abject poverty. Successful reproductive health programmes could eliminate some of that unnecessary and cruel suffering. My noble Friend Baroness Chalker said in her excellent Rafael Salas memorial lecture recently:
  "it would be a scandal if the people of the OECD countries who consume 75 per cent. of the world's resources failed to help the poor."
  I agree entirely.
  It took 123 years, up to 1870, for the world population to reach 1 billion. Today, the figure is 5.83 billion, and unfortunately it will take only another 11 years for a further 1 billion people to be born. The action we take now will determine the severity of the problems that our
  316
  children will face in the forthcoming millennium. If we do nothing now, the trend will continue inexorably upwards towards 12 billion in the following millennium.
  Absolute numbers are not the real problem. Many of the world's worst problems stem from unsustainable population growth, which can lead ultimately to wars such as those in Rwanda and Burundi, as well as drought, famine, hunger, unscientific farming methods and—most importantly in the coming decades—water shortages.
  What is to be done? There have been significant changes in population policies over the past few years. The Cairo United Nations conference in September 1994 was a landmark, in that 189 countries agreed a global action plan which in essence provides an unprecedented framework for all people to seek and enhance, freely and responsibly, their own health and well-being.
  The conference affirmed the universal right to sexual and reproductive health, and upheld as a core principle freedom from discrimination or coercion in all such matters. Such principles and rights have, of course, been affirmed many times in the past—indeed, there is a United Nations convention on discrimination, which many countries have signed—but they were reaffirmed at that highly successful Cairo conference.
  Rather than viewing people as mere numbers and objects of Government policy and politically motivated ideals, which often occurred before the conference, the international community has made a gigantic commitment to individual people and their development. Thus, a programme for action includes ensuring universal access to reproductive health care, the need to reduce poverty, promotion of economic development, provision of education and basic services for everyone, and improvement of women's status.
  The fourth United Nations conference on women in Beijing in 1995 further endorsed the commitment to women's right to control their own fertility. My noble Friend Baroness Chalker, who so often leads the world's thought processes on such issues, said at that conference:
  "We will carry forward the principles set up in the Platform, including the aim of ensuring that all women, regardless of age, ethnicity, religion, disability, or other characteristics, have equal opportunities, choices and rights."
  I wholeheartedly agree.
  The same issues were debated at the Habitat conference in Istanbul in May. Women's sexual and reproductive health rights are firmly integrated into the international agenda in order to achieve better quality of life for all.
  If anything encapsulates this morning's debate, it is that desire for better quality of life for all. If we are in politics for anything, it is to improve the quality of life of our people, and to give to those who have least in the rest of the world. "Children by choice, not chance" is the accepted aim of almost 200 nations, but it should be enshrined in every nation's constitution. Indeed, the slogan should be enshrined in the heart of every Minister and Government official.
  I must sound a word of caution. As a committed Christian, it gives me no pleasure whatever to say that, when so much positive action is being taken throughout the world and so much good has come from the United Nations conference, which was organised with such care, it is disappointing that efforts to address some of the serious issues are being hampered by the Vatican's

  317
  negative attitude. No one condones any coercive practice, including abortion, but it is wholly questionable for the Vatican, which occupies only official observer status at the United Nations, to pursue its outdated views on voluntary family planning and artificial contraception at every turn.
  Mr. Hartley Booth: Before my hon. Friend moves on from his erudite litany of what is happening around the world, will he deprecate the appalling practices in China, which are well recorded and have been going on for 60 years? In the 1920s, an aunt of mine adopted two girl babies who had been thrown out to die, and similar practices are still going on.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am absolutely delighted that my hon. Friend has raised that issue. I join him in wholly deprecating not only the practices in China, which are some of the worst in the world, but any coercive practice anywhere in the world. Some of the scenes in China, especially those filmed in such programmes as "The Dying Rooms" and its sequel, are wholly abhorrent and totally unacceptable. I share his sentiment. None of the non-governmental organisations involved in China would in any way condone what the Chinese Government are doing, and it is appropriate that some of the western NGOs are helping that country to promote better practices. I hope that they will continue to do so.
  I should like to describe some of the problems that the world faces. About 585,000 women die each year as a result of unwanted pregnancy and childbirth—99 per cent. of them in developing countries. That is an appalling amount of suffering. Around 120 million women do not wish to become pregnant, but have no access to any family planning advice or services. There are 20 million women who have unsafe or coercive abortions each year, which results in tens of thousands of deaths, millions of disabilities and a quite unacceptable amount of suffering.
  The effect of voluntary contraceptive provision on reducing reliance on abortion is dramatic. For example, in Russia, the abortion rate per thousand women aged between 15 and 49 was 108.8 in 1990, 8.88 per cent. of whom used contraception. As the use of voluntary contraception rose steadily to 23.59 per cent. in 1994, the rate of abortion fell to 83 per thousand women in 1994, as would be expected. That is extremely good news, and if it could be replicated elsewhere, as it is in Latin American countries and many parts of Asia, it could dramatically reduce the number of unsafe births.
  Conversely, it is estimated that a 35 per cent. cut in United States funding for family planning, leaving some 7 million couples without access to any contraceptive methods, could lead to an additional 1.6 million abortions—often in very unsafe and unsavoury conditions—as well as millions more unwanted pregnancies.
  I know that some subjects are difficult to discuss in the House, but it must be recognised that more than 100 million women, mainly in Africa, have been subjected to genital mutilation. Such treatment is abhorrent. Will the Minister explain what conclusions have been reached in Government-funded research on the best way in which to change people's attitude to such an
  318
  abhorrent practice where it occurs? If he cannot give me the answer this morning, I should be grateful if he would ask his officials to write to me in due course.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has my hon. Friend any evidence of the prevalence of the practice in this country? I understand that it takes place here.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The short answer is no, although I would not be surprised if it occurred in some corners of our inner cities. Female genital mutilation is a tribal practice, and I am sure that some extremely small ethnic minorities have brought it into this country. If it does occur here, I hope that the authorities will root it out everywhere, and try to educate people who are practising it about its unsavoury, unsatisfactory and abhorrent nature.
  Approximately 15 million girls aged between 15 and 19 give birth yearly. Pregnancy and childbirth are the main causes of death in that age group, and 20 per cent. of infant deaths—this is a staggering statistic—could be averted if all births were at least two years apart. By 2000, about 40 million people will be HIV-positive—mostly in Africa and Asia. Education and proper information on health and contraception could considerably reduce that figure.
  The total cost of attaining universal integrated reproductive health care for all in the developing countries and the economies in transition is estimated to be $17 billion by 2000, rising to $21.7 billion by 2015. Those are large figures, but it is estimated that up to two thirds of that amount should and could be provided by the countries themselves. I wish to focus on the other third.
  The United Nations for Population ActivitiesUNFPA—target of Governments' allocation of only 4 per cent. of overseas aid, which would meet the cost of that universal access to reproductive health services, has so far been committed only by Norway and the Netherlands. The UK's allocation stands at a credible 2.3 per cent. As a result of lobbying by our group and others who deal with the matter, that figure has almost doubled over the past two years.
  Will the Minister tell our right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker that we are extremely pleased that our arguments have been recognised by the Government? We are not asking for any more money. Many people with different causes ask for more money, whereas we merely ask for a reallocation of the aid we already give. As I shall show later in my speech, that can be an extremely effective way of giving aid to the third world.
  In sharp contrast to the Overseas Development Administration, which committed £184 million in 1994 to the end of 1995, thereby doubling its funding over the past five years, the United States Congress cut 35 per cent. from the population and family budget of the US Agency for International Development, the largest supporter of such programmes in the world. The measure was part of a foreign appropriations Bill attached to the legislation to prevent another Government shutdown, and was signed by President Clinton.
  It is now clear that the £17 billion needed by the year 2000 will not be met. That is a tragedy, because the universal demand for family planning and reproductive health will suffer enormously as a result. The UK

  319
  Government, as well as many other Governments and donor agencies, need to review their contribution in that vital area.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will also press for an improvement in funding in Europe, the United States and many other industrial nations. We need urgently to increase the proportion of overseas aid budgets devoted to that issue.
  The group has been dismayed to learn that the cut in USAID's funding budget has led to United States NGOs taking 50 per cent. of the ODA's United Kingdom seedcorn funding in 1994–95. The US NGOs establish branches in London and then compete for our additional seedcorn funding. It is unfair that foreign NGOs are allowed to compete for that seedcorn and core funding, whereas ours are not allowed to do so because they are deemed to be already in existence.
  But the newly established NGOs are simply affiliates of already existing NGOs in the United States. I urge my hon. Friend to look at that matter, because, although our aid agencies may be able to tolerate it in the short term, in the longer term the effectiveness of British NGOs will suffer. That would be a tragedy, because the British NGOs that deal with population problems are some of the most respected in the world.
  The group has consulted its sister group in the European Parliament, in both London and Brussels. The EU has set a post-Cairo spending target of some 300 million ecu on population and reproductive health programmes by the year 2000. However, the EU does not have a single coherent instrument for funding population-related programmes. Its highly cumbersome system for gaining access to funding, with several aid provisions relating to different geographical and sectoral agreements, is often exceedingly complicated for NGOs to pursue. The UNFPA-sponsored Marie Stopes International recently produced a useful handbook on European support mechanisms for population and reproductive health programmes, which sheds some light on the Byzantine complexities within the Commission.
  Do the Government intend to press, at the next Overseas Council, for simplification of that system? If funding cannot be accessed because of the system's complexities, it seems wrong that it then disappears in the next financial year. There should be a process for bidding for it, even if it is not used in the current financial year, so that it can be used the following year, especially as the whole programme is committed up to the year 2000.
  Of particular concern is the dearth of qualified reproductive health staff in Europe in relation to the budget and the number of applications for funding. It was exceedingly welcome news when the ODA was able to attach one of its experts to the Commission, but family planning and reproductive health services still need to be greatly strengthened with committed experts within Europe.
  Earlier this year, I visited the Planned Parenthood Association of Thailand, and witnessed an example of one of the most effective NGOs in the world, which receives some funding from the International Planned Parenthood Federation in co-operation with the Thai Government. It performs an outstanding service to people in that developing country.
  As an example of that NGO's efficiency, it employs a full-time staff of only 123 people, but has organised an effective volunteer force of 30,000 people. Staff members
  320
  go to remote villages and find the most responsible and respected person in the community. They recruit him or her as a volunteer to organise their family planning programmes and education in his or her village. That person not only speaks the language, but is part of the local culture.
  I was lucky enough to go to one of those family planning clinics on the Thai-Burma border. I met tribeswomen who had walked 70 km that morning, many of them barefoot with a young child at their heels, to get to the family planning clinic. They had come to the clinic without their husbands' knowledge. I was able to talk to them through an interpreter. When I asked why they had come, they said that it was because they wanted only one child. When I asked why, they said, "Because we are so poor. You can see from the clothes that we and our children are in—no shoes on our children's feet—that we cannot afford to feed more than one child."
  Those women sat in rows watching in a disciplined fashion a video on the need for further education and health planning services. They then lined up in an orderly way to have their cards examined to see when they last attended the clinic. They were referred to the doctor if they or their child had a problem. If they had no problem, they were referred to the nurse for a three-monthly contraceptive injection or whatever other family planning services they wanted. If the volunteer in their village said that they were too poor, they did not have to pay the 25p that everyone else had to pay. That is an example of what the best family planning and education in the world can do.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Socialism.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend says that it is socialism. It is not. Those people walked to the clinics of their own free will. They would not have walked 70 km if they did not want to improve their lot. I spoke to those women, and did not see the fear in their eyes which I have seen in the eyes of people in other parts of the world. I have seen people in refugee camps in Pakistan with no arms and legs who are in real fear of their lives, and one can see it in their eyes.
  Those women had smiles on their faces, and welcomed the contact with the more stable lowland population, which was also there in a different group. They were enjoying their morning out, and there was a little market next door for those who could afford to buy things.
  The result of that excellent programme is that Thailand has a population increase of about 1 per cent. per year and a stable population of about 50 million, whereas the Philippines, which started similar programmes in the beginning of the 1970s, now has a population of about 80 million and double the rate of population increase—2 per cent. That is an example of what can be done, and it shows us why this debate is so important.
  I should like to be able to conclude on a positive note. Since 1950, life expectancy in the developing countries has increased. Family planning has increased from 10 to 50 per cent. Since the 1960s, and, above all, more couples are choosing when to have their children. They have control over their lives; they can have a family when they want it. On average throughout the world, quality of life is improving, even in some of the poorest parts of the third world, although there are pockets where life is still getting worse.

  321
  The slogan "Children by choice, not chance" should be emblazoned on every Government and every official throughout the world, especially in the third world.
  It would set a wonderful example to the rest of the world if Britain became the first large western nation after Norway and the Netherlands to meet the target of 4 per cent. of overseas aid devoted to population and reproductive health issues. It would require no extra money, merely a reallocation of the existing budget. All other types of overseas aid are merely fire brigade actions—they are merely remedial for the problems that have already been encountered by unsustainable development. Aid devoted to population programmes is preventative, and if we met the 4 per cent. target, it would be the best possible bequest to future generations in the next millennium.
  I urge the Minister to consider seriously the reallocation of this aid budget, which would set a dramatic example to the rest of the world. If Britain, which is acknowledged as one of the leaders in this field, were to meet the 4 per cent. target, I have no doubt that many other countries, especially some of the richer and emerging countries, such as Japan and some of the south-east Asian nations, which contribute very little to population reproductive health programmes, might thereby be encouraged to come in and contribute.
  That would help to meet the £17 billion of unmet need—not a huge amount of money worldwide—give universal access to family planning and education programmes to all in the world, and reduce the unnecessary suffering, some of which I have described.
  Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to you and Madam Speaker for giving me the opportunity to raise this subject.
  10.1 am
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity to take part in an important debate, and I understand the depth of sincerity with which the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) presented his case. I am not altogether sure that the simple slogan "Choice, not chance" is fairly representative of a Christian conviction, because I still believe that there is a sense in which children are a gift; that emerges from the Old Testament and the experience of many of us, and one is concerned at times to think that modern science believes that scientists can dictate the terms of how children might be born.
  I am also aware that we live in a world where we use language to soften what we mean. Some folk might think that I am intellectually challenged or physically disadvantaged, but we must examine some of the definitions that are given, and today I want to consider, in the context of the debate, the definition of "reproductive health" given by the World Health Organisation in its "Technical Definitions and Commentary" prepared for the international conference on population and development in Cairo in 1994:
  "Reproductive health implies that people are able to have responsible, satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so. Implicit in this last condition are the right of men and women to be informed of and to have access to safe, effective,
  322
  affordable and acceptable methods of fertility regulation of their choice, and the right of access to appropriate health care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant."
  There is much in this definition that everyone would applaud, but I want to consider briefly the meaning of the term "fertility regulation". The World Health Organisation has provided an official definition:
  "Fertility regulation is the process by which individuals and couples regulate their fertility. Methods that can be used for this purpose include, amongst others: delaying childbearing, using contraception, seeking treatment for infertility, interrupting unwanted pregnancies and breast-feeding."
  "Interrupting unwanted pregnancies" is simply, in my understanding, a euphemism for abortion on demand. It is clear that "reproductive health", according to the official WHO definition, includes abortion on demand.
  In that context, we must place on record the fact that our Government's Overseas Development Administration, under the noble Baroness Chalker, has an obsession with "reproductive health" in its international aid programme, which I believe is positively unhealthy.
  The ODA, in a briefing paper entitled "British Aid for Health and Population" published in May 1995, states:
  "Through"
  its
  "aid programme Britain is working to promote human development through better education and health, particularly reproductive health".
  The next paragraph states:
  "Central to the ODA's health and population strategy is a commitment to ensure access for people most in need to essential health care, particularly reproductive health care".
  However, a powerful leading article published in The Lancet in July 1995 last year, although plainly in favour of abortion and other forms of birth control, made a strong attack on the notion that "reproductive health" should be at the top of the international health agenda. The article states:
  "Yet health is defined in a surprisingly one-dimensional manner; it seems to exist in a reproductive context only. When seen through the lens of fertility control, the notion of 'health' is distorted beyond all recognition".
  The article argues that women's reproductive health needs are in fact the social tool through which the aims of population control are being met. It continues:
  "One does not have to be either 'conservative' or 'extremist' … to question the assumptions on which the reproductive health and family planning 'movement' is based".
  The article concludes:
  "The new colonialism of the international women's health agenda is a dangerous strategy. It places western utopianism before local pragmatism … Equality means far more than achieving the right to reproductive health".
  That obsession with reproductive health is nowhere more evident than in the massive multi-million pound annual grants to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, with which our Government "work closely" in this matter.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House, by voting for what is virtually abortion on demand, has set an exceptionally bad example, and does he regret, as I do, the fact that we have made life very cheap in this country?
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I share the hon. Lady's views. One evening, as a result of confusion in the House, we

  323
  actually increased the age for abortion to an unacceptably high level, especially in the light of medical opinion, when it could have been reduced with greater effect.
  I feel strongly about this issue. In Northern Ireland, the major political parties and religious faiths are opposed to abortion on demand. We are well aware of the abortion-promoting policies of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which held a symposium in Northern Ireland in November 1994. The British Medical Journal reported:
  "Delegates called for a number of options to be pursued, including extending the 1967 Act to the Province, opening an abortion clinic as a challenge to existing legislation, attempting to introduce a private member's bill, and taking a test case to the European Court."
  In Northern Ireland, an abortion can be performed if a doctor believes that it is in the interests of the woman's health and is a necessity—we do not have the open-door policy that was introduced by the Abortion Act 1967, and which has been broadened in the recent past.
  The IPPF report, under the heading "Rights of Young People", said that abortion, sterilisation and contraception should be made available to children aged 10 and upwards without parental knowledge or consent. We should be strengthening the family, but if we put blocks between parents and children, that will not happen. When a child faces a particular problem, however difficult, the parents should be made aware of it so that they can give guidance—they should not be ignored.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech with care. Parents should give guidance, but it is often lacking. If parental guidance is lacking, someone has to provide sexual education. If it were not for the work of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and others in the third world, there would be no education on which people could make sophisticated and proper choices. I hope that the hon. Gentleman focuses on some of the positive work that is going on in the United Kingdom and in the rest of the world, and does not focus his entire speech on one negative aspect—abortion.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I am redressing an aspect of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I am amazed that, in a western democracy, we talk about people in developing countries being able to make sophisticated choices. With all the sophistication of our western democracy, we have not dealt with this problem. It has been said that the only place that children can get sex education is in school—and, to some degree, I accept that that is accurate. However, because of the emphasis on sex education—it is also on our televisions—children are experimenting at an earlier age than ever before. The emphasis should be on restraint, not on encouraging children to experiment at an early age.
  Why is an organisation that is openly committed to obtaining abortion on demand—whatever the views of national legislatures and parents—receiving millions of pounds from the British taxpayer in the name of reproductive health? It received £11 million in 1993–94 and £6.5 million in 1994–95.
  Mr. David Alton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the past two weeks, the
  324
  European Parliament has unanimously passed a resolution, proposed by the Labour party, opposing coercive population measures? In particular, it criticises the British Government's China policy. In China, it is illegal for a person to have a brother or a sister. That law is aided and abetted, and collaborated with, by money provided by British taxpayers.
  In the course of his speech, will the hon. Gentleman seek clarification in this regard from Members on the Labour Front Bench, who have made it clear that they will continue to fund the programmes?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention was extremely long.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Members on the Labour Front Bench heard the question asked by the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that they will clarify the situation. No doubt some people want to restrict their family to one and are delighted to do so.
  A letter from Baroness Chalker to The Times of 12 May 1995 claimed:
  "Neither the British aid programme, nor IPPF"—
  which receives grants through the aid programme—
  "backs coercive family planning or abortion programmes."
  However, the IPPF's publication shows that Baroness Chalker's statement is incorrect. According to its People magazine—Volume 1, No. 1, 1989, page 20—volunteers working for the China Family Planning Association, an affiliate of the IPPF,
  "sometimes collect the occasional fine when a couple breaks the birthplan rules".
  According to Baroness Chalker's Department:
  "IPPF does provide some financial support to the China Family Planning Association. IPPF expects CFPA to exercise a beneficial influence on the implementation on China's population policies in a number of ways."
  Does this "beneficial influence" to which the ODA refers extend to collecting occasional fines from couples who dare to have a child unauthorised by the Chinese authorities?
  I return to where I began: in an age when we use nice definitions to cover up what we are talking about, when we speak of reproductive health, we should emphasise the need for health care and guidance for families and parents. Money should not be given to terminate the lives of those who have great potential.
  10.16 am
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) in the debate.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on taking over from his predecessor, our hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). If my memory serves me correctly, we had a similar debate in the House this time last year.
  I shall examine further the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South. I refer to a letter from Baroness Chalker's office at the Overseas Development Administration to Mrs. Phyllis Bowman of the Society for

  325
  the Protection of Unborn Children, which was written just before the Cairo conference on population and development in 1994. It stated:
  "The ODA position on population and reproductive health is not to support population control."
  The word "not" is underlined. However, this emphatic statement, expressing Government policy, needs to be examined very closely. In addition, I propose to examine the ambiguity in words and phrases that are used in debates on this matter—they can be extremely misleading.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South referred to the World Health Organisation's official definition of the term "reproductive health" in its "Technical Definitions and Commentary", which was prepared for the international conference on population and development in Cairo in 1994. The definition states:
  "Reproductive health implies that people are able to have responsible, satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so. Implicit in this last condition are the right of men and women to be informed of and to have access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of fertility regulation of their choice, and the right of access to appropriate health care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant."
  There is much in the definition to applaud. However, we should examine the language it uses.
  What is meant by the term "fertility regulation"? In the same paper, the WHO provides its official explanation. It states:
  "Fertility regulation is the process by which individuals and couples regulate their fertility. Methods that can be used for this purpose include, amongst others: delaying childbearing, using contraception, seeking treatment for infertility, interrupting unwanted pregnancies and breast-feeding."
  "Interrupting unwanted pregnancies" is a euphemism for abortion on demand, which we have in this country at present. Therefore, according to the official WHO definition, it is clear that reproductive health includes access to abortion on demand. It is there in black and white.
  The WHO's official definition of reproductive health is enormously significant, and the implications must be clearly understood. It explains why developing nations attending the Cairo conference on population and development fought so hard for language in the final Cairo document which seeks to restrict the international promotion of abortion. Section 8.25 of the Cairo programme of action begins:
  "In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning".
  The Cairo document also upholds the sovereign right of nations to determine their own abortion legislation according to their national culture, beliefs and traditions.
  Last month in Istanbul, at the United Nations conference on human settlement, despite the intense pressure brought to bear by the United States and the European Union, the G7 nations stood firmly against including several reproductive health references in the final document. They allowed only one such reference, on the basis that it must be understood according to the restrictive language agreed in Cairo.
  326
  I know from my contacts with non-governmental organisations that attended the United Nations conference in Istanbul how the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment at that gathering was deeply appreciated by the representatives of developing and Islamic nations. Referring to the "culture of death", my right hon. Friend spoke about
  "the street children who disappear, the old and the young who die when they could have lived, the babies whom we kill before they have a chance to live".
  Developing nations were greatly encouraged to hear a strong Christian voice speaking unexpectedly from the heart of Europe.
  It is extremely disturbing that, again and again, the Minister for Overseas Development and her Department promote reproductive health, without any qualifications or restrictions as regards abortion, as the top priority in Britain's overseas aid spending. However, they declare at the same time that the ODA is not directing its efforts towards population control.
  I noted earlier that some concern was expressed about parts of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, who suggested that population control is the most important policy for the third world, whereas it was felt that further expenditure in the third world should be devoted to policies other than those that my hon. Friend outlined.
  We learn from an ODA briefing paper that the organisation has committed £100 million over two years to improving access to family planning and to extending reproductive health. It works closely with international bodies such as the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. In an answer given to the noble Lord Braine of Wheatley in another place, the Minister said that the United Kingdom grant to the UNFPA increased from £10.5 million in 1993–94 to £11.25 million in 1994–95.
  Proponents of funding the UNFPA often quote its assurances that the agency does not support abortion programmes anywhere in the world. The UNFPA does make that claim, but it has also proclaimed repeatedly that China's population programme is purely voluntary. In spite of years of documented evidence of forced abortions and forced sterilisations in China—not least, evidence provided by the US Department of State—in an interview on CBS "Nightwatch" in November 1989, the UNFPA executive director, Mrs. Nafis Sadik, said:
  "The implementation of the policy (in China) and the acceptance of the policy is purely voluntary."
  In an exclusive interview with China's official news agency on 11 April 1991, Mrs. Sadik said:
  "China has every reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning policy and control of its population growth over the past 10 years. Now the country could offer its experiences and special experts to help other countries."
  Bearing in mind an earlier intervention about the policies in China and the response from my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, I invite him to join me in condemning that statement, which is contrary to the views that he expressed. According to the UNFPA's annual report for 1988, its on-going activities in China include participation in the State Family Planning Commission.
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether that organisation has produced any figures for the number of partial birth abortions occurring in China at present?
  Mrs. Winterton: That is an interesting point, but I cannot reply to my hon. Friend. I shall make some inquiries in that regard. That practice is completely repugnant to most informed people, and it would be disastrous if it were carried out in China—although I would not be surprised, in view of the forced abortions and sterilisations that occur in that country, which everyone must abhor.
  As I said, the UNFPA's activities include participation in the State Family Planning Commission. Its headquarters oversees enforcement of the nationwide one-child programme and the funding of
  "national training facilities for family planning professionals and family planning administrative personnel".
  They are the commissioned officers who enforce the coercive abortion and sterilisation population policies. I should not be surprised to learn that partial birth abortions are part of China's population control programme—its policies are certainly horrific enough to include that.
  Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady has made a good point about partial birth abortions, but is she also aware that, last year in China, laws were passed that allow handicapped babies, who have been born, to be killed merely because they are handicapped? That is not just forced abortion or partial birth abortion, but infanticide.
  Mrs. Winterton: I am grateful for that intervention. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment included that practice in the culture of death that he mentioned in his speech in Istanbul. That may be emotive language, but it is highly descriptive, and it reflects the true position. I cannot believe that anybody who considers himself or herself to be civilised can support that policy of killing handicapped children. It is indeed infanticide.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend will have heard that, earlier in the debate, I condemned the practices in China in the strongest possible terms, but I hope that she is not suggesting that no western NGOs should be involved in reproductive and family planning activities in China. Surely that would be naive, because we are trying to influence the Chinese Government to introduce better practices. The experts in the field, such as the UNFPA, are trying to promote proper practices in China.
  Mrs. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he has been sucked in by those organisations, just like everybody else. Nobody objects to the aims and objectives of voluntary family planning, as long as people work with the culture of a country and what the people want, but everyone—including my hon. Friend, who made a forceful speech—must realise that those organisations, as I have spelt out in my speech, are working hand in hand with the organisations in China that implement other, abhorrent, policies.
  My hon. Friend must get his friends to clean up their act, wash the blood off their hands and be honest for a change, instead of being disingenuous with the facts. When he does that, I will respect his view and the views of others who agree with him. Until then, I shall believe that my hon. Friend, like his predecessor, is exceptionally naive.
  328
  It should be recognised that the UNFPA is a major funder of another abortion programme—the human reproduction programme of the World Health Organisation. That project is heavily involved in funding clinical studies on RU486, which is a pill used—especially in France—to abort women who are between five and seven weeks into pregnancy. Both the WHO and UNFPA officials say that they intend to perfect the abortion pill as a back-up method of birth control for women in less-developed countries, who will be used as guinea pigs.
  The 1993 UNFPA report, on page 17, states:
  "UNFPA continues to support projects that link family planning with income generating activities for women".
  That report makes it clear that, if women want to get help with setting up micro-enterprise projects, they must accept family planning services, and that the UNFPA must ensure that family planning services are available to meet the demand generated by the projects. The funding for the way out of poverty, through economic activity, for those women will be provided only with the quid pro quo that they restrict the number of children they have. They may even be required to have no children.
  How can we justify the fact that the ODA made a grant to the UNFPA of more than £11 million in 1994–95, when we know that women in developing countries, including China, are being put under tremendous pressure to accept birth control? Would the ODA find similar practices acceptable in Britain, or are we supposed to be different from the women in developing countries?
  10.33 am
  Mr. Martyn Jones: In the couple of minutes left to me by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), I shall try to make one or two points. I had hoped to make more, but unfortunately time is against us. It is entirely appropriate that our debate is taking place on the eve of World Population Day, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on initiating the debate.
  I pay tribute to Lord Houghton, the founding chairman of the all-party group on population, reproductive health and development, who died in May this year at the age of 97. At his ripe age, he was well aware of the concept of sustainability, and his distinguished career bears testimony to his commitment to others. He will be much missed.
  Some hon. Members will know that my personal expertise is as a biologist, and that led me to become involved in the all-party group. Since my involvement, I have become much more aware of the interconnectedness between the environment and every aspect of Government policy—not only the UK environment, but the international environment—and I am pleased that that fact was recognised in Labour's recent manifesto publication.
  Wanted children are a gift, but unwanted children can be a curse. On a global scale, as a biologist, I know that the population of any organism that does not have predators or any in-built mechanism to control its growth will ultimately destroy itself by disease, starvation or both.
  World population and reproductive health issues are at a critical stage. According to Population Concern, the global urban population is growing at a rate roughly

  329
  equivalent to eight cities the size of London each year. Migration from the countryside accounts for 40 per cent. of the annual increase in urban populations, and, within a few years of the new millennium, more than half of the people of the world will live in cities, but one third of today's citizens, some 600 million people, do not have the means to meet their basic needs.
  As one might expect, women and children make up the largest sector of those who suffer such colossal deprivation. Therefore, services such as health and education help in the fight to escape poverty.
  According to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, some 585,000 women die every year as a result of pregnancy and childbirth, many in the third world. Some 120 million women do not want to be pregnant, but have no access to contraception. As we heard, by 2000, 40 million people will be HIV-positive, and more than 300 million new cases of sexually transmitted diseases occur annually.
  As we have also heard, in sharp contrast to the United Kingdom—which committed £184 million to its budget in 1994, thereby doubling its funding over the past five years—the US Congress cut 35 per cent. from the population and family planning budget of the US Agency for International Development, which had been the largest supporter of such programmes in the world. The measure was part of a foreign appropriations Bill, and was attached to legislation to prevent another Government shutdown, signed by President Clinton.
  The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury rightly said that £17 billion will be needed by 2000 to meet the universal demand for family planning and reproductive health, but it is clear that that need will not be met. The United Kingdom Government, and many other donor Governments, need urgently to review their contributions to that vital area.
  Population stability is the single most important issue facing the human race. If we, as intelligent beings, do not attain it ourselves, war, famine and disease will, and they will touch all countries, including those of the west. I urge the Government to commit more funds to that vital issue, and to press the United States to restore its funding as a matter of urgency.
  10.37 am
  Mr. George Foulkes: I also wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), not just on obtaining the debate, but on his election to the chairmanship of the all-party group on population, reproductive health and development, of which I am also a member. Last year, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said, we had a debate initiated by the previous chairman of the all-party group, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). Unlike other hon. Members, I shall not repeat what I said on that occasion.
  I also wish to join my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and others in paying tribute to our late friend Lord Houghton, who founded the all-party group, and who died recently at the age of 97. Some months ago, I heard him speaking in the House of Lords on the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, and he was full of vigour and eloquence. He is a loss for us all.
  330
  As the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said, we now face the fastest growth in human numbers in history which, it is widely recognised, will result in serious economic, environmental and political problems in the developing world. As the hon. Gentleman said, the issue was discussed in Cairo, Beijing and Istanbul at successive UN conferences. However, with growth at an all-time high of 90 million people annually, the increase must be tackled by a sustained programme of education and family planning. It is encouraging that the international community is responding and that the ODA is playing a pivotal and positive role. I find myself adopting an unusual posture in congratulating the ODA and the Government on their initiative and work.
  In September 1994, at Cairo, there was an unprecedented agreement among 189 countries in producing a global action plan. The following year, at Beijing, the United Nations conference on women endorsed the Cairo commitment to women's rights to control their fertility and their families. At the Habitat conference at Istanbul, the issue was discussed again in the context of growing populations within cities. That conference endorsed previous statements.
  Family planning, reproductive health and female education are some of the best available aid investments. I disagree with the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury only to the extent that they are not the only preventative areas of aid. Other areas of investment—for example, irrigation—can prevent hunger or starvation, and I would like to see more moneys directed to them. I accept, of course, that family planning, reproductive health and female education are some of the best aid investments available. That has been recognised throughout the international community. The Labour party has supported the ODA in its efforts and negotiations.
  Perhaps it would not be me—it might surprise Conservative Members too much—if I did not have one little criticism of the Government. The Labour party recognises the lead that the ODA has taken, but that must be seen in the context of a declining overall aid budget. I am pleased that the Minister of State will speak on behalf of the Government, and I remind him that Baroness Chalker, who speaks in the other place on overseas development, has fought a doughty fight on behalf of the overseas aid budget.
  Unfortunately, the Treasury has won the battle, and we have a declining overall budget. The target of 4 per cent. of the ODA's budget which, as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said, has been worked towards by the United Kingdom, has not been reached. Instead, we are contributing 2.3 per cent. of a declining budget. That is not as spectacular as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
  Pressure must be put on our partners to ensure that they do not give up in the developing world. We must not give in to the lobby that has sought to cut development funding. It is unfortunate that media attention and the overall agenda are persistently diverted from the real issue at hand.
  As the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury rightly said—the hon. Member for Congleton did not take up the matter—5 billion people are in abject poverty throughout the developing world. It is clear that the cost of attaining universal integrated reproductive health care

  331
  for all in developing countries, including those with economies that are in transition, will not be met. As the House knows, the overall cost amounts to £17 billion.
  Aid budgets are declining. For example, the United States is reducing its funding of family planning projects. An end to the upsurge of the world's population is not nearly in sight. Populations will not level out for many years to come. Over the next decade, 94 per cent. of the increase in the world's population will be in the developing world. The prospects for some countries are extremely daunting. For example, the World bank's demographers tell us that Nigeria's population will rise from 100 million now to an eventual 382 million before stabilising in the year 2100. Tanzania's population is predicted to increase fivefold, from about 25 million to 116 million.
  The work of all NGOs is supported by the Labour party, and I make no apology for that. We support the Government's contribution to the UN Fund for Population Activities, to the International Planned Parenthood Federation and to the World Health Organisation. These organisations and the British NGOs have shown over many years the benefits that their work has brought to the developing world.
  I say to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who told me that he had to leave the Chamber, to the hon. Member for Congleton and to others, including the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), that the Opposition do not support coercive policies in China or elsewhere, and neither does the IPPF. However, the IPPF, by working in China, can bring pressure to bear from within to try to improve the situation. There are, of course, many other human rights problems in China. We must work to ensure that China introduces improvements in a wide range of areas.
  It is no use criticising the IPPF because of what is happening in one of the countries in which it operates. Multilateral organisations such as the IPPF have played a crucial role. I am especially pleased that the European Union has set a post-Cairo target of 300 million ecu to be spent on population and reproductive health programmes.
  It is well documented—I understand that the ODA recognises the position—that access to funding is convoluted and difficult. It is a process that puts a severe strain on small budgets and the administrative capacity of NGOs. I hope that the Government will make representations to the EU to try to simplify the procedure of obtaining access to funds.
  Reducing population growth in the developing world is but one important factor in the battle against poverty. There may be no intrinsic benefit in a reduction of the world's population, but our primary concern must be the alleviation of grinding abject poverty. To that end, the consumption of scarce resources must be considered against the background of a growing population.
  That should not detract, however, from the duty of the industrialised world towards developing countries. It is incumbent on any population programme to aim, in the context of a wider strategy, to tackle poverty generally. Family planning and health education are basic human rights. The ODA has taken a proactive stance, and one which the Opposition wholeheartedly support. We shall do so when we form the next Government after the next general election.
  10.46 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): It is a great pleasure for me to be able to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). I agreed with an enormous amount of his contribution to the debate. It is a pity that he spoilt his speech with his last sentence. We cannot, of course, expect a perfect speech from the Opposition Benches.
  I do not have long in which to respond to the debate, but I must add my tribute to the admirable work of the late Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and extend my sympathy and that of the Government to his widow. His work is well known, and it contributed enormously to the advances that have been referred to this morning. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on his chairmanship of the all-party population, development and reproductive health group, and on the excellent and lucid way in which he presented his comments on a complex range of issues.
  We cannot over-emphasise the importance of responding to the world population and reproductive health issues. In the hour and a half that we have spent in discussion this morning, the world's population has grown by a further 16,000. We know that 95 per cent. of the growth of the world's population is in the developing world, which is the least well equipped to cope with the consequences. The United Nations has recently estimated that, in the 50 years between 1970 and 2020, 93 per cent. of the world's urban growth will take place in the developing world.
  More and more people want to plan their families, have fewer children and give them a better start in life. At least 200 million couples are not able to have access to the contraceptives they want when they want them. The services for millions more leave much to be desired. If these demands cannot be met, the world's population will grow to 17 billion—three times its present level—in the next century. If they are met, we can hope to stabilise the world population at about 12 billion, which may well be manageable.
  Stabilisation of the world's population will improve prospects for sustainable development. Well-designed human development initiatives contribute to children by choice, not chance, and smaller families. Human development means education, health and opportunities for women. It means also placing individuals at the centre of development.
  Governments should enable men and women to be able to choose when and in what circumstances to have children; they should not control, compel, deny or disempower them. That is an important part of the equation, which has been stressed this morning. Such an approach means providing women and men with education, skills and resources to enable them to make informed decisions and choices, and then designing and providing services in ways that best fit the needs of the clients, not merely the administrative convenience of the suppliers.
  In many countries of the developing world, childbirth remains an acutely hazardous experience—and unnecessarily so. As my hon. Friend said, new estimates from the UN suggest that almost 600,000 women die each year in pregnancy and childbirth for lack of ready access to basic care. For every woman who dies, possibly 30 more incur injuries and disabilities that can be lifelong.

  333
  The focus of our policy for reproductive health is therefore on meeting unmet demand for accessible and reliable family planning services, to improve access to, and the quality of, all aspects of reproductive health services, and to make giving birth safer.
  Since the ODA launched its "Children by choice, not chance" initiative in 1991, that phrase has become commonly used by others around the world. It means a number of clear goals, which we all share: giving people the ability to exercise choice about the size of their family, and the spacing and timing of the birth of their children; striving to ensure that family planning services are affordable, acceptable and accessible to all who need and want them; improving the quality of family planning advice, information and education; enabling women to go through pregnancy and childbirth more safely; and enabling people to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases and one of their major consequences, infertility.
  Those goals and that philosophy were encapsulated in the programme of action agreed at the international conference on population and development in Cairo, in 1994, which defined the international agenda for future work. The Cairo programme calls for reproductive health care for all and sets new standards for care and services that individual women and men should be able to access. It challenges everyone—Governments, non-governmental organisations, the private sector and donors—to meet these standards.
  How are we as a donor responding to the challenge? Since we launched "Children by choice, not chance", ODA expenditure on population and reproductive health initiatives has more than doubled, from £26.5 million in 1991 to £62.3 million in 1995. I think that that defuses the comments and criticism made by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.
  We are indeed increasing the amount of assets that we are putting into this very important task. After Cairo, we pledged ourselves to make commitments of £100 million in the two years following. In fact, we more than fulfilled that pledge, committing ourselves to more than £184 million. One hundred and twelve new projects were approved in 1994 and 1995. The United Kingdom will remain one of the largest bilateral donors in this field.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although our multilateral aid to these programmes is important, our bilateral aid to Europe is also very important? Will he respond to the point that I made earlier and implore the Council of Overseas Ministers to simplify access to the funding systems?
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. We feel it very important to simplify the EU mechanisms, and we are, of course, a major contributor to the EU funds, as well as to the bilateral funding.
  There are, of course, a variety of channels—bilateral, multilateral, NGO—and each has its part to play. We have remained a strong contributor to the United Nations population fund—UNFPA—the main UN agency for helping to implement national programmes of
  334
  reproductive health. Our annual contributions have risen from £7 million in 1993 to £10 million in 1995. We remain a major supporter of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and its network of family planning associations, contributing £7.5 million in the past financial year. We are also a major contributor to the programme of reproductive health research undertaken by the World Health Organisation.
  In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), neither the UNFPA nor the IPPF in any way recommends or accepts abortion as a method of birth control.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Both those organisations may say that they do not accept it, but the practice continues. I suggest that practice should match the words.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend has been here long enough to know that no Government can work miracles. It is our intention to move steadily towards that objective. For example, we will not be able to change the habits and practices of the Chinese overnight, but the invaluable work that the UNFPA and the IPPF do in China is helping to move it away from the horrific practices of the past.
  Mrs. Winterton indicated dissent.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend shakes her head, but it is a fact that the situation in China is improving, albeit at nothing like the speed that we would like. We must target our aid and try to persuade people to drop practices with which we thoroughly disagree.
  We are also working hard within the EU. The European Community has pledged to spend 300 million ecu—about £250 million—by the end of the century. We shall develop close relationships with the Commission and press it hard and urgently to ensure that it simplifies its systems so that the work can be done even more efficiently.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said that seedcorn funding was US-biased. It is not. There is no bias of any kind towards any source of application for funding. Judgments are made solely on the basis of the quality of the proposal.
  Of the commitments made to date, United Kingdom groups have obtained by far the largest share in terms of the number of projects and financial support. Two thirds of the projects are from UK organisations, and a similar proportion of committed funding goes to UK groups. All the applications currently under consideration are from UK-based applicants; none is from US groups or their UK affiliates, so I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that we are addressing that problem adequately.
  My hon. Friend also spoke about female genitalia mutilation. That is, of course, an appalling practice, and we shall do our best to stop it, but the problem is that it is an extremely difficult area for us to approach, because it is rooted in deeply held religious principles. Many people who practise it do not fully understand the damage that it causes. We feel that the most important action we can take is through health training, explaining the enormous health risk involved, and weaning them off that practice. Again, that cannot be done overnight, and it must be approached sensitively.

  335
  A question was asked about the Vatican. We work closely with the Vatican, and share many of its objectives. We both agree that it is important to be able to have children by choice. As the Vatican puts it, to have or not to have children is something that anybody should have the right to decide for themselves. There are areas of disagreement with the Vatican's policy, but we hope that we can reach agreement with it and, over the years, work towards our common objectives, without allowing those differences to intervene too badly in the way in which we undertake our tasks.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned United States foreign assistance budgetary aid. We are, of course, deeply concerned about the large cut to the project that the US appears to be making. I am afraid that the amount of help that we shall be able to give will be severely affected by such a cut. We can only hope that the United States will, like us, get over any Treasury limitations that may get in the way, and give the amount of aid that it would wish to give. We think that it will still be giving some $300 million a year, so there will be a substantial pot, but nothing like as large as we have enjoyed recently.
  We shall continue to promote new ways to ensure that people have better access to information about reproductive health issues, and to ensure that they are aware of the types and standards of services they are entitled to expect from service providers, whether through Government or non-governmental sources.
  Above all, we need to turn around the traditional balance of power. For too long, questions about the quality, quantity and mode of service provision have been cast in terms of what the suppliers of services can or cannot, will or will not, do. There is a need more explicitly in future to base judgments and decisions about services on what best meets the needs of the consumer of those services. We need approaches that allow the exercising of choice by consumers to determine the style and shape of service delivery. It is beginning to happen slowly. We shall look to support further development and testing of such approaches.
  I have a slight disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury on two points. I do not agree that the percentage of aid budget should be the criterion that we should watch most closely.
  We have just said that the United States budget is likely to be slashed. It would be a pity if we cheered because the percentage of the budget spent on this aspect may have improved. It is the total amount we need to spend that matters, not the percentage that it may represent. However, our spending is an improvement on the figure mentioned by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley: it has risen from 2.3 per cent. to 3 per cent., and we did not do that by cutting the budget.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was rather dismissive about other overseas aid projects. I do not agree with him. We do an enormous amount of good through the ODA and our other aid budgets, and we must not concentrate on one issue, however important it may be.

  Unemployment and Low Income (Wales)
  11 am
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am grateful to Madam Speaker for giving me a chance to raise this important issue.
  It falls to me, as a Welsh Member of Parliament, to welcome this morning's good news about the LG company from Korea, which intends to build two new factories near Newport in south-east Wales. I understand that the factories will cost £1.7 billion and are likely to create more than 6,000 jobs. This is the largest inward investment project ever to come to the United Kingdom, and possibly anywhere in the world. I unreservedly congratulate the Welsh Development Agency, the Welsh Office and everyone else concerned.
  Perhaps we should schedule debates of this kind for every Wednesday, so that announcements such as that can be made. To conquer unemployment in Wales, however, we should need 18 such Wednesday mornings in succession. That calculation is based on the official unemployment figure—between 60,000 and 70,000 people are not officially recognised as being unemployed. We welcome the news, although one swallow does not make a summer.
  Unemployment—the reality or the threat of it—has been a scourge in Wales since the first world war. Between the wars, Welsh unemployment ran at well above 20 per cent. In 1935, it rose to more than 55 per cent. in my old home area of Merthyr Tydfil, and to 80 per cent. in the north end of the valley in Dowlais. No one pretends that the current problem is anywhere near as bad, but it is a serious problem in most parts of Wales, and it is substantially worse than the Government are prepared to admit.
  The continuing problem of endemic unemployment is the key to why Wales has a lower income per head than any other country or region in Britain. What is the current unemployment level in Wales? The Government claim that it is about 107,000—8.4 per cent.—but that is after all the massaging of figures that has taken place during the past 17 years of Conservative government. The labour force survey statistics published by the unemployment unit suggest that the true level is nearer 168,000. The survey covers everyone who is out of work and wants to be in work, including elderly workers whom the Government have removed from the register, and married women who want to return to work but who are excluded from the Government's statistics. A number of other groups have also been excluded by the Government.
  A generation ago, Plaid Cymru warned that, owing to the rundown of the coal and steel industries, there was a danger that 176,000 people in Wales would be unemployed. We now face a figure of that order. Unemployment is not just a general problem; it is a chronic problem in certain Welsh localities. In Aberdare, the unemployment rate is 13.4 per cent. That is the lower rate, relating to the total work force. In Merthyr and Rhymney, it is 12.1 per cent.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: That is an underestimate.
  Mr. Wigley: All the figures are underestimates. They are probably around 60 per cent. of the true figures.
  In south Pembrokeshire, the figure is 12.3 per cent.; in Holyhead, it is 11.8 per cent.; in my home area of Caernarfon and Bangor, it is 10.6 per cent. In Ammanford, 1,400 people are registered as unemployed—a quarter of the unemployed population of Carmarthenshire. Those figures disguise other changes, such as the fall in the number of workers in full-time employment.
  Some of the figures are staggering. In 1981, there were 37,000 full-time employees in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands); by 1992, the figure had fallen to 29,900. In Aberdare, the figure fell from 12,400 to 9,500. In the Pontypridd and Rhondda area, it fell from 47,700 to 41,200. In Llanelli, it fell from 23,500 to 19,800. Over the same period, there has been a fall in full-time employment, an increase in unemployment and an increase in part-time working. The drop in full-time employment is serious, and is one of the factors that contribute to the low level of income in Wales. Statistically, however, it is offset by the increase in part-time working.
  The fall in employment has a depressing effect on average incomes. It is also a serious social problem. Unemployment causes hopelessness, particularly among young people. Youth unemployment is a critical problem in Wales. A third of those claiming unemployment benefit in Wales are under 25, and they are almost evenly spread throughout the country. In Port Talbot, the figure is 38 per cent.; in Rhondda and Merthyr, it is 36 per cent.; and in Rhuddlan in north-east Wales, it is 34 per cent., as it is in Cynon valley and my own area of Arfon. Throughout Wales—north, south, east and west—a stark problem confronts young people.
  Long-term unemployment is another depressing factor. In Merthyr, 46 per cent. of unemployed people have been jobless for more than 12 months, and in Rhymney valley the figure is 40 per cent. In Newport, Cardiff, Swansea, Cynon valley, Ynys Môn and Arfon, it is 39 per cent. The problem exists in large conurbations as well as in less populous areas, and the pattern is remarkably similar throughout Wales.
  Wales has youth unemployment, long-term unemployment, widespread unemployment and persistent unemployment. That has led to social exclusion and the creation of an underclass. It affects behaviour patterns, and reduces the standard of living and the quality of life. According to the 31st edition of "Regional Trends", which has just been published, it has also had an effect on average gross weekly household incomes. The figures are stark, and I hope that the Minister will note them.
  In England, the average gross weekly household income is £376. It is £363 in Scotland, and £326 in Northern Ireland. In Wales, it is £283—25 per cent. below the English figure. Those statistics are in a Government publication.
  Mr. Rowlands: Two other figures are worth noting. In 1981, the Welsh figure was 91 per cent. of the average; it is now down to 75 per cent., and that figure disguises even greater discrepancies. I have a sneaking, horrible suspicion that in most of our valley communities it is down to 70 per cent. of the English level. I do not think that the average in my community is anything like £283.
  Mr. Wigley: My hon. Friend anticipates what I was going to say. I was going to quote Wales's being 10 per cent. below the English level in 1980 and the figure worsening to 25 per cent. below by 1994.
  The drop appears to have been caused by more than one factor. The reduction in wages and salaries as a component of household income is clearly significant. They have decreased from 68 per cent. in 1980 to 56.7 per cent. in 1994. That reduction is clearly a major contributory factor to the problem.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: I do not want to spoil the hon. Gentleman's flow, but are not incomes falling because many of the jobs that come to Wales are attracted from countries that want cheap labour, and we have screwdriver jobs that mean Welsh people being paid poor wages?
  Mr. Wigley: I will come to that as I take my argument forward. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.
  Not only have wages and salaries gone down as a component of household income, but social security benefits, as a component, have increased noticeably—from 17 per cent. in 1980–81 to 22.5 per cent. by 1994–95. The social security element ties into the problem of long-term illness, which afflicts so many parts of Wales, particularly the old industrial parts—the old coal mining areas and the slate-quarrying regions that I represent—where industrial lung diseases have been one of the causes of long-term illness among the work force.
  The 1991 census showed that, of the 10 counties with the highest number of households with long-term illnesses, eight were in the old coalfield regions of south Wales. That again contributes to the problems of higher dependence on social security payments and lower household income.
  Those factors coincide with the fact that some parts of Wales have the lowest gross domestic product per head. In Mid Glamorgan, in 1993, GDP per head was only 62.5 per cent. of the UK average, the lowest of any county in Britain. It declined from 69.6 per cent. in 1991 to 62.5 per cent. in 1993. That is a staggering rate of deterioration. Those are Government statistics. GDP per head in Dyfed-Powys was 76 per cent. of the UK average and in Gwynedd, my own county, it was 77.9 per cent. of the UK average. That level is just not acceptable.
  Understandably, the relative GDP per capita has decreased as a direct result of the factors that I have mentioned. In 1993, the GDP factor for Wales as a whole was 82.7 per cent. of the UK average—the lowest of any region or nation in Great Britain. That compares badly with our European partners, with which the Welsh Office has worked hard to try to develop links. In Lombardy, one of our motor region partners, average income per head is 31 per cent. above the European average, in Baden-Wurttemberg, it is 28 per cent. above the European average, and in Rhone Alpes, it is 8 per cent. above the European average. In Catalunya, it is 6 per cent. below the average, but in Wales, it is 16 per cent. below—the worst figure of all the motor regions by a mile.
  In 1995, for the first time, Wales's GDP per head fell behind that of the Republic of Ireland. That was no doubt because of the success of the Irish economy and of the Irish Government, not only with their policies for

  339
  industrial development, but in the way in which they have been able to use the European Union. There must be lessons for us in Wales.
  The British Government have an almighty legacy of mismanagement of the Welsh economy. Wales has dropped to the bottom of the league table. Today's good news about the LG project may slightly improve the position. It will take six years to complete, I understand, so we must wait some time for the improvement. I hope, however, that, because of the success of the project, there will not be any pressure from the Treasury, such as we have read of in recent weeks, to take powers away from the Welsh Development Agency or from Locate in Scotland, which would stop them working to secure such projects coming to Wales or Scotland.
  Some people argue that Wales receives an unfair share of inward investment, but the Welsh work force's record is one of the reasons why we attract such companies. The grants that are available in Wales are on a par with those available in other regions of high unemployment. If such projects do not come to Wales, there is no guarantee that they will go to England—they could go to continental Europe or to the Irish Republic. I hope that the Minister will give a categoric assurance that there is no question of the WDA losing any of its powers in this sector.
  I also ask for an assurance that, although financial resources will, understandably, be swallowed up by the LG project—which I do not decry—adequate financial resources will be available to the WDA to ensure that there is the necessary support for projects in other parts of Wales, where unemployment remains high and where we need support.
  It is worth noting that pay levels are higher in Korea than in Wales—here I come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones). That may have been a factor in the decision to locate the project in Wales. So be it if that is the reason. We desperately need the jobs. It is sad that the location is regarded as a low-wage location, but jobs are necessary.
  Wage levels in Wales are below the British average in some sectors. It is worth considering in what sectors. Perhaps I can carry the Minister with me on this. There is not all that much difference in average wage levels in the manufacturing sector as between Wales and England. The main difference is in the non-manual service sector, particularly in relation to men. In 1995, in the non-manual service sector, the Welsh average weekly wage for men was £375 and the British average was £441, a difference of £74 a week or 20 per cent. That is one of the key elements in the problem—37 per cent. of men working full time in Wales are paid below the Council of Europe's decency threshold of £228 a week. That again brings the problem into perspective.
  The failure to develop producer services in Wales has led to a large element of the problem of low incomes and low wages. We have not been able to develop the producer services that should accompany new manufacturing projects. It is an important element in the depressed service wage levels that I have referred to. By producer services, I mean financial, computing, advertising and design—particularly computer design—services. There is an associated lack of investment in research and development in Wales, which could do much to improve the average.
  Mr. Rowlands: And the servicing of manufacturing.
  Mr. Wigley: My hon. Friend mentions the servicing of manufacturing. The producer services involve all services relating to the manufacturing sector. We are getting many of the manufacturing jobs, but when companies need the services that sustain manufacturing jobs, they go outside Wales, and often those services offer the best-paid jobs. Industry in Wales is paying for those jobs in England, and that is not helping our economy.
  Reversing the low concentration of producer service industries in Wales is one of prerequisites to raising incomes and creating more jobs in Wales. That is important in terms of identifying employment growth sectors. The Minister may care to study a recent Cambridge Econometrics publication, which analysed growth potential by sector between 1994 and 2000. It is revealing. In manufacturing, the growth in output does not mean a growth in jobs. That is important for the WDA's and the Welsh Office's strategy. For example, in the electronic sector, Cambridge Econometrics projects a growth in output of 40 per cent. over that six-year period, but a decline in jobs of 2 per cent. It projected an output growth in instruments of 23 per cent., but a 3 per cent. decline in jobs and an output growth in pharmaceuticals of 22 per cent., but a decline in jobs of 6 per cent.
  It is not enough to look only at such manufacturing sectors, albeit they are growth sectors. They may not be delivering the jobs that we need, and existing companies may not sustain current jobs. Part of the analysis that was undertaken by Cambridge Econometrics was to contrast that with the producer services that are relevant to those industries. Computer services have a projected output increase over the six years of 33 per cent. and a jobs increase of 15 per cent. Professional services will have an output increase of 23 per cent. and a jobs increase of 17 per cent. while other business services will increase output by 22 per cent. and jobs by 20 per cent. A priority for Wales must be to develop those producer services and not just the manufacturing sector.
  I should like to repeat words attributed to Brian Morgan, chief economist at the Welsh Development Agency, in the summer 1996 issue of "Agenda". He said:
  "If Wales is to continue its recent growth performance, we need to ensure that the innovation process is extended to encompass the high value added service sectors such as computer-aided design and software engineering. The distinction between manufacturing and service sectors is becoming ever more blurred, with the industrial sector outsourcing all but its key functions and employing increasing amounts of services. In working towards an integrated manufacturing and service economy, it will remain important to encourage more original research and development expenditure from existing firms and to speed up the diffusion rates of new technologies."
  That is an important statement, and, given its source, I hope that the Welsh Office will apply itself to seeing how such lessons can be learnt.
  The problem is that the Industry Acts are mainly related to developing manufacturing jobs, but the distinction between manufacturing and services, as Mr. Morgan stated, is becoming more and more blurred. We need a change in the industrial incentive system to enable the Welsh Office, the WDA and other job creation agencies to help with financial and other infrastructure development incentives to secure the manufacturing services that Wales needs. There will probably be a need to change industry legislation. I hope that, before the election, or certainly after it, that change will be made.

  341
  I shall draw the House's attention to other aspects of the Welsh Office and WDA job development strategies. The first concerns targeting policy as laid down by the Welsh Office. It has published a map showing two target areas for securing new jobs and inward investment in Wales. One of them is the M4 corridor which runs through south Gwent and ends at Bridgend; the other is the A55 corridor, although that is a misnomer because it runs only from the border into parts of Flintshire and around Wrexham. Only 10 per cent. of the land area of Wales is within those two target areas, while 60 per cent. of the unemployed of Wales are outside them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has just arrived in the Chamber, and I welcome him in view of the successful project that we have heard about today. There is now a need to direct more than 20 per cent. of the jobs coming to Wales to areas in the west such as Gwynedd and Dyfed or to the western parts of the old coalfield valleys if we are to overcome unemployment. Week after week, new projects come to the Newport area. I congratulate Newport—the best of luck to it—but we never hear about projects coming to the west. There has been a massive failure to attract inward investment projects to the old counties of Gwynedd and Dyfed.
  In 1994–95, some 46 inward investment projects came to Wales. Only three came to Gwynedd, and one came to Dyfed, and the total number of new jobs for both counties was 55. That is inadequate, and there must be a change of emphasis. That is equally applicable to the old coal mining valleys such as the Rhondda valley, Cynon valley and Amman valley, which are missing out. Sometimes we are told by those who are involved in attracting jobs to Wales that the western parts are too far from the markets, but Ireland has succeeded in getting 56,000 new jobs in two years and it is further from the markets. It is a matter of determination, and of ensuring that jobs come to areas in which unemployed people live. Wales can learn some lessons from Ireland, and I hope that we will learn them.
  There is a danger that finance by the WDA and the Welsh Office will go into those two small pockets and that adequate resources will not be available. Am I being too cynical when I say that those two pockets are conveniently placed to help not only the jobless in those areas but jobless people in Bristol in the south and in Liverpool in the north? It is easier for people in Liverpool to travel to the target area in north-east Wales than for unemployed people in Holyhead to get there and, equally, it is easier for people in Bristol than for the unemployed people of Ammanford to come to Newport. I hope that I am not being too cynical, but I wonder.
  The WDA must start to redirect its efforts. I emphasise that inward investment should be only a part of the armoury of job creation and sustainable economic development in Wales. We must maximise the creation of indigenous companies. Much of that has occurred in my area where, according to a Bangor university study, the television and film industry has created 2,000 jobs over the past 10 years. More help is needed for those with ideas, such as people who want to start small companies but who cannot get capital. I had an example only last week in my surgery. A person with an invention, which was a good idea, had a fair amount of support and some
  342
  capital, but he needed another £50,000 risk capital and could not locate a source. We need to help small people as well as the big fish in the international seas.
  Another example of which the Minister is aware is the coal mining project in Carmarthenshire where, for an additional £100,000, about 20 new jobs could be created. The Government are unable to deliver such a small sum to get a worthwhile project off the ground. Small companies must be helped to expand. I sometimes get the impression that the WDA is much more interested in attracting the big names and the big headlines that go with them than in helping some of the smaller companies in Wales. I hope that that will be redressed.
  Companies in Wales will need to source more of their purchasing there so that there is a better spin-off in the local economy. That leads me to public sector investment. Wales needs to be fibre-optic cabled to bring jobs to the rural areas and to cut unnecessary travel costs. It needs new schools, community hospitals, leisure centres and railway infrastructure. The roads also need to be made safer and all that requires public sector investment. Such projects can create jobs and improve the quality of life. However, the Government do not seem to be capable of making that happen. Road improvement schemes and water and sewerage schemes are often undertaken in areas of high unemployment, but the people who undertake them bring their workers with them from areas of lower unemployment. That scandal needs to be addressed by the Government.
  There were redundancies recently in my local brickworks in Caernarfon. The labour force was virtually halved because there was a massive stockpile of bricks. How can that happen when there is a crying need for more bungalows for elderly people and for more starter homes? Wales produces bricks, windows, slates, timber and cement, but 20,000 building workers are unemployed. Do we not have the wit to solve one problem through solving the other?
  I must warn about the possibly devastating dangers that face the rural economy as a result of bovine spongiform encephalopathy if the culling programme continues to the extent that has been talked about. Thousands of jobs could be lost in rural Wales, and the Welsh Office must find a way to help small farmers in these difficult times. One way to do that is to have a beef promotion campaign, perhaps in association with the Meat and Livestock Commission. There must also be support for farmers who are not necessarily losing animals through culling, but for whom prices have dropped, causing cash flow problems.
  There is a challenge to maximise full-time jobs in tourism, yet because of the nature of our industrial development Acts, when there is a service—such as a laundry service in my constituency—with the potential to offer a couple of dozen new jobs and to do work in our area rather than send it out, financial assistance is not available so that the service can expand and provide those jobs. We must break down the artificial barrier between manufacturing and service.
  What else needs to be done to remove the unemployment cancer that has affected so many communities in Wales? Plaid Cymru believes in full employment. I hope that Labour Front Benchers will tell us that they also are committed to a full employment programme—I have been a little concerned about their seeming to have stepped back from that commitment

  343
  recently. We believe that it is possible to make massive inroads into the unemployment problems in Wales, and that it should be a social priority to do so.
  Last year, we published a blueprint of a scheme called "One Hundred Thousand Answers", showing how 100,000 jobs could be created in Wales. We started from the assertion that work needs to be done in every community in Wales and that potential jobs are staring us in the face. There is a need to provide adequate community care, to improve the physical environment and to control pollution. There is a need for energy conservation schemes and to insulate homes, which would not only reduce energy consumption but reduce bills for pensioners and disabled people.
  We need to improve our public transport and to reduce dependency on cars. There is a need for lengthsmen in our rural areas to keep the roads tidy, and a need to develop training and apprenticeships. We need more help in our schools, hospitals and doctors' surgeries, where staff are grossly overworked.
  We need help for our police forces. People in every part of Wales say that they want to see police on the beat in villages and towns, but they are not available. Jobs need to be done in the paramedical services—in physiotherapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy. We need more community nurses, bath nurses and home helps.
  Work is available all around us. The Minister is aware that people from the voluntary sector were at Westminster yesterday to lobby us. They told me how they could create jobs that would be of benefit to the people with whom they work.
  The fact is that there is work to be done in every community, and it is mainly labour-intensive work. The problem is that those who need the services do not have the financial resources to pay for it. Pensioners cannot afford to insulate their homes, disabled people cannot pay for more home help and voluntary organisations do not have the resources to employ more workers.
  As a community, we are paying perhaps £80 a week to keep people on the dole. If we could pay them £160 a week at a minimum wage level, they could be doing that much needed work in all our communities. Yes, it would cost money. It would cost £4,000 a year per head in labour costs to bring them in to work. I accept that that could mean a couple of pence on income tax, although there are some other taxes—environmental taxes—that would help to finance such a programme. There is certainly a need for a reduction in employers' national insurance.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: My hon. Friend has touched on a point that has been given increasing prominence by the most progressive thinkers: the need to shift the burden of taxation away from taxation on employment to taxation on pollution and the waste of resources. Is not that really the key to designing an economy and a society in which employment is enhanced and a far more environmentally sustainable system is encouraged? Is not it also astonishing that that point was conspicuous by its absence from the Labour document that was published last week, "The Road to the Manifesto"?
  Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I, too, was surprised that that document contained so little reference to that point. My hon. Friend
  344
  is well aware that an Institute of Public Policy Research document has described the approach of introducing environmental taxes. The IPPR believes that 700,000 new jobs could be created in the United Kingdom with the introduction of such policies.
  Work needs to be done, and there are people available who can do it. People require training, and that means more public expenditure. It means a couple of pence on income tax and some environmental taxes, but we believe that that price is worth paying to conquer unemployment, which is a cancer in our communities.
  There is a stark choice facing Wales today. As a community, either we are prepared to pay a little more in tax so that we can pay people to work—rather than paying them to rot on the dole—or we accept the current cancer of unemployment, which is biting into every community in Wales, with all the concomitant problems of squalor, drugs, wasted lives, lost potential and decaying towns and villages. There is a price to pay, but there is also an enormous price if we ignore the problem. It is a moral choice, and Plaid Cymru is prepared to make it.
  11.34 am
  Mr. David Hanson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on securing this debate. It is a valuable exercise for us to discuss unemployment and low income in Wales. I shall much welcome the Minister's reply. I am pleased to see that the Minister in the Chamber. It is a pity that some other Conservative Members could not make it to the House to discuss an issue that is important for Wales.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: There are not that many of them.
  Mr. Hanson: As the hon. Gentleman says, there are not that many of them, and I presume that some of them are on official duties.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I think that the hon. Gentleman is being a tiny little bit unfair. My colleagues are out winning for Wales—most obviously, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in Seoul today.
  Mr. Hanson: I was not referring to the Secretary of State for Wales, because he is not a Welsh Member. I was referring to the Welsh Members—but there we go; not to worry.
  I agreed with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Caernarfon said. I was particularly interested in some of the capital projects he mentioned, which could be carried out and would be of benefit to Wales. Certainly in my own area, the electrification of the Crewe to Holyhead railway link would create jobs, improve the level of investment and provide greater attractions for inward investment to north Wales, in particular.
  My own county of Flintshire is one of the few areas in Wales that does not have assisted area status, which causes us some difficulties. The fragility of the local economy is a fact that we must face daily. Only last week, Kimberley-Clarke, which is a major manufacturer in my constituency, announced a reduction in the Flint work force by 65 jobs. The economy of north-east Wales is still fragile and requires attention.

  345
  I was also particularly interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon on housing investment. There are 2,200 people on housing waiting lists in my constituency. Many people in Wales have the skills to build houses, and, as he said, there are companies there that make building materials, but still we cannot release capital receipts to build houses for local people, which would create local jobs and build a strong local economy. So much of what he said is valid.
  Because we have so little time for the debate, it may be helpful if I focus on two specific issues: the need for a minimum wage and the increasing casualisation of work in Wales.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) mentioned income levels in Wales. There are now at least 12,000 people in Wales who earn less than £1.50 per hour for jobs done on a full-time or part-time basis, and at least 42,000 people earn less than £2.50 per hour for jobs done on a full-time or part-time basis. Women are hit hardest by low incomes.
  The abolition of wages councils in 1993, in Wales and across the United Kingdom—a move that I opposed in Committee and in the House—has made the situation dramatically worse. We face a situation, as described by the hon. Member for Caernarfon, in which unemployment has been rising, wages have been forced down, part-time and casualised work has been growing and real incomes have been dropping because of cuts in wage council work.
  An excellent survey done for the Low Pay Unit by Huw Edwards, the former Member of Parliament for Monmouth, has recently been circulated to some hon. Members from Wales. I should like to give one example from it and to hear the Minister's comments on it. It concerns a job advertised in a jobcentre in south Wales, for a shop assistant manager earning £2.70 an hour. Before the abolition of wages councils, the minimum for the same job had been £3.15 an hour. That is just one example of a real fall in wages in a typical job, taken from a jobcentre in Wales. I should like to hear from the Minister some explanation of why we were told during the passage of the trade union legislation that the abolition of wages councils, rather than forcing down wages, would increase them, when we have example after example of poorer levels of salary.
  My constituency of Delyn in north Wales depends greatly on tourism, the catering industry and hotels and residential homes. Many of those sectors were covered by wages councils and people working in jobs in them have increasingly lower incomes because of the reduction and abolition of wages councils.
  That same survey shows that in Wales a large number of jobs are extremely poorly paid. I should like to hear from the Minister why a minimum wage cannot be implemented in Wales. I can give two examples of jobs taken from jobcentres in Wales in May this year. There was an advertisement for an experienced security guard at a rate of £2.19 an hour for a 72-hour week. Another advertisement was also for a security guard at £2.20 an hour, with the hours to be arranged. There are many examples of valuable jobs at low pay, which could be improved by a minimum wage.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Was my hon. Friend's confidence boosted by today's magnificent
  346
  announcement that the LG group is coming to Wales in the full knowledge that we shall have a Labour Government, a Welsh Assembly, a social contract and a minimum wage? Does not that contrast with the fact that INMOS, another splendid hi-tech company, left Wales and is now settled in a country which has a minimum wage and a social contract? Should not we congratulate everybody on this achievement, including the Government, the Welsh Development Agency and Newport borough council, and not divide over petty party points as some people have done this morning?
  Mr. Hanson: As hon. Members would expect, I agree with my hon. Friend. We are looking for partnership between the Welsh Office, Labour local authorities and the Welsh Development Agency, which was established by a Labour Government. We all welcome the jobs in Newport. However, Newport is a long way from my constituency in north Wales and we need to ensure that there is an even distribution of employment and that investment takes place all round.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) talked about the obvious lack of fear of the future. I suspect that a large company would assess what is likely to happen in the future and see that there is the potential, under a Labour Government, for the social chapter and a range of other measures. That company has taken the decision to invest in Wales having considered all those issues. That is important.
  As the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, the Council of Europe's decency threshold is £228.68 per week. Income levels in Wales are grossly below that figure. A total of 30 per cent. of the males in my constituency and 63 per cent. of the women employed in my constituency earn less than the Council of Europe threshold.
  Figures show that, under the Conservative Government, wages have been driven down even further. Household incomes compared to those in England—my constituency is only 10 miles from England—are in dramatic decline. In 1981, the wage level for people in Wales was 91 per cent. of the English average. Last year, it was down to 75 per cent. of the English average. The average income for a Welsh household is £282 a week compared with £375 in England and £435 in the south-east—35 per cent. lower.
  I should genuinely like to hear from the Minister what action his Government intend to take in their dying days to try to reverse that, and what action they have taken in the past. The Opposition have some positive proposals to try to raise the level of real incomes. According to the family expenditure survey, 31 per cent. of Welsh households now have an income of under £175 a week. There is no getting away from the fact that people in Wales are more poorly paid, and that is having a real impact on their quality of life.
  My party wishes to establish a minimum wage. I should like to hear from the Minister the genuine reason why he is opposed to that. I suspect that all Opposition parties, which, in effect, means the people of Wales, believe that a minimum wage should exist.
  Mr. Nick Ainger: Has my hon. Friend seen the report in today's newspapers that President Clinton has made an agreement with the Senate to increase significantly the national minimum wage in the

  347
  United States from $2.70 per hour to $3.30 per hour? He will be aware that the United States has the biggest growth in job creation in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the United States, the national minimum wage is no barrier to job creation and therefore there is no reason why it should be a barrier in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend has made his case clearly. Like him, I believe in a minimum wage. Many western democracies—not just the United States but countries in Europe—believe in a minimum wage. There is no evidence to prove otherwise. A minimum wage would ensure that the work force were brought on board in a partnership so that they felt part of the organisation. Individuals would feel motivated to work. A minimum wage would put money into the local economy. In my constituency, those whose wages were increased would not buy foreign holidays or imported goods but would be pumping that money back into the local economy and local employment.
  The Minister must realise that low pay costs every taxpayer money. Family credit and housing benefit are all being paid by the taxpayer to subsidise poor employers who pay low wages. The Minister should address the problem for good employers who pay decent wages but find themselves undercut by those paying low wages for similar jobs. There is a need for a minimum wage and I want to hear him defend his opposition to it on the record.
  I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall deal briefly with the casualisation and contractorisation of employment. I want to draw the House's attention to the experience of one of my constituents who is not alone in Wales in facing the downside of the changing economy and employment market. My constituent ha, been employed by an agency for three years. He has worked on a contract for an insurance company. There is no doubt that the insurance company gets a good deal because it has a flexible employee and no hassle over terms and conditions of employment, and it pays a fixed fee to the agency for my constituent. It has, effectively, outsourced some of its activities to the agency. My constituent receives poor pay and has poor conditions, no security and no rights at work. I received a letter from my constituent's father. It said:
  "It is not just the threat of dismissal which is the problem. He can have no sick pay, no holiday entitlement, no bonus or fringe benefits, no pension, no grievance procedure—nothing other than a salary which is still below any of the minimum levels now being mooted, and the fear of being kicked out if he so much as squeaks in protest."
  There is a growing feeling that people in Wales are facing casualisation of employment. Contract labour is being brought in and individuals face temporary, casual employment and a reduction in their terms and conditions of service.
  Employment figures for the United Kingdom—of which a proportion relates to Wales—show that some 308,000 people work under similar employment conditions to those of my constituent. Although he is involved in training and team building, he receives no company benefits as he is under contract to an agency. The House needs to examine the problems in more detail and to address them.
  348
  Coupled with the insecurity of unemployment are the low levels of income and the continual casualisation of work. Wales faces a bleak economic future unless the Government take positive steps to encourage secure employment, improve the economy and provide a minimum wage and real employment rights for all workers, no matter where they work and whatever their terms and conditions.
  11.49 am
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on securing today's debate. I regret that, as a result of the posturing of the Conservative and Labour parties, the Welsh Grand Committee was unable to discuss such an important issue. It is quite unacceptable that they are prepared to put narrow party political points before the needs of Wales.
  My hon. Friend referred to the document "One Hundred Thousand Answers", which I commend to the House as a considerable step forward and an important contribution to the debate. It comprises a practical set of measures. I am sure that if even a quarter of them were implemented, the Welsh economy would soon turn around.
  Rural Wales suffers severe disadvantages. Recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon and I met the Secretary of State for Wales. There was a strong case for establishing an enterprise zone in south Gwynedd. However, when he took office, the Secretary of State denied the people of south Gwynedd the opportunities that would have resulted from enterprise zone status. He said that it would be of no assistance to the area. Hon. Members can imagine my shock some weeks later when I heard the Prime Minister, in one of his silly answers to his Back Benchers, extolling the benefits of enterprise zones, of which there are now some 10 or 12. I find such politicking quite unacceptable as it affects the lives of ordinary people who deserve better.
  I find it astonishing that the glossy documents produced by the Welsh Office, including the rural White Paper, do not mention youth unemployment. Mention has been made of the sweatshop economy. Of course we need jobs, but I should make a further comment, although the Welsh Office will deny it. Last year, I went on a visit to Germany with the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. A couple of German industrialists who had set up factories in Wales freely admitted that they had come to Wales because they could pay far lower wages. However, as my hon. Friend pragmatically said, Wales is desperate for jobs and I am sure that today's announcement about LG will be most welcome throughout Wales.
  The "Real World Action Programme for Government" which is supported by several important groups including the Town and Country Planning Association, Poverty Alliance and the Employment Policy Institute, sets out some important initiatives for political parties to consider. They include the
  "implementation over 10 years of a £1 billion annual programme of public investment in local, community and voluntary enterprises; to create work opportunities and attempt to meet social needs.
  An 'ecological' restructuring of the tax system, in the first instance through a phased replacement of employers' National Insurance contributions by taxes on pollution and the use of environmental resources.
  Establishment of a timetable for achieving within 10 years the UN development aid target of 0.7 per cent. of national income with at least 0.5 per cent. to be achieved in the first term of office, and

  349
  increasing to at least 20 per cent. the proportion allocated to social and environmental priority areas such as basic health, primary education, water and sanitation."
  As my hon. Friend said, the document proposes
  "A housing strategy to provide at least 100,000 affordable homes in the social housing sector each year for the next 10 years.
  An integrated transport programme with the target of reducing road traffic by 10 per cent. from 1990 levels by the year 2010, as a first step towards deeper reductions."
  It also proposes
  "Regular publication of a new measure of economic welfare which includes social and environmental factors; together with annual published assessment of the contribution made by government economic and social policy towards it."
  None of those simple, straightforward and obvious answers appears on the Conservative agenda or on the Labour agenda, but they all appear in the Plaid Cymru manifesto. Plaid Cymru Members are thinking constructively and not sitting back and allowing circumstances to direct us.
  There is no doubt that poverty in the United Kingdom and in Wales has risen and the gap between rich and poor has grown ever wider. Poverty has a profoundly damaging effect on people's lives, contributing to worsening health and lack of opportunity. Rising inequality damages social cohesion, leading to rising crime. We are all aware of the symptoms.
  The long-term goal of employment policy should be to redistribute employment, allowing everyone access to work—including voluntary work, child care and education—at different stages in their lives. Long-term unemployment could be reduced through a job subsidy provided to employers who take on those who have been unemployed for more than a year.
  By reducing employers' national insurance contributions, an "eco-tax reform" would create significant numbers of jobs. In addition, employment could be created through a public expenditure programme directed at meeting social needs. Such a programme should be used specifically to strengthen the social economy of voluntary and community-based organisations and enterprises both by direct investment and by attracting additional finance through the creation of community and regional banks. That, above all, should symbolise the next Government's commitment to reducing poverty and increasing social cohesion.
  As we have heard, there is a considerable problem in rural Wales. Nearly three out of 10—or 27.4 per cent.—of men working full time in Wales earn less than the Council of Europe decency threshold. The figures for Gwynedd, however, show that as many as 33.5 per cent. of men working full time earn less than that poverty threshold. Only two other counties in Britain—Dyfed and Cornwall—have a higher proportion of low-paid workers. The incidence of low pay for women is even more severe. More than half of all women working in Wales are low paid. That includes nearly five out of 10 women in non-manual jobs and eight out of 10 in manual jobs.
  Poverty in rural areas is not always as apparent as in urban areas. The settlement patterns of people in towns and cities often mean that the poverty is concentrated in housing estates or in particular wards. Therefore, it is visually and statistically apparent. Population in rural
  350
  areas can often be dispersed over several wards and involve smaller numbers. The infrequency of public transport, comparative isolation, greater reliance on the car and distance from services often worsen the position in rural areas.
  Poverty and the state of the economy are interlinked. Economic and social deprivation result from unemployment and low pay. In Europe, there are now 12 million people unemployed and an estimated 52 million people with incomes of less than half the average income per capita in each member state. The worst levels of poverty are concentrated in the northern and southern peripheries of the European Union. The United Kingdom has the largest growth of poverty in the northern periphery as a result of de-industrialisation and economic restructuring.
  In Gwynedd, high unemployment is a key player, contributing to the lack of social cohesion. I am desperately worried about the horrible, endemic unemployment among young people under 25. Undoubtedly, those unemployed for more than one year will suffer most from social exclusion. Those people have never worked full time and will therefore find it difficult to enter the labour market. People who are unemployed for more than one year will suffer a whittling down of financial and material resources, confidence, and often health.
  As a percentage of total claimants, unemployment among people under the age of 25 in Caernarfonshire, Merionethshire and Ynys Môn is higher than it is for older people. That corresponds to the general trend in Wales, Britain and the European Community. Of the 37 districts in Wales, however, Arfon, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon, has the sixth highest percentage of unemployed people in that age group. Of all unemployed people in the district, 33 per cent. are aged 25 or under. That is a disgraceful figure. Ynys Môn and Arfon have the seventh and eighth highest levels of people who are unemployed for a year or more of all districts in Wales. That may be an underestimate of the true figure, because of the importance of seasonal employment, which lowers the claimant count because people who register after summer employment are regarded as new claimants.
  The strength of the economy is usually shown in terms of numbers of men working full time. That number has fallen below the 1981 level, which reflects the decline of manufacturing and other male-dominated areas of employment. On the other hand, the number of men working part time has almost doubled in Caernarfonshire, Merionethshire and Ynys Môn over the past 10 years. Many of those may be working in more than one job. Nevertheless, the traditional social and economic pattern, whereby the male is viewed as the main household earner, has been undermined.
  Female part-time employment has continued to increase and numbers of women working full time have also increased, which suggests that, whereas the opportunities for full-time employment for men have fallen, opportunities for women have increased. That may in part be due to greater acceptability of women who apply for jobs that were traditionally carried out by men. Alas, women, too, often accept low wages, which may also be partly due to greater employment opportunities for women in the service sector—jobs for which men do not normally apply. Those changing patterns have given rise to a new set of needs. They have enforced changed roles on men

  351
  and women. Unemployed men might have to learn to be the care givers to enable women to work. However, family incomes may be lower since women's wages tend to be lower.
  I know that other hon. Members want to speak. I desperately believe that some urgent action is necessary. It grieves me that nobody in Wales, apart from Plaid Cymru, is talking about this agenda. I only wish that all parties would enter the domain. There is nothing of any comfort in Labour's latest document, assuming that it is not changed radically without consultation as other policies tend to be. Indeed, I would welcome a U-turn.
  The overall position is desperate. There is rural poverty and urban poverty, and nothing is being done to address the important problems. All the suggestions that my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon has made in this debate and the answers that I suggested earlier have two things in common: none of them appears on the agenda of the Tories or Labour, and none of them could be addressed by a toothless talking shop of a Welsh Assembly.
  12.3 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on securing this debate on unemployment and low pay in Wales. I couple that with congratulations to Welsh Office Ministers, local authorities, Newport borough council and all the other agencies, bodies, individuals and consultants who have been involved in helping to land the LG project for Wales, as was announced in the early hours of this morning. It is a superb project—possibly the largest inward investment project in Wales for 20 years, and perhaps the most important since the BSC Llanwem steelworks 40 years ago in the same town of Newport.
  It is unusual, although not unique, for such a mega-investment project to be announced right at the end of a Parliament. It shows that LG is investing in Wales regardless of the outcome of the next election. Obviously, the bulk of the public expenditure needed to bring the project to fruition will be required after the election. All the jobs that will arise from the project will arise after the election, too. I say to Welsh Office Ministers who are present, all others and any Korean listeners that Labour's Welsh Front-Bench team gives an absolute commitment to bring that mega-project to fruition should the responsibility fall to us after the election.
  We shall all have to get used to words such as "chaebo"—the Korean word for large industrial conglomerates, of which LG is one. Indeed, we shall have to get used to the name LG, since the company has changed its name from Lucky Goldstar in the past 12 months. In Wales, LG used to mean one thing: the initials of this country's only Welsh Prime Minister. Those initials now have a new meaning for all in Wales, and one which is very welcome because of the subject of this debate. Never has such a mega-investment been more urgently needed by Wales or, perhaps, any other part of the United Kingdom. The deterioration in the Welsh economy has been caused largely by the absence of such mega-projects over the past 20 years.
  The Government's Invest in Britain Bureau conveniently produced a list of mega-projects in a press release issued yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade. I was very pleased to read the list because it was
  352
  identical to a list that I gave in a previous debate. That is not a boast; one does not need to be a rocket scientist to work out which projects are needed. The list is highly relevant to this debate. I absolutely agree with the press release when it says:
  "Companies such as Siemens, Fujitsu, Toyota, NEC, Samsung, Honda Chunghwa and Nissan make a vital difference to the local economy wherever they choose to set up operations."
  We should remember that Siemens and Fujitsu are going to the north-east of England, Toyota has already gone to the east midlands, NEC has gone to Scotland, Samsung to the north-east of England, Honda to the south-west of England, Chunghwa to Scotland, and Nissan to the north-east of England, but none has gone to Wales. The absence of such mega-projects is probably the reason why unemployment and low pay are such problems for Wales. Thank goodness, at long last, for the first time in 20 years, a mega-project has come to Wales—the first since the Ford engine plant went to Bridgend in 1976.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I should like to make two points. First, the hon. Gentleman said that Lloyd George was the only Welsh Prime Minister. There was also, of course, James Callaghan. Secondly, the Toyota engine plant is in Deeside. I apologise for not being present for the whole of the debate, but I heard it from afar. My problem was that I could not lose a couple of minutes of the speech of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
  Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's attempted correction. His arrival in the debate on unemployment and low pay is better late than never on a day when I half expected all three Conservative Back Benchers to be present to help to welcome the good news for Wales today. I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman has entered the Chamber halfway through the debate. He was right in one sense: James Callaghan represented a Welsh seat—"indeed, the one that adjoined mine—for 40-odd years, but we tend to think of Lloyd George as having a special place because, although I believe that he was born in Manchester, he was brought up in Wales. He was Welsh in a very specific way that I am sure Lord Callaghan, who is now a distinguished Member of the other place, would not claim.
  As yesterday's DTI press release said, investment in such a large project can almost on its own lift the relative position of a region such as Wales in the league table. Failure to attract any of the projects listed by the DTI, until this morning's news from Seoul, has caused the relative deterioration in Wales's position in the United Kingdom league table. That deterioration is starkly illustrated in the 1996 edition of "Regional Trends", published a fortnight ago. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon has already given figures similar to those that I intended to cite, I shall not repeat them. "Regional Trends" gives us the figures for Wales up to 1 April 1995 in most cases, and shows how extraordinarily badly Wales has been doing over the past 15 years.
  According to Government figures for gross domestic product or household income per head, in 1980–81 Wales came ninth out of the nine English regions plus Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We are now at the bottom of the league table—12th out of 12. That is a sad state of affairs and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caernarfon for this debate, which helps us to focus on the

  353
  difference that the LG project will help to make to Wales's position in the league table. Table 8.1 of "Regional Trends" shows that in 1994–95 not only was Wales bottom of the table on household income per head, but the gap between it and the next lowest region—northern England—was enormous. In northern England, average gross household income was £345 per week while in Wales it was £282.70.
  Wales's deterioration compared with Northern Ireland is also extraordinary. In 1980–81, Wales in ninth position had an average gross weekly income of £138.60 and Northern Ireland was almost £20 worse off at £119.20 a week. By 1994–95, Wales, now in 12th position, had an average gross weekly income of £282.70 while Northern Ireland had an average gross weekly income of £40 more than Wales at £326.30 per household. It is serious enough to drop from ninth to 12th place, but even more serious to be hopelessly behind in 12th place. That is what is so depressing about the picture for Wales.
  There seems to have been not merely a relative deterioration but an absolute deterioration. For instance, in 1992 average weekly expenditure per person reached £101.60. Two years later, it had dropped to £96 40. The same is true of income per head. That absolute deterioration then feeds through to other parts of the economy. If a family has a low weekly income, its general expenditure will not create extra jobs in the service sector. It will not create a demand for new shops and other specialist services because it simply does not have the money to lash out on all manner of services. So low wages create a poor provision of wages in multiplier service industries and, as a result, there tends to be a low demand for labour, which then depresses incomes. That vicious cycle has impacted on Wales since 1992.
  The importance of this morning's news is that it gives the Welsh economy an opportunity to improve its position and surpass some of the other regions which tend to depend, as Wales does, on manufacturing industry. It will increase demand for labour and therefore increase relative wage levels. It was ironic to hear on the 8 o'clock BBC television news this morning, announcing the LG project, that one of the reasons why the Koreans were investing in Wales was that they had a strong manufacturing economy and strong trade unions. Strong trade unions were forcing up wages, so they were coming to Britain. That is good news for Britain, but it is ironic when we compare the history of Great Britain and Korea over the past 30 or 40 years.
  Never have we so greatly welcomed investment which might generate demand for highly qualified staff and which will have a chain reaction throughout the economy in south Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) was right to say that people in his area had no chance of getting jobs there, but at least half the population in Wales resides within a reasonable travel-to-work distance—20 or 25 miles—of the Duffryn site in Newport. We hope that, at least in that area, there will be a step change. However, it must be accompanied by a step change in the number of qualified engineers, scientists, technologists, supervisory staff and quality control technicians. We must step up our output of such people. Otherwise, as the BBC said this morning, given the size of the investment and the fact that it will be
  354
  Wales's first silicon chip factory, LG will take highly qualified staff from other electronics components factories rather than from the unemployment register.
  I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity this morning to explain how the Welsh Office will handle all the knock-on decisions that need to be made. What additional resources will be made available to the training and enterprise councils and the modern apprenticeship scheme to ensure that skilled labour and supervisory and technical staff—the shortage of which prevents this country from growing as quickly as it should—are made available? What will happen to the Euro-freight terminal only three or four miles away from the Duffryn site to ensure that transportation blockages are not caused by the gigantic new LG investment? How will the Minister ensure that, if and when a Labour Government come to power, we shall be able to complete a project that is running smoothly and on time without causing problems to other employers, and therefore ensure that it will have the maximum impact on unemployment and low pay in Wales?
  12.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): In the short time left to me, I shall try to answer all the questions that have been posed. First, I thank the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for providing us with an opportunity to debate all the good things that are happening in Wales. He will agree that this is a great day for Wales, although others looking on would not necessarily believe it from most of what they have heard in this morning's debate.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today signed not Wales's or the United Kingdom's but Europe's biggest ever investment deal in Seoul. It will bring 6,100 jobs to Wales. After much speculation, I can now confirm that the Korean-based international group LG will invest £1.7 billion in electronics and semi-conductor plants on a 250-acre site at Imperial Park, Newport.
  That is the biggest vote of confidence the Welsh economy has ever had. No other inward investment project in Europe has created so many jobs. It is a tremendous boost for the south-east valleys of Wales and the United Kingdom as a whole and will transform employment prospects. It is good news for the people who will work for LG. It is good news for their families and for all the businesses that will supply LG. As well as the 6,100 jobs that LG will create, at least as many again will be generated in supplier and support industries.
  The £1.7 billion project will create 6,100 new jobs in a series of developments. LG Semicon will build a plant to make, test and package semi-conductor wafers. LG Electronics will make monitors, colour-picture and colour-display tubes and cathode ray tube components, later expanding to make electron guns and large, wide-screen colour televisions.
  I am very grateful for the welcome and for the congratulations that the hon. Members for Caernarfon, for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) have extended to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team on what has been achieved.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Will my hon. Friend convey our congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to the Welsh Development Agency? We know

  355
  that he and the agency have been active, not only last night but in the past nine months or so, in attracting this great acquisition for Wales.
  Mr. Jones: I will pass on my right hon. Friend's congratulations, and I believe that he spoke for the whole House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will by now be flying back from Seoul, and will be in the House tomorrow.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon asked me about any possibility, relating to media speculation, of changes in the arrangements for inward investment, and I can tell him plainly that neither I nor my right hon. Friend has any plans to make any such changes. He also mentioned the implications for resources for the Welsh Development Agency; I can assure him that the agency will receive the resources that it requires to ensure that this project proceeds.
  This is an example of what team Wales has achieved, and it will enhance the reputation of Wales and its work force throughout the world. As such, I contrast the comments by the hon. Member for Newport, West, the separatist tendencies of the hon. Member for Caernarfon—although he made no mention of them today—and the Labour party's centralist tendency, represented by its Welsh Assembly proposal, which was at least a live proposal until the referendum was imposed on it.
  What better example can we have today of what can be achieved now under the present arrangements, and what clearer warning can there be for Wales that, if we were to be over-governed, with an extra tier of government, extra bureaucracy, and the burden of extra taxation, if a regional assembly were imposed on the people of Wales, Wales would not be the winner that it is today but the loser?
  Mr. Wigley: The Minister tempts me and I draw to his attention, as I did in my contribution, the remarkable performance of the Irish Republic in creating 56,000 new jobs in two years, with a per capita gross domestic product which has passed that of Wales. Now that we have had this success in the Newport area, how will the Welsh Office strategy ensure that there are similar developments in the westerly parts of Wales, in Gwynedd, Dyfed and in the westerly valleys of the old coalfield?
  Mr. Jones: I accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question, and I shall return to that subject in more detail.
  I wish to take the opportunity to nail the claim referred to by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones). I am glad that it was essentially refuted by the hon. Member for Caernarfon. All too often, it is put about that the Government are succeeding in attracting Korean and Taiwanese companies to Wales only because wages in Wales have fallen to coolie levels. That is a myth. It is ridiculous to say that inward investors are attracted by low wage rates and continue to pay low wages, or that there are lower pay rates for the same day's work in Wales than in England. I wish to take time to lay these fallacious and malicious ideas to rest, lest anyone outside the House should start to believe them.
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: Last week I visited Ford at Bridgend, which recently announced that it intends to create 450 new jobs, and Bosch, also in the
  356
  vale of Glamorgan, which intends to create 100 new jobs. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a good illustration of the fact that South Wales is a high-wage economy for many workers, and that this is not a flash in the pan? This wonderful new announcement is symptomatic of an enormous amount of economic success in Wales. Is it not time that the Opposition stopped running down the record of the Government and the Welsh Development Agency and sang up the praises—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The Chair does not encourage mini-speeches in interventions. That is what we are getting from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes my points for me.
  Since April 1990, average wages have increased faster in Wales than in Great Britain as a whole. The evidence is that, job for job, there is little variation in pay between the regions of the UK, with the possible exception of the south-east of England. It is not true that inward investors pay low wages. Inward investors generally pay above UK average rates. In Wales, in some sectors, average rates for inward investors are a good deal—20 to 40 per cent.—above the UK average.
  There is a difference between low wages and low labour costs. Inward investors are attracted to the UK and Wales in part because of low wage costs, employers' social security costs, pensions and health contributions. Rightly, these costs are lower in this country than elsewhere in Europe. For every £100 in wages, employers pay extra non-wage labour costs of £44 in Italy, £41 in France. £34 in Spain, £32 in Germany but only £18 in the United Kingdom.
  Average Welsh earnings fell behind those in other UK regions in the wake of the coal and steel closures, but we are now developing the skills of our work force and the strengths of the Welsh economy and reaping the benefits. Since 1990, the decline has been reversed, and manual workers in manufacturing now have earnings close to the UK average. I can tell the hon. Member for Caernarfon that gross domestic product per head in Wales grew faster between 1993 and 1994 than in any other region of the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Members for Caernarfon and for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) extracted figures from the family expenditure survey in the recent edition of "Regional Trends". To make realistic comparisons, we believe that data from the regional accounts should be used. Those show Wales in a markedly different position, with income per head of 88 per cent. of that for England, but that can be reconciled with other figures such as per capita GDP.
  A better picture of relative spending power is given by disposable income per head. Welsh disposable income is 92 per cent. of the English figure. There are no separate price indices for Wales, but I think that the hon. Member for Caernarfon would find it hard to deny that many things cost less in Wales than they do in London, so this level of disposable income probably goes further in Wales than it would in England.
  It is clear that, with per capita disposable income of only 92 per cent. of that in England, Wales has a significant way to go, but I cannot endorse the

  357
  counter-productive remarks that have been made. They do no good because they distract from the real issues and needs.
  I am seeking to set out the Government's strategy for improving the prosperity of Wales, and the single main cause of low income is unemployment, not low pay. A recent European report found that, in the UK as a whole, low pay is a relatively minor element. Lower-paid workers, including women, do not generally live in low-income households. Most are second or third earners in those households. [Interruption.] I thought for a moment that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was trying to intervene.
  Mr. Rowlands: I am. In many cases in our communities now, the woman's income is the only income coming into the household.
  Mr. Jones: On this point about low pay, I should tell the hon. Gentleman that I have been able to find only one case of low pay being cited as an example of an advantage for inward investment. It was brought to my attention by Alun Cairns, the Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate for Gower. He told me about a video that was sponsored, showing that in Swansea earnings were on average 11 per cent. less than in the rest of the UK and 25 per cent. lower than in the south-east of England. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to know who put out that video in promotion of inward investment. Perhaps the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) will want to confirm that it was done by Labour-controlled Swansea city council.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: That was no boast—it was the reality of low pay in south-west Wales. Does the Minister accept that one of the real problems in Wales is that the south-west will have the same relationship to the south-east as the north and other regions of England have to the south-east? The Welsh Office needs to do something to redress the balance.
  Mr. Jones: We are seeking to address that. However, the fact is that a Labour-controlled authority used that reference in an attempt to secure inward investment, and that is the only time I have seen such a reference in a video.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon made the point that industrial wage rates in Wales are on a par with the rest of the United Kingdom. We want to see higher wages brought to Wales not on the industrial side but on the support and white-collar side. We need to expand that range so that we drag up the average. We have to deal with the facts, but they should not be cited in the way that they have been cited. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West dared to suggest that it was in line with this myth that has been maliciously peddled for political purposes—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up

  A20 (Aycliffe)
  12.30 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: I refer to a matter that is of considerable concern to my constituents who live in the Aycliffe area, just outside Dover. The current problems stem from the building of the new A20 road. It would be churlish of me if I did not recognise the wonderful construction of the new A20, which has been operating for some three years. The road has been excellent for Dover. The construction techniques were advanced, and there is an excellent tunnel just through the hills between Folkestone and Capel le Ferne—it must be one of the most technically advanced tunnels that this country has seen in recent years. The road has been welcomed in Dover.
  The A20 shows that the Conservative Government are committed to our port and ferry industry. The road has enabled that industry to compete against the channel tunnel in a way that might not have happened if there had been road links only to the channel tunnel. The people of Dover are enormously grateful for the road. The three sections of the road cost almost £100 million, which is a considerable amount of money.
  The road is fantastic. It has the most amazing view of Dover—it shows my constituency in all its splendour. As one comes out of the countryside and the hills on the new A20, one has an amazing view of Dover castle and its ramparts, which have protected and defended this nation for some 900 years. The view of the port is absolutely magnificent—as one comes down from the hills, one can see ferries turning around in the port, hovercraft arriving and departing, and the magnificent cruise liners docking at the new terminal. For those who find it necessary, one can see across to France on a clear day.
  My constituents have welcomed the new A20, which makes it all the more sad that today I have to raise a number of problems that are making the people of Aycliffe suffer. The A20 passes just to the side of the Aycliffe estate, just on the outskirts of Dover, and it is the area most affected by the issues that I will raise today. The residents of Aycliffe have suffered during the whole road works programme. For example, during the construction they suffered because of noise, dust and dirt, and they have since suffered because of the noise from the road—however, most residents have had soundproofing, which has alleviated the noise to some degree.
  A considerable amount of work was done by the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads at the Department of Transport—Christopher Chope was a Member for Southampton in the previous Parliament, and he is now the Conservative candidate for Christchurch. He did a lot to help my constituents when he was in the Department of Transport, and I shall welcome him back to the House if he is successful at the next election. He is a first-rate candidate, and he was a first-rate Member of Parliament.
  My constituents in Aycliffe have also suffered because of the considerable amount of rubbish that was left behind at the end of construction. In addition, a considerable number of minor works have not been completed. They want to know why it is taking more than three years to do these minor works, which involve two car parks and the reinstatement of small pieces of land. The car park and reinstatement saga is a ridiculous story that should

  359
  never have happened. I am not talking about big projects that cost millions—I am talking about the end of a significant project and small projects that would cost no more than £100,000. In addition, Dover district council will pay considerably towards the total cost.
  There are two main areas of contention. The first is the undertaking to provide five car parking bay spaces at Gloster Ropewalk and 11 spaces at King's Ropewalk. Secondly, there was a commitment to reinstate and to landscape the former Trans-Manche link compound connected with the channel tunnel works and the surrounding area immediately beyond Aycliffe on the north side of the A20—including the provision of a fenced playing field for the children of Aycliffe, who have not had a playground for the past three summers. In addition, there is the removal of the foundations of the redundant Callender Hamilton bridge and of the noise bank behind 198 to 204 St. David's avenue in Aycliffe.
  I have battled away to try to get the work completed. Two local councillors, Jim and Jackie Hood, and the officers and staff of Dover district council have also tried to get the work completed. I thank all the people who have helped me to get the work completed.
  It is ludicrous that this started in 1993, after the road was completed and it was decided that there should be some hammerhead turning arrangement at the end of each access road in Gloster Ropewalk and King's Ropewalk. The residents of King's Ropewalk approached the council about the possibility of using part of the available land for car parking. The Department of Transport and its engineers rapidly explored the suggestion, which was good news.
  Unfortunately, three alternative sites were drawn up. However, there was consultation, and the process was quite quick, following a public meeting in September 1993. Following the consultation, the designs for the preferred options were agreed to rapidly, the council's highways engineers and planning officers acted quickly, the schemes were costed quickly, and the council even agreed to pay the bulk of the costs. In fact, I understand that the council found some finances in the 1993–94 budget.
  In 1994, the delays started, because there were problems when it was found that an extension or a variation order could not be added to the A20 contract. Unfortunately, the contractor bid a high price and put in a high tender, which could not be recommended—we accept that it was an unreasonably high price. Therefore, other alternatives were explored.
  As a result of the delays, the council budget allocation for the works was deferred until 1994–95. However, work continued, and the contract was discussed with Eurotunnel to ensure that the work could be completed. There were further delays through 1994, which extended into 1995. Nevertheless, the council allocated money to the works in its 1995–96 budget.
  We were told that tenders would be let during 1995, and the council tried hard to press forward. However, there were more excuses, including references to drought conditions that were affecting the road works. It was claimed that large quantities of water would be required for dust control measures. Despite the delays, the council ensured that finance was available at every stage, and it acted promptly with regard to Department of Transport and Highways Agency approvals.
  360
  I was involved throughout the process, and I wrote several letters in 1993 in an attempt to have most of the road works completed. However, the real saga began on 10 October 1994, when I wrote the first of a series of letters to the Highways Agency concerning rubbish on the site and the completion of the car park. I wrote to the Highways Agency again on 15 November 1994 and on 11 April 1995. At that time, I also wrote letters to Transport Ministers and to Dover district council, in order to ensure that its work progressed unhindered.
  I wrote more letters to the Highways Agency on 26 September 1995 and on 2 February 1996. On 21 March 1996, I wrote to Mr. Lawrie Haynes of the Highways Agency. My letter of 31 March 1996 referred to the completion of the car park and to other works. I wrote again to Mr. Haynes on 17 May 1996 and, more recently, on 21 June 1996. The Highways Agency replied to my letters expressing support for the project. It agreed that the works should be carried out as soon as possible.
  For example, in November 1994, Mr. Haynes wrote to me claiming that construction of the proposed car park had delayed the general tidying up of the Gloster Ropewalk area. He assured me that the Highways Agency would
  "complete the reinstatement of the area as quickly as possible. Once these works are completed, I am confident that your constituents will see a general improvement in the appearance of the area."
  In his letter of 16 December 1994, Mr. Haynes told me that he expected to invite tenders for the work. He said:
  "The car park construction forms part of the additional works contract for which we hope to invite tenders around the turn of the year."
  That was in 1994. We expected tenders to be invited and the work to be carried out early in 1995. When the work did not begin, I wrote more letters.
  I received a reply dated 4 May 1995 in which Mr. Haynes said:
  "I understand the frustration felt by the residents of Aycliffe at the apparent lack of progress to provide the promised car parks and tidy up the Estate; they will be pleased to know that the tenders are expected to be let very soon now."
  Those tenders had not been let by May 1995, despite the long list of assurances. On 4 July 1995, Mr. Haynes of the Highways Agency wrote to me again saying that he understood the frustration felt by local residents. He gave them the pleasing news that
  "tenders are expected to be let very soon now".
  He also claimed:
  "the construction of the car parks will be completed at an early stage in the contract".
  Nevertheless, nothing happened.
  In February 1996, Mr. Haynes predicted that work would begin in spring this year. In April 1996—that is, the spring—he wrote saying that he expected work to commence the same month. However, the work did not begin in April or May. As a result, I pressed the Highways Agency on the matter, and I received another reply from Mr. Haynes on 20 June 1996, in which he said that the agency hoped to award the contract
  "in the next few weeks; the works should start shortly afterwards."
  We waited, but nothing happened.
  There were rumours in mid-June, and Eurotunnel heard first that the work would not commence in the next few weeks as I had been told. When I contacted Mr. Haynes

  361
  at the beginning of July, I discovered that the work had been delayed further. I received a letter on 4 July 1996 confirming another delay to the project. It blamed
  "unique difficulties specific to this project."
  The Highways Agency claimed that it expected to let the contract in the next few weeks and added:
  "work will start shortly after the contract is let and should be completed by Autumn 1996."
  Enough is enough. I applied to Madam Speaker for an Adjournment debate on the subject, and I am enormously grateful to her and to her office for allowing me to raise the matter so soon after I applied to do so last week. It is an appalling state of affairs. We want to see some action: we want to know that work has commenced.
  My constituents in Aycliffe have suffered enough. Although the road is fantastic, they have been treated very badly: too many commitments and promises have not been met. There should be some way of ensuring that road projects of that nature are completed properly.
  Like me, my hon. Friend the Minister is a chartered accountant by profession—we were once employed by the same eminent firm of chartered accountants. He knows as well as I that we would be given a sharp ticking off if the audit file was not completed properly and the work was not signed off. As managers, we had to ensure that the work was signed off properly—we were responsible for that—before it went to the partner. When the partner approved the work, there was a final signing-off procedure before the accounts could be issued.
  I think that the procedures that my hon. Friend and I employed in our accounting days should also apply to road projects. There should be a final signing-off procedure, which should be monitored and notified to Ministers. I am a great admirer of the agency principle: the agency system works well, as it provides a good operational focal point for Members of Parliament who want to address constituency problems.
  I do not wish to negate the role of the Highways Agency or arrangements between Ministers and agencies. However, Ministers should be informed about the performance of bodies such as the Highways Agency. There should be no final signing off until all the commitments given to residents have been met. I know that sometimes it is not possible to meet all residents' requirements, but commitments have been made to my constituents in Aycliffe that have not been met. It is imperative that, if commitments are made by agencies of the Government, those commitments should be met promptly and signed off by people who accept responsibility for them.
  Although it is not possible now to meet all the commitments that were made, I hope that we will get a commitment that I and my constituents in Aycliffe can be certain will be carried out. The residents of Aycliffe, especially of Gloster Ropewalk and the severely affected area in King's Ropewalk, deserve an apology for the way in which they have been inconvenienced. I hope that the Minister will also recognise the considerable work that the two local councillors have done. They assisted me and ensured that I was properly informed about what has been an unsatisfactory situation. I look forward to my hon. Friend's comments, and I hope that I will hear some commitments on which he can deliver.
  12.50 pm
  The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on his diligence and persistence in pursuing the cause of his constituents and bringing the issue before the House today. As he has just said, he has also worked closely with the local ward councillors.
  My hon. Friend has rightly expressed concern about how long it has taken us to meet the commitments we gave him and his constituents. As he described, we carried out a major improvement of the A20 as part of a road scheme to facilitate better access to the channel tunnel and the docks at Dover. My hon. Friend acknowledged that those improvements have enhanced the competitive position of the docks, and brought benefits to road users.
  To avoid delay to the main works, we decided to procure ancillary works in a separate contract. The ancillary works comprise items which are minor in the context of the main scheme, but which are, as I acknowledged, important to the residents of Aycliffe. The intention was that three outstanding items should be combined with other works and contained in one separate contract on value-for-money grounds.
  Those works included the provision of two small car parks; the removal of spoil to form a replacement playing field to make good the one that had been affected by road works; and the provision of field access at Court Wood. The provision of car parks was at the request of Dover district council, which agreed to pay the additional costs of providing car parks instead of the turning areas that were originally intended.
  Tenders were initially invited in May 1995, and we anticipated that work would be undertaken during the following few months. All the undertakings given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover over the years were given in good faith at the time, although events have frustrated them. The open space will be provided by using material previously excavated during the road construction and placing it in an area that was the former Eurotunnel compound. That work could not be carried out until Eurotunnel had completely vacated the site, but Eurotunnel required the site until May last year, some six months after the main A20 opened to traffic.
  The replacement open space area, which is to be infilled and landscaped, lies close to the main ventilation air intake for the channel tunnel. The electronic signalling system in the tunnel is extremely sensitive to dust. If dust were to enter it, the signalling could be affected, as well as the safe operation of the tunnel. Eurotunnel was concerned that no additional dust be generated by the work, and the original tender documents stipulated that.
  Normally, dust is controlled or minimised by watering, but that approach was called seriously into question last year during a period of very dry weather, and it looked likely that a drought order would be imposed. Given that situation, the Highways Agency decided that it would irresponsible to proceed with the award of a contract that needed large quantities of water and that effectively meant a delay to all the works.
  Tenders were re-invited in February 1996, and returned at the end of March. Agreement had been reached with Eurotunnel about the acceptable levels of additional dust generated, but concern arose over the magnitude of the potential costs of operating close to the tunnel ventilation shaft, and amendments to the tender documents had to be

  363
  issued, increasing the insurance requirements substantially and transferring the responsibility for the appointment of dust monitoring specialists to the contractor rather than the engineer for the contract.
  I acknowledge that those issues should have been addressed earlier. It is a matter of great regret that they were not so addressed, but when they did come to light, they could not be ignored. We had to be sure that we would not risk the safety of those using the tunnel or cause significant costs to arise if its safe operation had been affected. I appreciate that that is of little comfort to the constituents of my hon. Friend, who have had to wait before work on the car parks and replacement open space could be started. I apologise to them on behalf of the Highways Agency.
  The current position is that the revised tenders are due to be returned on 23 July. We shall pull out all the stops to evaluate the revised tenders, so that we can award the contract early in August. Work should be able to start on the site approximately four weeks after the award of the contract, and the contract period covers a total of 18 weeks. The successful tenderer will be required to produce a programme of work for the whole contract, and the contract specifies that, once work on each of the car parks commences, it shall be completed and the site cleared in nine weeks to minimise further discomfort and disruption for the local people.
  Clearly, with the benefit of hindsight, completion of the car parks could have been achieved sooner if they had been treated in isolation. The inclusion of all the work in one contract was agreed for good reasons, but it has undoubtedly caused delay. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall press on to see that the work is completed at an early date to try to make amends for some of our past failings.
  Mr. David Shaw: Will my hon. Friend also ensure that a proper monitoring procedure is followed as the contract takes place? Many of the residents in Aycliffe were enormously inconvenienced during the main A20 road works, and it would be helpful if his office were kept informed by a proper monitoring and control procedure to ensure that the project proceeds to plan.
  Mr. Watts: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to take a close personal interest in the progress of the contract; perhaps he will invite me to visit his constituency, when the works have been completed, so that we can have a proper, final signing off, as he suggested.

  Guy's Hospital
  12.57 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise again the future of Guy's hospital on the Floor of the House. I welcome the Minister, and I am grateful to him for his attendance. I do not wish to be unfair to him, but I am conscious that he has a double interest as a Minister in the Department of Health and as a south-east London Member of Parliament, some of whose constituents use the hospital. I know that some of them have contacted him as their constituency Member of Parliament about the future of Guy's hospital. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir R. Sims) asked me to give his apologies to the House today. The House will know that he, and other colleagues, have sought Adjournment debates on this subject in the past. The hon. Gentleman is normally a good ally and collaborator on these matters.
  I do not wish to take an antagonistic or confrontational approach today—the Minister and his colleagues have not done so in the past year—but I have some fundamental questions to put to the Minister that follow on from the more substantive debate about the structure of health services in south-east London that we had just over a year ago.
  I wish, first, to clarify the position as the public understand it and then, secondly, to express in words which have been given to me some of the continuing concerns. Thirdly, I shall ask some specific questions about specific issues.
  Guy's hospital has international renown as a teaching hospital. A medical and dental school is attached to it. It is based at London Bridge. Guy's is probably the most accessible hospital in London. It is literally on top of London Bridge station and at the junction of what will be two underground lines. There is the Northern line and there will be the Jubilee line extension, which we look forward to with much excitement. It is due to open in 1998. Work is taking place as I speak. As many buses turn round at the terminal as anywhere else. The hospital is across the bridge from the City, but it serves that area as well as south-east London. Guy's hospital has traditionally been one of south-east London's two principal hospitals. Over more than 270 years, it has built up an extraordinarily high reputation.
  Guy's hospital has moved with the times. Since the war, it has developed two completely new buildings. The third, newest and most controversial building is Philip Harris house, as some of us perhaps mischievously continue to call it. I understand that that name is slightly problematical for some. Philip Harris, now Lord Harris, who is a great friend of institutions in south London, came from Peckham. He donated a significant sum, which meant that the building bore his name. But he was not pleased with the Government's policy on its use. Money was withheld and the name may now be written out of the history books, as it were. I hope that we can continue to honour Lord Harris's interest.
  There is frustration for all of us who live, work, have our being in or use Guy's hospital. That is because there is a state-of-the art building within the health service that has taken almost as long to complete as the British Library. I do not put it in quite the same league as the library, for the library is in the premier league of delay,

  365
  whereas Philip Harris house is a first division delay. There is great frustration because it was built to include intensive care beds, specialist facilities and out-patient facilities, all to be integrated with Guy's tower and New Guy's house, as the third of the post-war developments.
  I gather that it is now hoped that the new building will be opened next year. The time of opening has regularly been put back. I am reminded of the worldwide call of Jews, "Next year in Jerusalem." It will be a real Jerusalem day when the Philip Harris building opens. We want to know whether it will open, whether it will be open soon, and whether it will open within the terms of the all-singing, all-dancing, all-functioning plan that was intended.
  Two building sub-issues deserve to be flagged up. Given the delays and escalating costs, I understand that the National Audit Office is investigating the cost overrun. That became apparent from an answer to one of my parliamentary questions some months ago. If the Minister can help us by outlining how far that investigation has reached, that would be helpful.
  The second sub-issue appears to be due significantly to a problem with copper piping. It would be helpful to know whether the problem has been resolved and will no longer delay completion.
  Philip Harris house has a crucial role in the overall equation. There is general agreement that some of the wards at Guy's hospital are no longer suitable for the purpose for which they were built. Hunt's house, for example, is an old building that is due to be knocked down. The community is sentimental about it, but is ready to see it go, for it is clearly not up to scratch. It is intended in part for that building to be replaced by Philip Harris house phase 3.
  I want to ensure that Philip Harris house will be fully used and to argue, against the background of the discussions that have taken place, that it should be used for the purposes for which it was intended. One failure over the past couple of years has been not to understand that we are at risk as a nation in spending money on health service capital plant in south-east London to the extent of about £150 million, some of which has been contributed in the form of donations to Philip Harris house, and then not using such facilities to the full. We are at risk also of spending even more money on Philip Harris house through a change of use that is in the pipeline. In addition, we are at risk of spending even more money to provide facilities elsewhere, which would not be necessary if we were to use Philip Harris house for its intended purpose.
  I seek assurances from the Minister that Philip Hams house will be open, at last, next year and that there are no further problems. I want an assurance also that it will be used for the purpose for which it was intended. An update on the NAO's position would be helpful.
  I have set out the relevant geography and history with one exception, which was the subject of a debate in the House on 24 June. There are advanced plans for the medical and dental school, which is now called the united medical and dental school of Guy's and St Thomas's hospitals, to be merged with the King's College hospital medical and dental school and King's college, London. I apologise for that mouthful. It is proposed that the merger will take place soon. The relevant Bill has been
  366
  recently before the Select Committee on Unopposed Bills. It will return to the House in due course; it has been given a Second Reading. It is not entirely uncontroversial.
  In outline, on the west side of a road that runs through the Guy's hospital site at London Bridge—it is called Maze Pond—there will be the medical school and its facilities. That is to be welcomed. On the east side, there will be the hospital plus the dental hospital and the dental school. That is relevant to the history of these matters, because whether the merger takes place, it is clear that there are plans to keep on the Guy's site a medical and dental presence. It is hugely important to the future of the hospital that the medical and dental school remains. There is no argument that it should not. At the same time, there are logical implications.
  On Second Reading of the King's College London Bill on 24 June, the Minister who then occupied the Government Front Bench supported the Bill and, understandably, did not then go into details of health service provision on the Guy's hospital site. I hope that today the Under-Secretary of State can answer the question that is in everyone's mind, which is: why, if we are to have one of the premier British and international medical and dental schools on the Guy's hospital site, as we wish, is it not logical that there should be a large out-patient department along with in-patient provision, which goes across the specialties, or at least some, as well as including elective beds for routine waiting list operations, such as orthopaedic operations and hip replacements? Medical students would then have the opportunity on site of seeing out-patients and in-patients.
  It is an obvious part of medical and dental training that there should be patients to see. I understand that the academic practice nowadays is to start clinical work at an earlier stage. Two years is not spent solely on theory, followed by practice. Obviously, it is less important that there should be beds available for dental students. At the same time, it is clearly important that there should be such provision for medical students.
  All the advice that I have been given and all the feelings that have been represented to me by the student body—I heard the feelings of that body recently and spoke about a week ago to student representatives from the medical and dental school—are that there is no wish for a split site for the medical and dental school and the hospital. It is nonsense for teaching not to be carried out on the same site as the home-base hospital.
  I seek an assurance that there will be sufficient beds at the Guy's site, not just for mental health patients—we welcome the 112 beds for elective patients from the local community—but for other medical and surgical work, which will make it logical for teaching to be carried out on the same site. Students should not have to shuttle around a triangle in congested south-east London—even if they use bikes—between the sites at Guy's and St. Thomas's and the King's College site at Denmark hill, Camberwell.
  All those who talk about the importance of students having a good education stress the importance of students having a settled existence on one site. Of course, students go off to do six-month stints in other hospitals to learn, for example, paediatrics or maternity practice. During their training, they will probably go abroad, perhaps to Africa, Russia, or the West Indies. During their six-month stints, they will probably go to district general hospitals outside

  367
  London. I am not talking about that. I am talking about teaching while studying at the medical and dental school. I should like an assurance on that.
  I am happy to tell the Minister that I do not dispute the fact that the Government were right that there had to be rationalisation of specialties in London. It would be nonsense to have a great, internationally renowned cancer department in Guy's hospital and to have another a mile and a half down the road at St. Thomas's and another a further mile and a half down the road from that. I have always disputed, however, that that means that all specialties—the tertiary care, as it is called—are put on one site, at St. Thomas's, and not on the Guy's site. I shall tell the Minister why that strategic plan appears to be in need of adjustment. I shall not now tackle head-on Government policy on rationalising health services in London, but I shall deal with the implications for the Guy's and St. Thomas's trust.
  For two reasons, it is better that some of the specialties remain on the Guy's site: first, it will be less expensive to the taxpayer to use to the full the buildings on which we have spent the money, and not to have to spend more public money on other buildings elsewhere. I am happy to go through the details of that with Ministers. Secondly, all the advice from health services in America and Scandinavia, and from independent management in this country, is that hospitals with 1,500 beds are not the best places to teach, to work as a nurse or doctor, or to be treated as a patient; that it is a much better hospital if it has 700 or 800 beds; and that economies of scale and the opportunity for best practice, both clinically and managerially, are achieved by a smaller number of beds than the theory of the 1980s suggested.
  Therefore, the implication is that there should not be more than 1,000 beds at the St. Thomas's site or the Guy's site. It also means that, to make the Guy's hospital site viable in its mix of uses—not across all the specialties, but to make out-patient provision hang together with teaching, elective beds, mental health, and the other services that are necessary, particularly intensive care and accident and emergency—some of the specialties should remain at Guy's. I am happy to debate what they should be, but there are strong arguments that cardiac or cardiological services should stay. I ask the Minister to consider objectively—taking into account the views of the community and its advice—whether that is the right course.
  Concerns have been expressed since we last debated the issue. There has been a real set-to in the past couple of months about gynaecological beds. In a letter dated 7 May, the chief executive said that there were no plans to withdraw the ability to admit gynaecological emergency patients at Guy's. By the end of the month, it was clear that emergency beds for gynaecology would be closed by 1 June. There were all sorts of semantics about what was going on. The confidence of the community is not enhanced by such to-ing and fro-ing, and it will be a real exercise to build up its confidence.
  Just the other day, I received a letter from the chief executive of my local health authority—Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority. He has always been extremely helpful and constructive, and I have always valued his help. He tells me that his authority has a tough job ahead to ensure that it can set a balanced budget for next year, because it does not have enough resources. Some £19 million or £20 million will have to
  368
  be cut. If the health authority is to have less money to spend, it will not be able to afford to spend as much money on services at local hospitals such as Guy's. We should not be spending that extra money anyway, if savings can be made on the Guy's site.
  That is all the more reason for listening to the voices in the community that are saying to the Government, "Please let's talk about and get right the balance of beds. Please let's talk about and get right the best use of the buildings. Please let's talk about and get right the outturn of the strategic change in health services in London," in an area where the population is increasing and where demand is increasing. The Government know that the community needs hospitals such as Guy's to be functioning fully.
  I end with a quotation from a letter that was sent to me. It is from somebody who wrote to the secretary of the nurses league and attended a commemorative event when the last Guy's nurses graduated just over a month ago:
  "May 11th must have been one of the most thought provoking days for all of us who experienced the overwhelming standing-room-only response in Southwark Cathedral and attended the AGM of the nurses league that afternoon. In fact, my thoughts have been so provoked that I am absolutely livid that Guy's was set up from the beginning, first as the flagship trust, and then as the fall guy in the NHS restructuring programme. Addresses to the AGM set out in detail events which affect the status of Guy's since 1991."
  The letter goes on to express the concern of a former nurse from Guy's who is not sure that the Government and the other parts of the health service will ensure that we have a fully functioning, viable hospital. For the reputation of the health service, for the sake of the best treatment available in Britain in some areas of medicine and for the local community, it is vital that Guy's hospital survives as a flourishing hospital.
  I hope that the Minister will give me reassurance. I hope that the Government are open to adjusting their current plan where evidence shows that it can be adjusted to the advantage of everybody.
  1.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on his success in securing the debate. I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond. As always, he spoke knowledgeably and eloquently about health services for his constituents. I can assure him that the Government are equally concerned that the best possible health services are available to the people of south-east London.
  The reorganisation of services at Guy's and St. Thomas's trust has generated strong feelings locally, and fears for the future of Guy's hospital. I recognised those concerns in the hon. Gentleman's speech. The debate provides me with the opportunity to explain to hon. Members the reasons why the changes are necessary, and the significant benefits to health care provision that they will bring. I hope that I shall be able to assure the hon. Gentleman that Guy's has an important and exciting future in the provision of local health care, medical education and research.
  I should also refer to the King's College London Bill, as the hon. Gentleman did, which my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) brought to the House for its Second Reading

  369
  on 24 June. The Bill is designed to bring about the merger of King's College hospital and the united medical and dental school. Although independent of the health service changes at Guy's hospital, the merger and the health service changes reinforce each other. There are close working partnerships between the NHS and London university, to ensure that plans are co-ordinated and achieve a coherent, consistent and properly managed change.
  During the earlier debate, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and others made various points, some of which the hon. Gentleman repeated today. I particularly noted what he said about the need for a sufficient number of in-patient beds to provide appropriate work experience for students, and about the undesirability of unnecessary travelling around south-east London. As I have said, there will be at least 112 beds in the new Guy's hospital, and a certain amount of travelling will be inevitable regardless of the configuration, because Cornwall house—which will be part of the development—and King's College, St Thomas's and Guy's are all at different sites. I noted the hon. Gentleman's general points, however, and I shall do my best to ensure that Ministers respond to what he and others said.
  The changes agreed for Guy's and St Thomas's were decided on against a background of changing patient needs. The aim is to develop the service to enable it to respond to those needs, and to rising expectations and medical advances. Guy's and St Thomas's between them are larger than is necessary to provide the services required by residents, and the specialist service for which some patients travel further. The split-site arrangement is both inefficient and detrimental to good patient care, notwithstanding the dedication and hard work of the trust's medical and nursing staff, to which, like the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, I pay tribute. The two hospitals are little more than a mile apart, and both are accessible from the surrounding area.
  The trust considered a range of options for amalgamating services to create stronger single departments, avoiding unnecessary duplication and freeing space for medical education and research. The agreed changes build on the best features of the two hospitals. The division of services between the hospitals has been chosen because it concentrates medical staff and facilities related to accident and emergency services in one hospital, which is the arrangement preferred by doctors. In-patient and specialist services are to be consolidated on the St Thomas's site, and Guy's hospital is to be developed at the leading edge of future medical technology and service delivery as a major centre for planned patient care, offering a comprehensive range of high-quality diagnostic and treatment services for patients who generally do not require an overnight stay.
  Essentially, Guy's will remain a major hospital site, focusing on planned care services. Those will include a range of out-patient, day-care and elective in-patient surgical services, centred in the new Guy's phase 3 development. The decision to use St Thomas's rather than Guy's as the site for the accident and emergency hospital was made for a number of reasons; the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the arguments. The local population served by the A and E department at St Thomas's is half
  370
  as large again as that served by Guy's, and twice as large during the working day. It is also easier for ambulances to get to, and there has recently been a major extension to it.
  Incidentally, as the hon. Gentleman may know, St. Thomas's started off on the site of London Bridge station, and Guy's developed next to it. Originally, the two hospitals were close together.
  Overall, we believe that the changes yield the most efficient and clinically coherent balance of services between the Guy's and St Thomas's sites. They give Guy's an exciting future as both a community-style hospital and a world-class centre at the forefront of new developments in medical education and research. Guy's will continue to be a substantial provider of health care. The ambulatory care centre will include a day-case surgery and other single-day treatments, a development centre for minimally invasive therapy including endoscopy, a wide range of out-patient clinics, a new diagnostic centre and a minor injuries unit. As I said earlier, the centre for planned surgery will contain some 112 beds, operating theatres and other facilities.
  I noted what the hon. Gentleman said about the distribution of specialties between the two sites, but obviously the intention is to achieve what the Government and, I hope, clinicians regard as the most sensible arrangement for specialties. Moreover, by giving Guy's that framework of care, we are putting it at the leading edge not only of medical research and technology—I hope that the combination will achieve that—but of the developing area of day-case surgery, which is expanding far more rapidly than the traditional services. I think that that opportunity is very important.
  The dental hospital and school at Guy's will continue to provide services for the local population, and also specialist services for patients from further afield. The unification of the medical schools, and the co-location of teaching and research facilities with clinical services on the Guy's site, will bring benefits to both patients and education and research. Obviously, the changes cannot happen overnight; accident and emergency services will remain at Guy's until building developments at St. Thomas's are completed, as will cancer and kidney treatment.
  In all, the developments at Guy's will mean no change for about 80 per cent. of visits by patients who currently look to Guy's. Clearly the hospital has a future, and we believe that it is a very exciting future.
  The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about the Guy's phase 3 development. There were two aspects to his concern—the future use of phase 3 in the light of service reconfigurations, and the management of phase 3 as a construction project. The phase 3 development was designed with out-patient services and research very much in mind, and under the plans it will be used substantially in line with its design. It will be seen as particularly well suited to the future role of Guy's hospital in providing a one-stop patient service, focused on out-patients and day-case patients, enabling diagnosis and decisions about treatment to be accomplished in a single visit.
  The trust estimates that 75 per cent. of the space involved in phase 3 will be used as originally intended. That includes the united medical and dental school. The use of the remainder, and any other space on the Guy's site not taken by the university, is a matter for the trust:

  371
  it must decide how the space that it retains can best be used. Trusts own and are fully responsible for the capital assets transferred to them, and bearing the cost and responsibility of ownership is a powerful incentive for them to make the best use of those assets.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Minister assure me that, as far as he is aware, it is 100 per cent. certain that the space that he described as not designated for a specific use will continue to be used for health service provision?
  Mr. Horam: I repeat that 75 per cent. of the phase 3 space will be used as originally intended.
  Let me bring the hon. Gentleman up to date on the construction of phase 3, as far as I am able. As he said, there have been a number of problems, but they are being dealt with as expeditiously as possible. The trust is negotiating an alternative commercial settlement, which will require the approval of the NHS chief executive and the agreement of the Treasury. That settlement is linked with proposed amendments to the fabric of Guy's phase 3 to reflect the change in the use of the building since its original design, and will also deal with other problems along the way. The contract will be separate from, but linked to, the commercial settlement.
  Detailed heads of terms have now been signed, and a programme of work has been agreed that should enable the building to be completed in a modified form by the summer of 1997. I understand the hon. Gentleman's scepticism about the dates that have been mentioned in the past, but I hope that this will be a red-letter day, if not a Jerusalem day, for Guy's. The target date for the move out of Hunt's house is also the summer of next year. As the hon. Gentleman knows, those developments will be examined by the Public Accounts Committee after the examination currently being conducted by the National Audit Office. I cannot help him in that regard, however, because the timing is a matter for the NAO rather than the Government. I do not know what the present situation is, but there will be an NAO report, followed, I have no doubt, by a PAC hearing.
  I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that, while a good deal of public money is being spent, it should be spent wisely, and we should not revise the plan in such a way that it is wasted. A good deal of money certainly is being spent—"not only the £150 million that includes Guy's phase 3, but a further £140 million. Most of it is being spent at Guy's on the private finance initiative project involving the united medical and dental school—we hope that that will be forthcoming in due course—and a further £117 million is being spent on the other PH project, admittedly involving St Thomas's more than Guy's. All that, plus the refurbishment and improvement along the way, shows the extent to which the Government believe that it is worth spending a lot of money on Guy's to give it the exciting future that we believe it has.

  Bolton Magistrates Court
  1.29 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise an important matter in my constituency: the need for new magistrates courts in Bolton. Whenever I have conducted an opinion poll in my constituency, law and order has always come out as my constituents' top concern and therefore the efficient administration of justice in Bolton is of the highest priority.
  The Government admitted the need for new magistrates courts in Bolton as far back as 1989. Everyone in Bolton had been confident that, by now, work would definitely have started on the new buildings. The present courts were built in the 1930s with, initially, just two courtrooms, but the increasing pressure of work has led to eight courtrooms being squeezed into the original building, with totally inadequate facilities for everyone involved. Not only the general public, but the staff who work there, the lawyers, the reporters and everyone concerned with the administration of the courts have to suffer intolerable conditions.
  I notice that page 4 of the Government's victims charter clearly says to the public:
  "You can expect if you have to go to court as a witness you will be treated with respect and sensitivity.
  You can ask to wait separately from those involved in the case."
  Sadly, in Bolton, that is not true. While waiting to go in, victims and their assailants are forced to sit hugger-mugger next to each other in the corridor outside the court, to the obvious distress of the innocent victims. The other day, a social worker was assaulted while waiting to go into court.
  The Association of Magisterial Officers has produced a leaflet emphasising the need for decent facilities. It says:
  "The physical environment of court buildings and courts are a significant factor in creating an effective atmosphere for local justice to be conducted. Each building should recognise and meet the differing needs of all users and should offer, as a minimum, the following: discrete waiting areas, separate facilities for families and children, non-smoking environment with designated smoking area, creches, public telephones, refreshment facilities, facilities for victim support and witness care, access and toilet facilities for wheelchair users, audio induction loops, facilities for nursing mothers and for baby changing, security arrangements which ensure a non-threatening and secure environment.
  A service which is community based must be accessible to all members of the community. The court should be located in a central position with good affordable public transport and adequate car parking for its users. All persons including those with physical disabilities must be catered for."
  The Minister will be aware of the information published by the Lord Chancellor's Department showing courts' performance, including one showing the basic quality of service. A sheet headed "1995 MIS indicator values … clerkship category: H" on the performance of Bolton and the quality of service shows that the average courtroom has 48 interview rooms, whereas Bolton has only 20 interview rooms, and that on average there are 38 telephones available for professional users, but only seven, on average, in Bolton. On average, there are 25 separate waiting areas for domestic and juvenile cases, but Bolton has none. There should be, on average, 25 waiting areas for victims and witnesses, but there are none in Bolton. On average, there are three facilities for

  373
  mothers and children in other courtrooms, but Bolton has none, so clearly Bolton is unable to give the quality of service.
  An overall score for quality of service is calculated by a complicated formula. It shows that Bolton has a score of only 607, compared with an average of 812. The best courts have a score of 1,221. Bolton's score is the lowest, so Bolton has the lowest quality of service of any court in clerkship category H. Therefore, without doubt, there must be an improvement in the service in Bolton.
  Bolton nevertheless runs its overcrowded courts extremely efficiently. Another sheet produced by the Department shows the cost per weighted case. Bolton comes out with a cost of £18.50 per case, compared with an average that I have calculated of £22.75. That compares with the high figure of £27.80 in nearby Bury, so clearly Bolton is providing its service efficiently. We are getting administration on the cheap in Bolton, at the cost of services that should be provided.
  The courtrooms in Bolton are in use for more than 7,400 hours per year—the highest in Greater Manchester, outside Manchester city itself. The average weighted cost per case for Bolton, which has 77,000 cases, comes out at £18.50. I calculate that, on the number of cases being transacted in Bolton each year, that is saving the Government more than £250,000 a year, so we have paid for our new courtrooms already.
  That is all to the massive credit of Bolton's excellent team, brilliantly led by Peter Dawson, the chief clerk to the court, his deputy Robert Walker and the excellent chairman of the bench, Mr. Frank Woods. Bolton deserves every favourable consideration by the Government, instead of which it has been let down abominably.
  More than seven years ago, the Government admitted the need for the new courts and we were delighted when, in 1994, we were given the go ahead. The Lord Chancellor kindly accepted my invitation to visit Bolton in autumn 1995 to lay the foundation stone. We set the date for 17 November 1995. In January that year, the Lord Chancellor's Department wrote to the council, somewhat ironically urging that there should be no slippage by anyone responsible in Bolton.
  The council acted promptly. Tenders were sent out soon after and, in August, tenders were opened from seven national companies that bid for the contract, worth approximately £8 million. In September, the consultative committee of the local authority and the Magistrates Courts Committee advised the successful tenderer that they had approved his tender at a cost of £7.5 million, which was well within the overall cost limit of £8.7 million.
  Those tenders were submitted in good faith by private sector firms that had incurred the cost of tendering, and the successful tenderer should have been awarded the contract, but the private sector was let down badly. All of a sudden, out of the blue—or perhaps it was out of the red—the Treasury stepped in to stop the contract and on 2 October 1995 the Lord Chancellor's Department wrote to the council to stop the tender being placed, literally on the day that that was going to happen.
  Surprisingly, the Lord Chancellor still expected the new courts to go ahead. Perhaps it was a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing, because I
  374
  received a letter dated 10 October from the diary secretary suggesting a new date for the Lord Chancellor to visit Bolton—Friday 26 April 1996. That suggested to us in Bolton that there had been a bit of a delay, but that we could look forward to matters still proceeding, with any new financing arrangements that might be decided. Can the Minister confirm that that was the position on 10 October when that letter was written? Or was it just that one hand did not know what the other was doing?
  On 20 December, the former Minister kindly met a delegation from Bolton, including Peter Dawson, and Roger Widdicar, then chairman of the bench, and the architect working in the town hall, who came to press for an early decision. A total of £600,000 of public money had already been spent on costs and fees. The former Minister led us to believe that the Lord Chancellor's Department was hoping that 10 successful schemes would be announced in the coming year. Leaving that meeting, we were fairly confident of progress although there had been a little delay. Sadly, the Lord Chancellor is still no nearer visiting Bolton. We would be delighted to see him, but we do not know when that might be; nor do we know if Bolton will ever get its new court.
  What on earth has gone wrong? It seems that the Government have run out of money. Yesterday's financial statement confirmed that the national debt has doubled to more than £350 billion since 1990 when the Prime Minister came to power. He was formerly a banker and perhaps his greatest achievement has been to persuade the money markets to accept such massive debt. Plainly, such spending had to stop and it was Bolton's great misfortune to be at the door just as the Government decided to slam it shut. It is doubly unfair to Bolton, whose thrift saved the money to pay for the new court by running the present system more efficiently than any other in Greater Manchester. If every Government operation were run as efficiently as Bolton's court system, there would be plenty of money to pay for a new court.
  It is said that the magic private finance initiative will provide for all our needs. The Government announced that the PFI would pay for the new court buildings, but they had not done their homework. At a meeting on 27 March it was felt that, even after six months, all would be well, but the Lord Chancellor's Department wrote on 10 April saying, in effect, "Oh dear, we can't do it—it's illegal." In a letter to Bolton's chief executive, Mr. David Adlington stated that
  "the Justices of the Peace Act specifically excludes capital expenditure from revenue grant."
  The letter stated that amending the Act would require primary legislation. The Government have not made time available for primary legislation, so where are we now? The Lord Chancellor's Department promised to give Bolton guidance by January of this year on how the PH would work, but we are still waiting for that guidance.
  I read in the papers about confusion the length and breadth of the country. A headline in The Observer on Sunday states:
  "PFI at risk of collapse, warns Clarke".
  What way is that for us to get our new magistrates court? Perhaps the Minister will tell us how we can expect to proceed.
  I understand that the Minister who is particularly responsible is the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was formerly a Home Office Minister.

  375
  In 1992, when he was at the Home Office, he visited the magistrates court and agreed that it was necessary to renew it. That Treasury Minister is therefore aware of the need. He is also responsible for the administration of the PFI. Yet he seems to be one of the problems preventing us from proceeding.
  On 27 November last year, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury wrote a "Dear Colleague" letter about the joys of the PFI. In the letter he states that the PFI is wonderful and under the heading, "Why is this better?" he says that
  "the public get the service that they need."
  Sadly, that is not happening in Bolton.
  As I have said, the weekend press was full of alarms and excursions and I understand that the Prime Minister had a heated meeting with the heads of major Departments to find out what had gone wrong. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor's Department was represented at that meeting. It certainly should have been, so that the Prime Minister could hear about what was happening in Bolton.
  How are we in Bolton to make our decisions? We have to use temporary accommodation to keep going. The Minister will be aware of that, because on account of it there was an application for £100,000 to meet costs. Bolton needs to provide a full service. The people there should not have to travel to Wigan, Rochdale, Bury or Salford because the Government have decided that the courts should be amalgamated in the new scheme. I had a letter a short time ago from Peter Dawson, who said that he felt that the amalgamation would result in the loss of local identity and control of magistrates courts. I fear that that is what we are experiencing. If the Government think that somehow the work load in Bolton can be transferred to courts elsewhere, I can tell them that that is certainly not the service that people in Bolton expect.
  Obviously, we need to provide a good local service. There is enough difficulty getting some witnesses to come to court without telling them that they might have to go to a different town. To do that would throw away the benefits of Bolton's efficient, low-cost service, and it would massively disadvantage the public.
  The PFI model projects a requirement in Bolton rising from 7,500 court hours a year to 9,500 a year over 20 years. It is clear that the Government do not expect any diminution in the demand for court services in Bolton. It might be thought that if law and order measures were working well we would not need all the court hours, but Government figures on the future projected need for court services in Bolton expect continued expansion.
  We need clear instructions and guidance on how to proceed, and I suggest that the Minister's best course would be to tell the Treasury that we should be excused from the PR. We were caught in the door at the last minute and I do not think that at that time anyone realised that it would be illegal to use the PR in Bolton. Excusing us would be the best course, if only on the ground that the best site for the court, which is next door to the existing one in Cheadle square, is owned by the local authority which has agreed to provide it. How could a PR for a site somewhere else, paid for by private sector funds, meet the cost of the local authority providing a site at Cheadle square?
  The Minister should demand that the Treasury reinstate the project and say that it is unsuitable for the PR. If he insists on the PFI, we want clear ground rules and a proper
  376
  timetable so that we can get on with the job. If he does not do that, I fear that we shall never have the new courts that Bolton justly deserves. The Government say that they want to improve justice, but is that just rhetoric? An answer to a parliamentary question on 4 July shows that the average delay in Greater Manchester in bringing indictable offences to court for completion was 112 days. That is far too long, but if we do not have efficient courts how can we reduce it?
  I understand that four other authorities are in the same difficulty as Bolton. They are Bedfordshire, Birmingham, Humberside and Newcastle upon Tyne. Therefore, the issue concerns not just Bolton. I congratulate all those people in Bolton, including Mr. Grogan and the town hall team, who have worked so hard. Frank Woods, the excellent chairman of the Bolton magistrates courts committee, recently sent a letter to the Bolton Evening News and I will end by quoting from it. It states:
  "We shall continue with the utmost determination to pursue our aim of achieving a new court complex for Bolton".
  I certainly exonerate the recently appointed Minister from the previous failings of his Department, of which the Government should be thoroughly ashamed. I look forward to hearing how we can proceed with confidence to have new court buildings in Bolton as soon as possible.
  1.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on securing a debate on this important issue and I welcome his support for the proposed scheme to provide a new magistrates court in Bolton. I commend him for the excellent way in which he presented his strong and powerful case. He is right to draw my attention again to the concern of his constituents about the efficient administration of law and order and to say that the Lord Chancellor's Department must do all that it can to secure that. And so we shall.
  I fully accept that the courthouse in Bolton has outgrown its original purpose. I understand that it was designed to have three courtrooms but that it now sits with up to nine courts and that further growth is expected. The extra courtrooms have been provided by adapting the building over the years and, as a result, the supporting facilities for all those who use the building are clearly no longer adequate. As my hon. Friend knows, I have not seen Bolton court, but I can imagine what it is like and if he invites me I will certainly go to Bolton to see it. He makes a strong case for a new building. Investment in new facilities is plainly needed and the case for a new courthouse in Bolton has been accepted. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his considerable efforts over the years to secure improved accommodation for the provision of local justice.
  As I said, we accept the case for a new courthouse in Bolton, but I must make one matter clear: it will be built under the Government's private finance initiative and in no other way. The search for privately financed solutions in place of publicly funded capital projects is now being taken up across the broad spectrum of public service activity, and the Government are committed to delivering the PR approach. That message was reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister only last week. Meeting the accommodation needs of magistrates courts

  377
  is no exception, and my officials have been working towards the launch of the entire forward building programme for the PFI route. So I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East that, contrary to his reading of the Sunday newspapers, the PFI is certainly not confused but is alive and kicking.
  The PFI represents a completely new approach. It presents challenges and uncertainties, although I understand that some people may feel apprehensive about the prospect of securing their new courthouse by this procurement route. There has, of course, never been an absolute guarantee of public funding under traditional arrangements, and even under the PH, delivery of the programme will always be subject to what the taxpayer can afford.
  Recognising that fact, my officials held a workshop with representatives of magistrates courts committees, local authority associations and the private sector. The workshop considered how the PH should be applied to magistrates courts to test how the PH could meet their particular requirements. The PH will involve the private sector owning the building, providing accommodation on a service basis, and accepting the transfer of certain risks in so doing. Crucially, the workshop exercise also showed that value for money can be achieved with this level of private sector involvement, while still allowing magistrates and their staff to carry out the courts' functions.
  I am well aware that the Bolton magistrates courts committee—with the metropolitan borough council and with other courts committees and authorities which have schemes in the building programme—are anxious to proceed. Sadly, however, in April officials had to notify local authorities and MCCs that implementation was being delayed while certain accounting arrangements were resolved, and I should like to take a moment to explain the background to that.
  Although local authorities have a statutory duty to provide magistrates courts with accommodation, either directly or by procuring from the private sector, my Department meets 80 per cent. of that cost by way of grant. That is true whether the cost involves a capital scheme or is met from revenue. The Justices of the Peace Act 1979 sets out the basis on which grant is provided and contains a provision that prevents revenue grant being used for capital purposes. We had to be sure that the revenue grant that would be available to authorities could be used for meeting PFI costs, and we have now researched the matter thoroughly.
  I am pleased to be able to announce today that that doubt has been removed. Proposals recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, which will ease the adoption of the PFI by local authorities, have the effect of clarifying the accounting position. I am also grateful to the members of the private finance panel, who are involved in discussions with industry and accounting organisations to pave the way for PFI projects to proceed. Draft regulations affecting local authority capital finance were published by the Department of the Environment earlier this week and deal with the particular accounting obstacle holding up implementation of the magistrates courts building programme under the PFI. I am therefore
  378
  satisfied that the accounting obstacle has been resolved, and I am pleased to announce that the PFI programme will now be launched.
  I mentioned that we have a building programme; in fact, there are currently 50 schemes awaiting funding. They will continue to be ordered into a programme to be delivered over a number of years. Although the private sector will be asked to make the initial investment, it will levy a charge for the provision of the required accommodation and related services.
  In the case of magistrates courts, there is little scope for those charges being met by raising money from other sources. Some income may be generated from catering, car parking or use of spare accommodation, but in practice the charge will continue to be met by the local authority and will require grant support from the Government. That is subject to public expenditure cash limits in the same way as capital has been. The rate at which the programme can be delivered is therefore subject to the availability of funding, as it always has been. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East, who is a shrewd and successful business man, will understand that.
  The delay of several months that has occurred while the accounting problem that I mentioned earlier was resolved will mean that some new courts will not be available as early as was originally planned. Obviously, I regret that. It must be recognised that those original plans would have had to be revised in any event, in response to the need to restrain public spending. Clearly those schemes that were close to being started will be most affected, and there is no question in my mind but that Bolton is one such scheme. In drawing up the revised programme, we shall be looking to meet those in the greatest need first, but we will take account of any delay that has been experienced. The implementation programme will be structured to allow lessons learnt from a "pathfinder" project to be applied to projects that will follow in phases. That will improve the chances of achieving successful agreements.
  I am pleased to be able to confirm that the Bolton scheme, which had indeed reached an advanced stage of planning, will be among the first group invited to prepare proposals. It is expected that authorities will be able to advertise some of those schemes this autumn and the remainder in the next financial year, according to the level of funding available. Once advertised, I expect negotiations to proceed through to contract and service delivery.
  I am keen to see Bolton, as with all magistrates courts committees in a similar situation, working imaginatively with the private sector to secure value-for-money projects which serve the community well. I commend the Bolton magistrates courts committee for the efficient way in which it is running that difficult court building, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East has clearly explained in this debate.
  For Bolton, working imaginatively means that the magistrates courts committee will need to review its needs in the light of its current and expected work load and of any organisational changes that are likely to take place. In particular, it will need to take account of the planned amalgamation with neighbouring MCCs, and the likely effect of that on the need for and location of new court facilities across the new MCC area.

  379
  That review will then form the basis of a revised business case, to be sent to my officials by the end of September with a draft PFI brief and advertisement, to enable them to ensure that those who face the most difficult operational problems and are best able to demonstrate that they are ready to proceed with the PFI are given priority. I shall of course listen to the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East—which will no doubt be made in September, hot on the heels of any proposals made by the Bolton magistrates courts committee.
  It is therefore still our position that the new Bolton magistrates court will proceed, but it will proceed under the PFI scheme. The costs and fees that have already been incurred in bringing the scheme to the current level, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East referred, need not be wasted.
  As I have already mentioned, the PFI will require a new and more imaginative approach by all those concerned if we are to reap the full benefits of involving the private sector. It will not be sufficient simply to pick up the threads of existing schemes. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East to take this message back to his magistrates courts committee: it is not merely a matter of dusting off the existing scheme—we are now looking for a more imaginative scheme, and for more active involvement of the private sector to be apparent in the proposal that is made in September.
  Time and again, the private sector has demonstrated its capacity to produce exciting and imaginative solutions to problems. Our approach to the PFI must be geared to ensuring that we enjoy the benefits that will flow if the private sector is given a free reign to apply those skills to the problem of meeting the needs of the magistrates court service.
  380
  This debate has therefore come at a pivotal moment in provision of magistrates courts. The theoretical obstacles have been put behind us, and we are about to embark on the practical challenge of delivering the programme. Each proposal will be different and will have to be assessed on its merits. As that will be new to everyone concerned, my officials will provide local authorities and MCCs with active support, which will ensure that lessons learnt are collectively available for the benefit of all.
  Detailed guidance and procedures have been prepared since the intention to pursue the PFI was announced. We shall also be arranging a number of seminars to help those involved to get off to a sound start and to avoid any further delay. I therefore genuinely hope that it will not be too long before the Bolton project can proceed, and we are celebrating the opening of a new magistrates courthouse in Bolton. It will, of course, be a tribute to the tireless work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East, who has ensured that the critical importance of the Bolton project has been kept at the forefront of everyone's mind.
  It being two minutes to Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF LONDON (APPROVED PREMISES FOR MARRIAGE) BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  BELFAST CHARITABLE SOCIETY BILL [Lords]
  Order for consideration read.
  Considered; to be read the Third time.

  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To he read the Third time upon Tuesday 16 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    BBC World Service
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the service provided to British interests abroad by the BBC World Service. [35150]
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to ensure that the BBC World Service continues to provide a full range of language services. [35165]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): The World Service is an important national asset and makes a very valuable contribution to the promotion of the United Kingdom overseas.
    The Government attach great importance to the maintenance of successful language services within the World Service.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the World Service has been able to preserve standards of truthful news, decency and balanced discussion, which have made it our most effective foreign ambassador, is the Minister aware that the cuts in the capital and revenue programme, allied to fundamental reorganisation, will inevitably lead to the curbing of some language services? Why do the Government feel obliged to upset something that is working perfectly well in our interests when there are so many things that require urgent attention?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend, with the best of intentions, is getting two things muddled up. The Government are not cutting the financing of the World Service by anything like as much as the cuts to the diplomatic wing would have suggested. We have suffered a cut of 7 per cent. in the diplomatic wing and of only 4.7 per cent. in funding for the World Service. The reorganisation of the World Service within the BBC is a matter for the BBC governors, and we have sought—and received—assurances that those changes will not in any way diminish the value and quality of the services provided.
    Mr. McKelvey: Hon. Members on both sides of the House are worried that the Minister seems to be accepting the situation and is not concerned about the continuation of the service. There is widespread concern that the service will be harmed in some way. Will the Minister seriously consider stopping the reorganisation now with a view to having proper consultation with the members of staff—they have never been consulted—Ministers and representatives of those millions of beneficiaries throughout the world who fear that some harm will be done to the service? Will the Minister give that assurance?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are as concerned as any hon. Member that the quality of the World Service should be
    382
    maintained. We are in close consultation with the BBC governors. We intend to ensure that the quality of the World Service is maintained, and we will do all we can to ensure that the governors stick to their promise to us that that will be the case.
    Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend the Minister has just said that the reconstruction of the World Service is a matter for the BBC governors. Surely the essential difference is that the World Service is funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, whereas the rest of the BBC is financed by the licence fee. Is my hon. Friend aware there is very great worry on both sides of the House about how the separate ethos and identity of the World Service can be maintained if all news is to be covered by BBC Worldwide and all production is to be by BBC Features? Surely in those circumstances it will be extremely hard for BBC World Service to maintain that separate identity which is at the heart of its success.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I can assure my right hon. Friend that the mood of the House is not lost upon me. I reiterate as firmly as I can that the Government are determined to ensure that the quality of the World Service will be maintained. He is right to say that, because it is funded by grant in aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we have a certain leverage in that regard—and we shall most certainly use it.
    Mr. Shore: The Minister's reply is not sufficient to satisfy the House. Of course the Government should be concerned about the future of the World Service, but the point has already been made that the World Service is financed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office through grant in aid, and a proposal to merge the World Service with, or to swallow it up in, the domestic-based BBC is a major step that nobody who studies these matters would welcome.
    The matter does not concern only the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministers in that Department. Ultimately, the grant in aid is provided because the House approves it. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the proposal by the chairman and the director-general of the BBC will now be suspended until there has been proper, full consultation in which the House of Commons is able to take an active part.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As I said earlier, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is in close consultation with the governors, Mr. Birt and the BBC to ensure that the quality of the World Service is not affected by the proposed changes—at present they are proposals, not a fait accompli. We shall look closely to ensure that their stated purposes—to make the World Service cost-efficient and good value for money and to adapt it to the new digital systems—are the outcome. There is no question of merging the World Service in such a way as to remove its particular character. We shall do everything we can to ensure that that is not the case. As it is a Foreign and Commonwealth Office grant in aid service, we have a considerable weight that we intend to use to the full.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Can my hon. Friend name one more cost-effective and successful service than the BBC World Service?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: If my hon. Friend is referring to other broadcast services, the current World Service is absolutely at the top of its league. However, times change and new systems have to be introduced and a constant search for continuing cost-efficiency must be encouraged.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister will be aware of the well-known military adage that one should never reinforce failure, the corollary of which is to reinforce and exploit success—in this case, the acknowledged success of the World Service. If the World Service is so successful, why is it constantly engaged in a battle for funding? Can he think of any other activity funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that gives such good value, pound for pound, as the BBC World Service?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a former colleague on the Defence Committee, does well to use a defence parallel. We have done a great deal for the World Service. Since the Government have been in office, direct expenditure on the World Service has increased by 50 per cent. in real terms. We are extremely conscious of the value of the World Service and we shall continue to do everything in our power to ensure its continued quality. It goes out over 900 re-broadcasting stations and it is heard all over the world. We are constantly introducing new languages—we recently introduced Uzbek and Macedonian, for example. It is expanding and doing well. It is no good Opposition Members attacking us. I should like to know what guarantees they can provide on Treasury funding for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or any other Government Department.
    Mr. Batiste: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that those who, like Mohammed al-Masari, incite racial hatred will not be given the opportunity to peddle their evil propaganda on the World Service?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It would be absolutely outrageous if Mr. al-Masari were to use the World Service or any other British service to peddle incitement to dissent in the middle east.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Why does the Minister not ask John Birt how costs can possibly be cut by merging the BBC World Service with the rest of the BBC? How can it be cheaper to buy in programmes from the rest of the BBC when BBC World Service production costs are already 36 per cent. cheaper than the BBC's and its overheads are 44 per cent. cheaper? Does he recall that President Mandela said of his years in prison:
    "what we really wanted"—
    was—
    "the BBC World Service".
    Would not the week of President Mandela's state visit be a good time to tell John Birt to drop the proposals that threaten the distinctive ethos of the BBC World Service that has given comfort to supporters of democracy around the world and brought respect for Britain from the world?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That is a typical example of the right hon. Gentleman peddling trouble before anything has happened. Of course we are going to ask Mr. Birt those questions. Of course we shall seek reassurances
    384
    from him that the World Service will not be in any way worse as a result of the changes. The right hon. Gentleman is making assumptions about what is being proposed. He says that what is proposed will be less effective than the arrangements under which the World Service has been operating, but he has not seen the detailed proposals. We have only just seen them, and we are in close consultation with the BBC to ensure that they are effective. We will not tolerate Mr. Birt, the BBC or anybody else fiddling with the World Service in such a way that it gets worse rather than better.
    Mr. Walden: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is the second time in several months that we have discussed the World Service? There must be something worse, which is performing rather less well, to which people could devote their attention. I understand that the Government have invested an awful lot of money in the World Service. Is it not time to come to a self-denying ordinance with Mr. John Birt and leave the World Service alone for a while?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I can only repeat to my hon. Friend that we are in detailed discussions with Mr. Birt and others at the BBC. We must look for continued efficiency and be prepared to change as BBC transmission techniques change. We cannot just stick our heads in the mud. We are determined that the World Service should continue to provide the marvellous representation of this nation that it always has.

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what responses he has received to the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper on the intergovernmental conference. [35162]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The way in which the British case has been put in the White Paper has been welcomed by many in this House and more widely. The member states, of course, hold a variety of views on the proposals.
    Mr. Home Robertson: As a citizen of a country that has fairly successfully shared a common currency and, indeed, a common supreme court with its neighbours for 289 years without losing the identity of either Scots law, as the Secretary of State should know, or the pound Scots, may I urge the Secretary of State to be less timorous about the concept of a single European currency and a European social charter? For a start, why does he not face up to the nationalist backwoodsmen behind him, who want to challenge the authority of the European Court of Justice?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am rather puzzled by the comparison that the hon. Gentleman has just drawn. The success of the union of these islands has been because we have created a single state. I did not appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was in favour of a united states of Europe.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the first requirements of the IGC's success is that the Commission and the nation states

    385
    honour the opt-outs that were obtained at Maastricht? In view of the disgraceful way in which the Commission and other nation states have acted in complete breach of trust by bringing forward the working time directive, will he ensure that the Government say that, until we get an undertaking that the treaty will be amended, we shall, as soon as we hear of the judgment, bring in a policy of general non-co-operation in Europe?
    Mr. Rifkind: Were those circumstances to arise, the proper course of action would be to do what we would do if our courts ruled that an Act of Parliament should be interpreted differently from how Parliament originally intended. In those circumstances, one observes the law but uses one's energies to change it back to what it was always intended to be.
    Mr. Robin Cook: How can the Government claim that excessive working hours have nothing to do with health and safety when all the evidence confirms that accidents rise sharply with longer hours? The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the Government are currently challenging the beef ban before the European Court of Justice. Would not this be an odd time to undermine the authority of the court by rejecting its ruling on the 48-hour working week? Will he therefore assure us that the Government will accept the court's ruling on the working time directive, and will he spare Britain the humiliation of being the only country with a Government prepared to allow employees to be forced to work longer hours against their will?
    Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that Britain is the only major country of the European Union where unemployment has been falling consistently in the past two years. That is because we have resisted imposing foolish burdens on industry, which may look good on paper but which result in people who would otherwise be employed being jobless. The House will note that the Labour party is more concerned with imposing burdens on industry than helping the cause of greater employment.
    Mr. Garnier: Has my right hon. and learned Friend received any responses to the White Paper along the lines that there should be further qualified majority voting in subjects not currently covered by it? Will he direct all his energies at the IGC to ensuring that QMV is not extended, and reject any suggestion that, unless QMV is extended, the European Community will grind to a halt?
    Mr. Rifkind: Qualified majority voting already applies to wide areas of European Union activity, and I agree that there are no grounds for extending it. The argument often used by Labour Front Benchers, that enlargement of the European Union makes more qualified majority voting essential, is bogus. It has been produced by a total absence of analysis by those who advocate it.

    Burundi
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EU partners about the situation in Burundi. [35163]
    Mr. Rifkind: We and our European partners are deeply concerned about the situation in Burundi and support the efforts of ex-President Nyerere to negotiate an agreement between the parties.
    Mr. Turner: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. He will be aware of the atrocities and genocide taking place in Burundi. Some 100 people a day are losing their lives and 150,000 people have died in the past three years. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the British Government will take firm action in support, and with the support, of the international community? Will he guarantee that they will not allow Burundi to suffer the same fate as Rwanda suffered and that we shall have international action now?
    Mr. Rifkind: No one could be indifferent to the hundreds of thousands of people massacred in Rwanda. We are all conscious that comparable risks exist today in Burundi. That calls for effective preventive diplomacy to try to anticipate those concerns. At this stage, we must take action by both diplomatic and other means to ensure that such ghastly atrocities are not repeated. Much good work is being done, and the United Kingdom will certainly play its part in the diplomatic and other efforts currently being made.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not a sad fact that Burundi cannot look to the EU for effective succour? Is not the EU's projected draft budget for humanitarian and food aid set to drop by 1 per cent. this year, whereas the projected budget for Commission administration will rise by 5 per cent., the Mediterranean countries' budget will rise by no less than 48 per cent., and the common agricultural policy, which keeps out the food of primary producing countries, is set to rise by 2.48 per cent.? Those are hardly the priorities that will help Burundi.
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the general thrust of my hon. Friend's point. Burundi's main requirement at the moment, however, is not economic help but help of another kind. I endorse the view that the European Union must readjust its priorities to the real needs of those it tries to help.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Foreign Secretary is right when he says that Burundi's needs at the moment are not economic, but may I remind him that, when Rwanda drifted into genocide, the world stood back and let it happen? Words are not enough in this case. The Foreign Secretary has already given some credit to the efforts of former President Nyerere. Do the British Government actively support the peace initiative of the Organisation of African Unity and the possibility of a military force entering Burundi? What practical steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to ensure that, at United Nations level, practical action is taken that will make a real difference on the ground? In Rwanda, such action was lacking.
    Mr. Rifkind: We welcome the action of any responsible persons or organisations that might help in this process. We believe that any major international initiative should be under the authority of the United Nations, but there are various ways in which that authority could be provided.

    Kashmir
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recent elections in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [35164]
    Mr. Rifkind: The complex conditions in the Kashmir valley make it impossible to give a clear-cut view.
    Mr. Heppell: As the Minister has learnt from a report by a British official at the Delhi high commission of the intimidation and coercion that is taking place in Kashmir, does he think that we should send a clear message to the Indian Government that we will not accept as free and fair an election that is conducted at the point of a gun?
    Mr. Rifkind: We believe that, in Kashmir, proper free and fair elections can play a part in leading the way from violence toward dialogue and a political settlement of these difficult problems. Elections must be free and fair if they are to carry the authority that we should all like.
    Mr. Waller: In view of the many well-documented allegations that have thrown doubt on the outcome of the elections recently held in Jammu and Kashmir, will my right hon. and learned Friend urge the Government of India to admit international observers to the territory for the forthcoming elections that they plan to hold for an assembly in Jammu and Kashmir, so that an impartial assessment can be made then as to whether they are free and fair?
    Mr. Rifkind: Permitting observers from other countries to attend is always a valuable way of satisfying the international community of the freedom and fairness of elections. That will be a matter for the Indian Government to decide, but of course it would make an important and significant contribution to the credibility of any electoral process in such a sensitive area.
    Mr. Madden: Why is the Foreign Secretary taking this view of the recent elections? It flies in the face of numerous reports by the international media, including The Guardian and The Independent, which reported enormous intimidation and coercion by the 700,000-strong Indian forces in Kashmir of the people of Kashmir. Why on earth is he refusing to publish the report of the British official at the Delhi high commission, who is paid by British taxpayers? British taxpayers are entitled to know whether, in the view of that official, the recent elections were free and fair.
    Mr. Rifkind: We are well aware of the reports of undue pressure in the elections, and we are certainly not in a position to dismiss them as unfounded. This is a complex and difficult issue, but I freely agree with the hon. Gentleman and others who have expressed concern about whether the elections can be seen as acceptable by the normal standards that would be applied in such circumstances.

    United States of America
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of relations between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. [35166]
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Relations between the United Kingdom and the United States remain excellent.
    Mr. Fabricant: Bearing in mind the excellent news on television this lunchtime of a £1.7 billion investment from Korea which is to create 6,000 jobs in south Wales, and further bearing in mind the fact that the United States economy is going through a period of growth, as is that of the United Kingdom—unlike continental Europe, which is going through recession—is not the policy of the British Government, not to have a blinkered approach in our relationship with Europe, but to strengthen British and American and, indeed, far eastern relations, right?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It is a primary purpose of the Government's policy that we should encourage free trade. We look especially to the United States as a major partner in that exercise and, as my hon. Friend rightly said, the sooner we can attain the World Trade Organisation target of free trade throughout the world, the better it will be for British industry and the British people.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Have the Government had the opportunity to discuss with the American Administration the outcome of the recent Israeli election? Have they had the opportunity to draw to the attention of the American Administration the excellent statement on the middle east made by the Heads of Government in Florence? If the Government have not had that opportunity, will they make it clear to the American Administration that we want them to make it clear to Mr. Netanyahu, during his visit to the United States, that we expect the new Israeli Government to abide by the international agreement if there is to be peace in the middle east?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The United States Government and Her Majesty's Government are determined to see the peace process in the middle east continue successfully. We are watching very closely the effects of the election of Prime Minister Netanyahu, which I trust will not in any way inhibit the process of the talks and the move towards peace. We will have to watch that as time progresses.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend speculate on how relations between Britain and America would have been affected if we had given up our independent deterrent, as recommended by the leaders of new Labour?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I must admit that there are very few things that I would prefer to speculate on. It would be an horrific prospect, and I am delighted that it did not occur.

    Gibraltar
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to secure an end to the delays in crossing the border between Gibraltar and Spain since the new Administration have taken office in Gibraltar. [53167]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): I saw the border queues for myself when I was in Gibraltar last week, and the delay on that day was well over an hour. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I have made strong representations to the Spanish Government about the delays, and we will continue to do so as firmly and as often as is necessary to put an end to this disgraceful situation.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Minister do something in the forums of the world to make it clear to other countries that it is not the Spanish position on this matter that it right, but the British and Gibraltarian position on this matter that is right? The Minister could do that by using his diplomatic skills and by using the diplomatic skills of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Will the Minister make a start by raising the issue at the intergovernmental conference later this year?
    Mr. Davis: My right hon. and learned Friend spoke to the Spanish Foreign Secretary, Mr. Matutes, a little while ago. Since that discussion, there has been an improvement at the border, but it is not good enough because it is not reliable—it has to be reliable to allow the economy of Gibraltar to progress properly.
    We have raised the matter with the European Commission, which understands our position, and with other countries in the European Union. We have also raised the issue in other forums—for example, we have stood by Gibraltar in the United Nations. We have taken up this matter in a variety of forums, and we will continue to pursue the interests of Gibraltar as long and as far as is necessary.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction and acceptance of European proof identity cards as valid travel documents would be one way to reduce frontier delays at any frontier within the European Union? In this respect, Gibraltar is one step ahead of the United Kingdom—we are still talking about identity cards, but Gibraltar has them. What measures will the Government take to try to persuade the Spanish authorities to accept identity cards as valid travel documents?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend has a valid point. I have taken up this matter with the European Commission, and it has said that the identity card is acceptable. However, not surprisingly, the Spanish Government have not accepted that, and we are starting that process right now.

    Council of Ministers (Majority Voting)
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what study his Department has conducted on the advantages and disadvantages of majority voting in the Council of Ministers of the European Union. [35168]
    Mr. David Davis: We have considered the issue carefully in consultation with other Government Departments. Our conclusion is that majority voting already applies in those areas of the treaty where it is needed—for example, in the single market and in external trade policy. We do not see the case for extending qualified majority voting.
    Mrs. Jackson: Is it the case that, in the fortnight that the Government played hard to get, they used their veto no fewer than 61 times on issues as diverse as cut flowers and the European Year Against Racism? Does the Minister agree that to achieve enlargement of the European Union, some reform of the structural funds is necessary and that agreement on that will not be possible without some change in voting in the Council of Ministers? Is it not plain silly for the Government not to agree to any change in this area? Does not that expose the hypocrisy of the Government's view that they are really in favour of enlargement of the European Union?
    Mr. Davis: That argument is completely bogus. If there were a Labour Government—an improbable occurrence—and they pursued the idea that financing limits and financing matters should be conducted on qualified majority voting, they would be the only Government in Europe following that line.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever arguments were advanced in the past in favour of extending qualified majority voting, practice has shown that, whenever we take that step, this country's interests are inevitably overridden by our European partners? Therefore, will he assure the House that the Government will resist any attempt to extend QMV and will maintain our veto?
    Mr. Davis: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will resist any attempt to extend QMV. However, I do not agree with one aspect of his remarks: qualified majority voting was an important component in the development of the single market. It has proved an important tool in that respect, but that is as far as it needs to go.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister recognise that, in other areas of the Union's work—particularly with regard to the common agricultural policy—the Government would not have been able to reach agreement in discussions with their partners but for qualified majority voting and eventually a simple majority? Does he accept that the proposal means that, if the Government oppose qualified majority voting on a similar issue in future, they will be looking both ways?
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that that problem arose in the first place because of qualified majority voting.

    North and South Korea
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when and with whom he last had discussions on relations between North and South Korea. [35169]
    Mr. Rifkind: I discussed this with my Group of Seven-Group of Eight colleagues at the summit in Lyon.
    Mr. French: As a result of today's announcement, my right hon. and learned Friend will have in mind the enormous importance of South Korean inward investment in the United Kingdom. Does he recognise also the South Koreans' deep desire to establish a more sensible and reasonable working relationship with the North Koreans and to deal with the obstacles that stand in their way? Will he redouble his efforts to ensure that more open dialogue is established with North Korea in the interests of stability in the whole of east Asia?
    Mr. Rifkind: Our congratulations go to the Welsh Office and to all those who were instrumental in acquiring that massive inward investment from South Korea in the United Kingdom. It is significant that more than 50 per cent. of all Korean investment in the European Union comes to the United Kingdom. That demonstrates the attractiveness of our economy and of the environment that we have created. It proves yet again why unnecessary burdens, such as the social chapter, would only damage this country's well-being.
    As to the second aspect of my hon. Friend's question, I agree that dialogue with North Korea can only be helpful. The recent proposals from the United States point in that direction.
    Mr. Flynn: Although I congratulate all those involved, including the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency and especially the Labour-controlled Newport borough council on its far-sightedness in preparing the site for this gigantic investment, and although the investment is welcome and will have a marvellous effect on my constituency, does the Foreign Secretary recall that Newport is the cwm silicon—the silicon valley—of south Wales, because the British company, INMOS Ltd., set up and prospered in south Wales until it moved from that site to Italy and France, which have both the social chapter and the minimum wage?
    Mr. Rifkind: That may be so, but the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the bulk of investment in the European Union—whether it is from Korea, the United States, Japan or elsewhere—comes to the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind if he has his constituents' interests at heart.

    European Community (Legal Integration)
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his EC counterparts concerning the legal integration of the Community member states. [35170]
    Mr. David Davis: A number of legal issues are under discussion in the intergovernmental conference.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the institutions believe that it is their duty to pursue legal integration of the member states at the expense of the member states' discretion in important policy areas? May I congratulate him and the Government on the pan of the White Paper "A Partnership of Nations" that refers to the excessive interpretation of articles of the European treaties? Is it not our duty as a Government, just as we have rolled back the frontiers of the state at home, to start to roll back the frontiers of the state in Europe?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend has explained what is known as the federalist ratchet and the Government are committed to stopping that ratchet. He referred to the White Paper in which we announced that we will shortly publish a memorandum on the European Court of Justice that will include proposals, for example, to allow rapid amendment of EU legislation when the court has extended the interpretation beyond what was intended and for an ECJ appeals procedure.
    My hon. Friend's second point is most powerful and we will seek changes to those articles of the treaty that have been stretched historically, including 118a, 100a and 130s.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister stop using the intemperate language that he uses to keep his right-wing Back Benchers happy? Does he not realise that the Confederation of British Industry and many leading companies in this country are increasingly concerned about the negative attitude to Europe that comes from the Minister and his colleagues?
    Mr. Davis: I can think of nothing that was intemperate in my language in my previous reply. Some of our measures—for example, resistance to the European Court becoming the supreme court—have been addressed publicly by Alain Juppe, the Prime Minister of France.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the CBI; perhaps he should read the speech by Adair Turner shortly after the leader of the Labour party tried to opt for a pick-and-choose social chapter. Mr. Turner pointed out to the leader of the Labour party that he could not have that: he could take an opt-out, as we have, or go all the way, as the Labour party intends.
    Mr. Devlin: Why is it so rare for the Government to point out to the public that the European Court of Justice works substantially in the British national interest, because it enforces single market decisions against other countries, or that the British Government have won far more cases in the European Court than they have lost?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right in one respect, but wrong in another. Clearly, he has not looked recently at the White Paper, which points out that very fact. I mentioned the federalist ratchet earlier. We have supported a case at the court about an attempt by the Commission to extend the competence of the Community to accede to the European convention on human rights. The European Court judged that it could not do so.

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of countries which share the Government's principal priorities for the IGC. [35171]
    Mr. David Davis: The United Kingdom's priorities for the intergovernmental conference are set out in "A Partnership of Nations". In many cases, we have substantial support, but in others less so. The Government will not sign up to an IGC outcome that does not satisfactorily meet our objectives.
    Dr. Wright: Did the Minister happen to see the Gallup poll in The Daily Telegraph this week, which showed that, for every one person who thought that the British position in Europe had been strengthened by the recent bout of non-co-operation, five people felt that it had been weakened? Can the Minister assure the House that it is still British foreign policy in Europe to seek to win allies? If so, can he explain to some of his Back Benchers that that agenda will be advanced not by seeking yet more spectacular and embarrassing failures but by some solid negotiating successes?
    Mr. Davis: Unlike the Labour party, the Government do not run their policy by ballot—[Interruption.]—by opinion polls, by focus groups or other such follow-my-leader methods. What was important about the non-co-operation policy—the Labour party clearly does not care for this—was the fact that it protected an industry of 650,000 people. Non-co-operation delivered protection for that industry and will continue to do so in the coming year.
    As for the IGC, we shall of course develop allies in areas. I have only recently talked about Alain Juppé supporting us on the question of the European Court. There will be others too, as we shall see, as the IGC develops.
    Mr. Lidington: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, although the Government will not seek isolation in the forthcoming negotiations, they would not be afraid of isolation if that were to prove necessary to defend Britain's vital interests and to secure changes in European treaties in the interests of those whom we are sent to this place to represent?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is completely right. Unlike the Labour party, if it is necessary to take tough policies, we shall take them.
    Ms Quin: On Britain's role in the European Union, what does the Minister of State make of the reported comments of Governor Patten of Hong Kong that he wants a campaign to put Britain back at the heart of Europe? Given that the Prime Minister, when he came to office over five years ago, said that it was his aim to put Britain at the heart of Europe, does it not follow that Governor Patten thinks that the Prime Minister has spectacularly failed in his objective?
    Mr. Davis: Exercising leadership in Europe is not a matter of giving in to every politically correct European idea. One of the problems that faces Europe is that, since 1990, the popularity of the European Union inside the countries of that union has fallen systematically. That can be said of every member state. The reason is that Europe has not met the needs of the members of Europe, and first and foremost in terms of employment, where the rest of Europe could do well to follow our example.

    Cyprus
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had relating to (a) Cyprus's entry into the European Union and (b) the occupation of northern Cyprus by Turkish troops. [35172]
    Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I had talks with President Clerides of Cyprus on 19 June. These and other subjects concerning Cyprus were discussed then.
    Dr. Spink: I pay tribute to aspects of Britain's role in Cyprus over the past 30 years, but will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the Security Council resolution of 29 June, which rejected the status quo? Does he not believe that we should make more positive moves towards the total demilitarisation of Cyprus?
    Mr. Rifkind: We fully support the call of the United Nations Secretary-General for both communities to work towards making political progress. As I am sure my hon. Friend will have noted, we recently appointed Sir David Hannay as the United Kingdom's special representative on Cyprus, to work with all those who are seeking to resume a dialogue in Cyprus and work towards political progress in an area that has seen markedly little progress over the past quarter of a century. It is a matter of great concern that Cyprus has failed entirely to make any progress in resolving its political difficulties. We believe that major new efforts are needed.
    Mr. Faulds: Would it not be advisable if the majority of Members of the House of Commons made some effort to prove themselves somewhat less ignorant about the history of Cyprus over the past 50 years? Is it not the case—[Interruption.]—if I could have the Secretary of State's attention—that it was Archbishop Makarios who, in 1963, aborted the constitutional arrangements of 1960, which had given the Turkish Cypriots certain rights? Is it not also the case that it was 11 years later, in 1974, that the Turkish army intervened, as it was entitled to do under the treaty of guarantee of 1960, and that it is time we became a little more acquainted with the history of Cyprus and tried to bring about a more fair and justified resolution?
    Mr. Rifkind: The House, as usual, benefits from the hon. Gentleman's historical knowledge.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I warmly welcome the appointment of Sir David Hannay to carry out that crucial task. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to condemn the rearmament that has gone on on both sides of Cyprus? He will well know that I deplore the Turkish occupation of the north and the equipment of the army in the north. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is dangerous on such a small island to have such massive rearmament continuing?
    Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. There are more than 30,000 Turkish troops on the island. There is also evidence of growing militarisation elsewhere in Cyprus with the growing use of heavy weaponry. Given the smallness of the island and of the population, there can be no conceivable military need for this form of military presence. It is another aspect of the failure of both communities to take the political initiative and to seek to reconcile their differences. There is no fundamental difference between Greek and Turkish Cypriots on the need for them to live and work together on the island in a bizonal, bicommunal, federal republic. Given that agreement on ultimate objectives, it should not be as difficult as it has been to make progress on the important building blocks to achieve such a result.

    Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's bilateral relations with (a) Poland, (b) Hungary and (c) the Czech Republic. [35173]
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Relations between the United Kingdom and Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic respectively remain excellent.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is the Minister aware that, in this year when we shall commemorate the 50th anniversary of the speech at Fulton, Missouri, the people of central Europe—of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and of many other countries—are yearning to redeem the pledges that were made immediately after the end of the second world war? Can the Government not show more enthusiasm for the early admission of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to NATO and for a widening of the European Union rather than a deepening, to allow those countries access to great European institutions founded on democracy?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree that Her Majesty's Government should take every opportunity to emphasise our enthusiasm for all three countries joining NATO and the European Union. I was in Hungary last week giving precisely that assurance, and I visited the Czech Republic and Poland to do the same. We shall do everything in our power to ensure that, as soon as all three countries fulfil the necessary criteria, they join us in both organisations.
    Mr. David Howell: I welcome the tone of my hon. Friend's reply, but does he agree that the countries of central Europe and other countries have traditionally looked to Britain as a friend and supporter in promoting their democratic interests, and that they now see a Europe that is more in the British mould of the open and diversified kind rather than the centralised and protective European model? They are looking to London particularly for a lead in that respect.
    Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that he and his colleagues will give that lead and give those countries every encouragement to join an open and diversified Europe of nations and to join NATO as rapidly as possible while we have the opportunity and before darker threats from further east make it impossible to do so?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Certainly, Her Majesty's Government will do everything they can to hasten the process. We give much assistance through the British Council and the know-how fund to ensure that countries move forward as fast as possible in establishing the internal systems that will enable them to join the European Union and NATO.
    The only word of caution that I would add is that we must get these things right and the structure of the European Union right rather than expanding it before problems in the European Union that inhibit that expansion have been dealt with. We must not expand and find ourselves in a position that we subsequently cannot correct.

    Burma
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what work his Department is doing in co—operation with other countries to protect human rights in Burma. [35174]
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We remain deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Burma. With our EU partners and other like-minded states, we have taken action, both bilaterally and in international forums, to press the State Law and Order Restoration Council to implement human rights reforms. We shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Soley: In view of the remarkable courage and commitment of Aung San and of the sad death in prison of Mr. Nichols, who was imprisoned for having a fax in his home, do we not have a duty to listen to democrats in Burma who have been asking for a ban on trade and investment? Bearing in mind the fact that this week we are feting Nelson Mandela and that we traded and invested in South Africa at a time when he was calling for us not to do so, is there not a lesson to be learned? Aung San, like Nelson Mandela, will win and we should back her.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It is always difficult to know whether it helps a country to ban trade with it, which can have disastrous effects on its poorer people, or to try to trade with it and open it up to better ways of running its affairs. We have a close relationship with Aung San Suu Kyi and her party and we listen closely to the messages that they send us. It is Government policy to continue to trade with Burma, because we do not believe that it would help the liberalisation process if we were not to do so. The level of trade with Burma is extremely low. Our exports last year amounted to £15 million. A ban would not make a huge impact one way or the other.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that, since Aung San Suu Kyi's release from house arrest, far from democratic reconciliation having taken place between SLORC and opposition parties, the level of oppression has, if anything, increased significantly? Given that Aung San Suu Kyi herself has said that European countries, and the international community generally, ought to discourage trade and investment in Burma, is it not time that the British Government gave a lead?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I can only repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). We keep these matters under review. We are watching the political situation closely, and paying particular attention to the freedom of Aung San Suu Kyi.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does the Minister realise that his answer has gained no support from any hon. Member? Is it not now clear that the deterioration of the human rights regime in Burma is such that the United Kingdom should support the demand for trade sanctions? That is what the democrats in Burma want, and what the Danish Government want. Is it not time for Britain to join the campaign?
    Is it not also clear that this Conservative Government have always got it wrong on sanctions? Was it not this Conservative Government alone who continued to oppose

    397
    sanctions against South Africa? Their hypocrisy and shame are now clear for us all to see. Is it not time that they learned the lessons from South Africa, and took action to support the democrats and the people of Burma?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The present situation in South Africa illustrates the success of the policies pursued by Her Majesty's Government over the years. It is nonsense to suggest that sanctions are the only way to bring recalcitrant Governments to heel. In my experience, on most of the occasions when we have tried that method it has failed. We should try to achieve a balance between not inflicting too much damage on the people of the country concerned and putting sufficient pressure on its Government to reform their ways. That is what we attempt to do, but—as the hon. Gentleman would admit if he were honest—it is an extremely difficult task.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that, in the past, trade sanctions imposed for the best possible reasons have invariably led to our export contracts' being taken over by, for instance, the Italians, the French and the Japanese?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although I would not base our foreign policy on the fear that we may lose such contracts, it is nevertheless true that, when sanctions have been imposed—even by the international community—they have been broken by many countries that have undertaken to abide by them.

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the meetings attended by Ministers in his Department with their European Union counterparts to prepare for the intergovernmental conference. [35175]
    Mr. David Davis: There are ministerial sessions of the IGC approximately once a month.
    Mr. Griffiths: I dare say that, when the Minister next attends one of those meetings, he will want to trumpet loudly the success of LG's investment in Newport, in south Wales. He may also point out to his European counterparts that such major inward investors pay excellent wages, provide good working conditions and have absolutely no fear of the social chapter: indeed, they have suggested that they would welcome it. Does not LG's decision show that it has no qualms about the signing and implementing of the social chapter by a Labour Government?
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman omits to mention that LG has contributed just one part of what has been record inward investment for a long time. The reason for that investment is hardly the reason given by the hon. Gentleman; it has been made because we have a liberal, well-run, free labour market, which is effective in generating wealth and which gives a proper return on investment. That is the view not only of people in Japan, Korea and other parts of the world but of those who run Siemens and Deutschebank and those responsible for the German equivalent of the CBI. They say exactly the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman
    398
    has said. Indeed, the leader of his party had to sit and listen to Mr. Henkel speaking about precisely that issue. As he pointed out, the British model under a Conservative Government for the past decade and a half and more is what has generated wealth, jobs and inward investment in this country, and Germany should follow suit.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Have the subject and the problems of Cyprus appeared on the agenda of any of the meetings to which my hon. Friend referred and, if so, has he advised our European Union colleagues that Turkish troops have a right to be in Cyprus, as Turkey is a guarantor power and went there to protect the Cypriot Turkish community? Have the Government told colleagues in the European Union that it is vital to treat Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots equally on all occasions, because, without the agreement of both communities, any progress is unlikely?
    Mr. Davis: On the explicit matters that my hon. Friend raises, the question of Cyprus has not come up in detail. Obviously, it has come up as a matter of principle in relation to the enlargement of the Community.
    On my hon. Friend's second comment, I can reiterate only the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that this country supports a bizonal, bicommunal, federal and therefore fair settlement for Cyprus.

    Indonesia
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Indonesian Government to discuss human rights in that country; and if he will make a statement. [35176]
    Mr. Rifkind: Ministers most recently discussed human rights with the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Mr. Alatas, during his visit to the UK in January.
    Mrs. Prentice: Is the Foreign Secretary concerned about reports of injuries to more than 100 protesters at demonstrations on 20 June this year? If so, does he not think that it is time for him to urge the Indonesian Government to ensure that their security forces stop using excessive force and that the rights of protesters are protected, given that this is not the first time we have heard of such uses of excessive force by the Indonesian security forces?
    Mr. Rifkind: We welcome any improvement in respect for human rights and we were especially pleased to hear about the establishment in Indonesia of a national human rights commission. We hope that that will make a useful contribution towards ensuring proper respect for human rights, which the hon. Lady wants.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the fact that the Indonesians have set up that human rights commission shows that they believe and understand that their human rights record must improve? Does he further agree that, when we make judgments about countries on the far side of the world, sometimes we should bear in mind the judgments that they might

    399
    make about us from afar, and the fact that it does not encourage the growth of human rights in Indonesia to denigrate what has been achieved so far?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend. No country is immune from observation and comment by other countries around the world. Just as we expect to comment on human rights matters elsewhere, so our own practices will occasionally come under scrutiny, but those practices are overwhelmingly matters of which we can be proud.

    BBC World Service
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met senior management of the BBC World Service to discuss future funding arrangements. [35177]
    Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the change in real terms in the operating budget of the BBC World Service between 1996–97 and 1997–98. [35180]
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary last met senior management on 6 February this year.
    The operating budget is reduced by 5.4 per cent. in real terms between 1996–97 and 1997–98. The World Service should make most of this up through already identified efficiency savings.
    Mr. Hall: Is the Minister aware that, during the last general election, the Prime Minister promised to promote the English language by strengthening the BBC World Service? Given the fact that, in the next financial year, it will face a shortfall in its operational budget of £8 million because of Government cuts, will the Minister give a categoric assurance that the BBC will not have to cut one language service because of those cuts? As he contemplates that answer, what does he say to the BBC World Service, which has said straightforwardly that, unless cuts are reversed, it will have no option but to cut services?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not accept that no option is open to the World Service but to cut services. Of course, some language services are dropped as others are added. I said earlier that we have added both Uzbek and Macedonian. We have limited French to France, because there was a fall in demand for that service, but that does not affect the francophone broadcast to Africa.
    400
    In the past five years, our assistance to the World Service has been excellent. The 1997–98 shortfall should be met by efficiency savings. Those have been identified as amounting to about £13 million by the efficiency saving unit and the BBC. The World Service should also be able to make up any shortfall through the private finance initiative. Through that, we hope that it will be able to secure funding for the Omani relay station, for example, at a cost of £30 million, which would at least make up any deficit.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that that is the greatest load of rubbish that I have heard from the Foreign Office for many years? Not only is the service suffering a shortfall at the moment but appointments are being made, changes are being rushed through and the Government are doing little to try to protect the interests of the World Service. It is a unique, remarkable and excellent service which is revered throughout the world. It does the Government no credit not to be prepared to protect it.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The World Service is so highly regarded because it has been consistently expanded throughout the Government's tenure of office. As I said earlier, we have spent over 50 per cent. in real terms more on that service than Labour ever did when it was in power. We have supported it and shall continue to support it, and I have no doubt that it will continue to give an excellent service worldwide.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us who know about the BBC's substantial plans for expanding the World Service recognise that the effects of further funding by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, however generous, can have only a marginal effect on those plans?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. Of course we shall continue to give what support we can, but the BBC must look for efficiency and run the World Service in the best way possible.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: I welcome the expansion that has been described by my hon. Friend. What are the Government's plans to make available further funds for the expansion of the World Service in the coming year?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As I said to the House, unfortunately we have had to make a small cut in World Service funding for next year, but that should be more than made up by the efficiency cuts that have been identified and by private finance initiative money, which we hope it will be able to find.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not giving you greater notice of the matter that I wish to raise, but the circumstances were unusual. On the radio this morning, the Secretary of State for Transport announced and spoke about a cycling conference, and was delivering an allegedly new Government policy. Because of that, I inquired of the private office whether there would be a statement today. I was informed that there would be, but during the morning the private office telephoned my office and courteously sent an 11-page version of the Secretary of State's speech, because apparently there is to be no statement.
As you know, Madam Speaker, there is in the House an all-party cycling group, of which I am an officer, and, to the best of my knowledge, it was not informed about the conference or the policy. As you will also know, I have extensive cycling experience, because I cover thousands of miles in London each year in that manner. Mr. Speaker Weatherill often drew the attention of Ministers to the desirability of making any policy known to the House first rather than through extensive media coverage, as has happened on this occasion. I hope that you will follow the precedents and the good advice of your predecessor.
Madam Speaker: I have long attempted to follow the policy that was adopted by my predecessor, by making it known to the Government that policy statements should be made in the House first. Like hon. Members, I often listen to statements on the radio in the morning in the hope that a further statement in greater detail will be made in the House in the afternoon. Often that does not occur. I deprecate statements or information on policy changes that are made either on the radio or at press conferences. The House should be the first to know when changes of Government policy occur.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At Question Time, you will have
402
heard the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) make an extremely serious allegation against Professor al-Masari, the Saudi dissident who has been granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom on political asylum grounds—that he had used the World Service to incite racial hatred. If that is the case, will you confirm that the correct course of action for any hon. Member or for anybody else would be to refer the matter to the police and the Attorney-General?
Secondly, Madam Speaker, may I ask for your advice on whether the changes to the proceedings of the House and to the privileges of Members of Parliament since the passage of the Defamation Bill in any way alter the rights that hon. Members have exploited in the past to make that type of serious allegation, against which citizens have no redress?
Madam Speaker: That is an interesting matter, but it is certainly not a point of order for the Chair. Hon. Members have a great deal of privilege in the House, but I have always said that that privilege must always be tempered with responsibility, and that we should not make wild statements. If the hon. Gentleman believes that an hon. Member made wild statements that may be referred to the Attorney-General, he might take it up with the hon. Member himself.

BILL PRESENTED
  ENERGY CONSERVATION (FIFTEEN-YEAR PROGRAMME)
  Mr. Alan Simpson, supported by Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Peter Temple-Morris, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. John Austin-Walker, Mr. Llew Smith, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Ken Livingstone and Mrs. Helen Jackson, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to draw up and carry out a fifteen-year programme of energy conservation measures and related activities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 173.]

  School Transport (Parental Choice)
  3.35 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase parental choice in respect of transport to school provided by local authorities.
  Perhaps the most popular reform of those made by the Government since 1979 has been the change in the law that made it possible for parents who educate their children in the maintained sector to choose to which school they will send their children. That policy has proved popular with parents of all political persuasions, and even with those of none. The difficulty is that, in the rural areas of Devon, the freedom to use that policy is the same as the policy to dine at the Ritz: it is available provided one can afford to pay for it.
  The background is contained in section 5(1) of the Education Act 1944, which provides that, where a child is under the age of eight, transport costs to any school more than two miles away must be paid for, and that, for a child over the age of eight, costs for transport over three miles must be paid for.
  Many people might think that the county would perhaps contribute the amount that it would have had to pay had one not chosen the school that one's child attends. No one would expect that, perhaps in a time of difficult financial circumstances, any extra costs that might be incurred would be paid. However, most people would think that the county would be prepared to pay what it would have had to pay regardless.
  In Devon, the policy of the local education authority is to pay nothing at all in such cases. I must stress particularly that my Bill's purpose is not to incur extra expense for LEAs, because, under it, they would incur no extra expense. They would merely be required to contribute what they would have had to pay in the first place.
  It should not have been necessary for me to come to the House to request the opportunity to introduce legislation to make such provision, because it is sheer common sense. Therefore, I must explain why my Bill is necessary, and why it is that the LEA in Devon takes the line it does. The Liberal-controlled LEA in Devon has two reasons for its position. First, it says that it would involve the LEA in extra costs, and, secondly, it says that the policy was the same under the Tories.
  I shall deal with the second point first. The previous Conservative administration indeed had a policy of not making a contribution towards costs in these circumstances. I criticised it publicly then for that, and I criticise it publicly now. However, I must say that that administration never went to the quite extraordinary lengths to which the current Liberal administration goes to try to ensure that parents are not able to exercise their rights.
  On the first point, the idea that extra costs might be involved in acceding to my request is simply wrong. Remarkably, when I introduced an Adjournment debate on this subject some weeks ago, a Liberal spokesman appeared on local radio to say that I was proposing that, whenever a child who lived in Exmouth wanted to go to a school in Plymouth, for example, the transport costs should be picked up. That was absolutely absurd. I have never suggested that, and I am not suggesting it now. All I am suggesting is that there should be a contribution of the same amount.
  404
  If there is to be a suggestion by the Liberal LEA that it does not have enough money, I should point out that there are a great many other shires that would have liked to receive an extra £17.5 million in the most recent financial settlement. So the question of costs in no sense comes into it.
  I could have given many examples from the scores of parents who have written to me to explain the falsity of the position adopted by the Liberal-controlled LEA, but I will give just two. First, there is the case of Mr. and Mrs. Foskett, who live in Lustleigh. The village is equidistant between Moretonhampstead and Bovey Tracey. In the normal course of events, Michael Foskett would have gone to school in Bovey Tracey, but there was not enough room for him at the time, so he went to Moretonhampstead. In due course, his younger brother, Richard, reached school age and his parents, not unreasonably, expected him to go to the same school as their elder son. Not a bit of it. For the county, to exercise that choice would have amounted to parental choice. Therefore, there could be no question of the county paying the school transport costs.
  Faced with such a situation, it is no wonder that a teacher wrote to me recently saying:
  "The Government's laudable policy of free parental choice of schools cannot operate at present as parents who exercise their right then find themselves faced with a transport bill which can run to several hundred pounds per year or serious personal inconvenience."
  It is hardly surprising that Mrs. Foskett wrote to me saying:
  "There are obviously wider issues here also. Government policy of expanding parental choice in education would appear, in rural Devon at least, to contain the proviso of having the financial wherewithal to reach the school of your choice. The result for many in Devon is, therefore, no choice. I am aware that finances are tight, but this is an issue that can be resolved, in our case at least, at no extra cost to the council."
  That is the point.
  Incredibly, there is a case that is even worse than that. It is the case of Mr. and Mrs. Walters, who live in Denbury. They wanted to send their son, Mark, to Knowles Hill school in Newton Abbot. The local authority wanted to send the child to Coombeshead school in Newton Abbot. They are both excellent schools, but the parents chose Knowles Hill.
  The LEA said that Knowles Hill school was too far away. The headmaster of Knowles Hill had the distance measured, and found that it was shorter. Most LEAs would have accepted the word of the headmaster. Not a bit of it. The LEA went to immense time and trouble to devise a route from the school that it wanted the child to go to, which would be shorter. After a great deal of expenditure of officer time, it managed to do that. It managed to prove that the designated school was 352 yd nearer. On that basis, it would not contribute anything towards school transport costs.
  The important point is not just that the two schools are in the same town, share a campus and are on opposite sides of the same road, or even that the bus that would have taken Mark to the school was the same bus—but it was the very same bus stop.
  Nobody can criticise Parliament or the Government for not being able to tell in advance every quirk and twist of malice that a particular LEA would use to try to defeat the object of the House. However, when it becomes clear what some Liberal-controlled LEAs will do, the House has a responsibility to take remedial action.

  405
  My Bill would involve no extra cost for the LEA. It would simply involve a contribution of the sum that it would have had to pay in law in any event. If the Bill were to become law, it would mean that, in Devon at least, free education would once again become free in the sense that it was meant to be, and not simply as it is in Liberal-controlled Devon—as free as dining at the Ritz hotel. That is why I wish to present my Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Patrick Nicholls, Sir Peter Emery, Sir John Hannam, Mr. Anthony Steen and Mr. Rupert Allason.

  SCHOOL TRANSPORT (PARENTAL CHOICE)
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls accordingly presented a Bill to increase parental choice in respect of transport to school provided by local authorities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 172.]
Orders of the Day

  Education (Scotland) 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 Clause 1, amendments relating to Schedule 1, amendments relating to Clauses 2 to 19, amendments relating to Schedule 2, amendments relating to Clause 20, amendments relating to Schedule 3, amendments relating to Clauses 21 and 22, New Schedules relating to Part I, New Clauses relating to Part Ill, amendments relating to Clauses 28 to 31, amendments relating to Schedule 4, New Schedules relating to Part III, New Clauses relating to Part IV, amendments relating to Clauses 33 to 37, amendments relating to Schedules 5 and 6, New Schedules relating to Part IV, New Clauses relating to Part II, amendments relating to Clauses 23 to 27, New Schedules relating to Part II, amendments relating to Clause 32, amendments relating to the Title.—[Mr. Raymond S. Robertson.]

Clause 4

  QUALITY ASSURANCE
  3.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 15, after 'persons' insert
  '(and, in particular, such persons with special educational needs)'.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 12.
  Mr. Robertson: In Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) spoke several times of those in Scotland with special educational needs. As I said at the time, the hon. Lady spoke with eloquence, knowledge and tremendous sincerity.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I would expect the Scottish Qualifications Authority to cater for those with special educational needs. Currently, both the Scottish Examination Board and Scottish Vocational Education Council have a strong track record in that respect. I have no doubt that the SQA will maintain that record.
  We understand, however, that there are concerns that assessment procedures—many not directly operated by the SQA—might develop in such a way as to marginalise the interests of special educational needs students. I can assure the House that that is not our intention, and we shall work with the SQA on the issue. After further consideration, however, we feel that a reference to special educational needs students in relation to the quality assurance part of the SQA's powers would be appropriate.
  The amendment therefore makes specific reference to SEN students in clause 4(a). The power deals with the procedures adopted by establishments for assessing attainment, rather than the audit of the effectiveness of the procedures dealt with in 4(b). On balance, we consider it preferable. It will give the SQA's consideration of SEN a more direct influence in internal assessment procedures. Clause 4(b) refers back to the checking procedures used

  407
  by presenting centres. Thus, amendment No. 11 will also import SEN considerations. That was the substance of the amendment tabled by the hon. Lady in Committee.
  We remain committed to the principle that those with special educational needs should have the opportunity to gain fair access to qualifications. The amendment underlines that commitment, and I commend it to the House.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I begin by thanking the Minister for his useful remarks and for having an open mind, and responding to the issue raised in Committee by myself and others. I am sure that many students with special educational needs will be delighted that he has responded so positively. I have just one question. As the amendment refers to the assessment of the standards of attainment, will it cover the teaching of persons with special educational needs? Having listened to his brief remarks at the Dispatch Box, I take it that he meant that to be covered. I am glad to welcome that assurance and the amendment.
  Mrs. Helen Liddell: I thank the Government for introducing the amendment, and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who pressed the issue on several occasions in Committee. The Opposition welcome the amendment, as it is a commonsense change that beds in the SQA in a much more credible manner, and because many of us were concerned about the impact on those with special educational needs.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21

  INTERPRETATION OF PART I
  Amendment made: No. 12, in page 10, line 29, at end insert—
  ' "special educational needs" has the meaning given by section 1(5)(d) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980;'.—[Mr. Raymond S. Robertson.]

Clause 33

  PLACING REQUESTS
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 19, line 11, after 'kilometers' insert '(2 miles)'.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 14 and 15.
  Mr. Robertson: As hon. Members on the Standing Committee will recall, following a full and surprisingly wide-ranging debate in Committee, I undertook on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself to introduce an amendment to add a reference to miles to the reference to kilometres in the Bill. That was in response to an amendment in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker).
  Amendment No. 13, in the name of my right hon. Friend, fulfils the commitment that we made in Committee. I hope that it will reassure those hon. Members who were concerned to ensure that the statute was as accessible as possible to the people of Scotland.
  Mrs. Liddell: I do not want to intrude on the personal grief of Government Members. I can say only that we had an intriguing debate on this matter in Committee. I am very grateful that the sums we have been talking about have been rounded up in pounds. I shudder to think what would have happened if we had had to debate nursery vouchers in terms of what my daughter calls "old money". We do not oppose the amendment, but it is a measure of some Government Members' Euro-scepticism that they are even prepared to go so far as to quibble about the use of kilometres rather than miles.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I spoke on this issue in Committee. It has nothing to do with Euro-scepticism. It is all about good relationships with the public and recognition of their understanding of issues.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 14, in page 19, line 12, after 'kilometers' insert '(3 miles)'.
  No. 15, in page 19, line 13, at end insert—
  ': and in paragraphs (a) and (b) the references to imperial measurements are supplementary indications of distance.'.—[Mr. Raymond S. Robertson.]

Schedule 5

  MISCELLANEOUS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 30, line 14, at end insert—
  '. After section 51(2B) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (provision of transport and other facilities) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(2C) In considering whether to make any arrangements under subsection (1) above in respect of pupils attending schools, an education authority shall have regard to the safety of such pupils.".'.
  The purpose of this amendment is to provide in section 51 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 the express duty for education authorities to have regard to safety issues in determining whether an individual pupil should be entitled to school transport. Section 51 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 imposes a duty on education authorities to make such arrangements as they consider necessary for the provision of free school transport or other transport facilities as may be arranged, or for paying all or part of reasonable travel expenses for school pupils belonging to their areas and attending designated schools. Authorities also have a power—but not a duty—to make such arrangements in relation to pupils belonging to their areas who attend a school other than their designated school as a result of a successful placing request.
  Generally, education authorities make school transport arrangements for pupils who live outwith the statutory walking distance for school attendance purposes of the metric equivalents of two miles for any pupil under eight years of age, and three miles for any other pupil. However, education authorities need not restrict school transport provision to those criteria, and arrangements—including where pupils are to be picked up, whether school bus supervisors are provided and other matters—are for each authority to determine in the light of local circumstances. That gives them wide discretion in deciding what transport or transport facilities should be provided to take account of individual pupils' circumstances. On safety issues, authorities generally seek the views of the police.

  409
  Parents have in recent weeks expressed some concern that, in making decisions that have sometimes reduced existing entitlement to school transport by withdrawing provision for those living within statutory walking distances from their schools, some authorities may have failed adequately to take account of safety issues, bearing in mind the ages of the children concerned and the nature of the route or alternative routes that, in the absence of school transport, would have to be walked. Parents have made the reasonable point that walking along a busy and unlit road, with or without proper pavements, can be dangerous for a child, even if the distance from home to school is less than statutory walking distances for school attendance purposes.
  I recognise that section 51 provides that authorities should make such arrangements as they consider necessary, and that generally they do so in line with the statutory walking distances. Although good authorities already consult the police on safety issues related to individual applications for school transport, recent public concern suggests that there is room for improvement.
  Mr. James Wallace: The Minister is clearly proposing through the amendment to place a further statutory duty on local authorities. Will there be any consequential increase in the funding available to local authorities? This House has a habit of placing duties on authorities and not giving them the resources to implement them.
  Mr. Robertson: I will develop that point. We are asking all authorities to adopt the good practice of most authorities.
  We consider that it would be helpful to introduce an express duty requiring authorities to have regard to safety issues when making decisions on the entitlement of individual children to school transport. It should, of course, remain for education authorities to exercise their discretion in determining whether school transport arrangements are necessary in individual instances to meet the differing circumstances of individual applicants. In doing so, however, it is vital that authorities should at all times have due regard to the safety implications of not providing school transport for a particular child for whatever reason.
  That is what our amendment seeks to achieve, and I commend it to the House.
  Mrs. Liddell: We shall not oppose the amendment, because it puts into statute the good practice currently undertaken by Scottish local authorities.
  I share the concern of some local authorities, however, about the shortage of time for consultation on the matter. It is a commonsense issue, and those concerned about accident prevention are aware that one of the most vulnerable groups is pedestrian schoolchildren, particularly in Scotland, where we have long periods of darkness. It must be recognised that many local authorities already consult the police or road safety organisations.
  Rather than an amendment that reminds them of the importance of safety, local authorities need ring-fencing of funding to permit them to fulfil their known obligations. A number of local authorities have found
  410
  themselves in a difficult position as a result of the local government settlement they are enduring this year, which is why difficulties have arisen in some local authorities.
  I urge the Government to take other issues into account, such as the definition of safety and parents' responsibilities in respect of accompanying pupils to and from school. How would the Government seek to define those?
  The Opposition have no intention of opposing the amendment.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Minister say a little about safety on buses? As he knows, the son of a constituent of mine from Drongan was killed on his way to Auchinleck academy. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) had the same tragic circumstances in his constituency. Those accidents caused an outcry, and the campaign "Belt up school kids" was introduced.
  Will the Minister give an update of the position regarding seat belts in school transport and attendants, particularly on double-decker buses? People are still greatly concerned about safety on buses. When transport is provided, as the amendment helpfully seeks to do, we want to ensure that it is safe for the youngsters who use it. I should be grateful if the Minister could say whether progress is being made along those lines.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is aware of recent Department of Transport regulations requiring the fitting of seat belts on school transport vehicles, and I am sure that he welcomes them. The education authorities already have a common law duty of care in respect of children under their supervision, as is the case when pupils travel to and from school under arrangements made by the authorities. I hope that the recent Department of Transport regulations will provide comfort to the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members on both sides of the House who are concerned about this issue.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 30, line 24, at end insert—
  '. After section 13(3) of the Self—Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989 (eligibility for self—governing status) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
  "(3A) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, where an education authority makes a proposal to discontinue a school by virtue of section 22A of the 1980 Act, no resolution shall be passed or request made under subsection (1) above during the relevant period.
  (3B) The relevant period is whichever is the shorter of the period from the date when the education authority decides to consult persons in accordance with section 22A of the 1980 Act to the date the decision to discontinue the school is reached or—

  (a) where no consent is required under section 22B, 22C or 22D of the 1980 Act as regards the decision to discontinue the school, three months later;

  (b) where consent of the Secretary of State is so required, six months later.".'

  The purpose of this amendment is to limit the use of procedures under the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989 for schools to seek self-governing

  411
  status by school boards or parents simply for the purpose of blocking school closures proposed by an education authority.
  There are currently two self-governing schools in Scotland—Dornoch academy and St Mary's Episcopal primary school in Dunblane. Both are performing extremely well and experiencing considerable benefits from the immediacy of decision making and greater financial efficiency that self-government brings.
  Self-government remains central to our policy of extending parents' choice in how their children are educated. We remain committed to encouraging more school boards to seek self-governing status, and are confident that, in time, many more boards will see for themselves the benefits of following the lead shown by Dornoch academy and St Mary's Episcopal primary school.
  We shall shortly establish a self-governing schools support unit to provide information and advice to schools that wish to know more about self-government. In addition, my forthcoming White Paper on education will contain further proposals on that matter.
  However, we have said many times that school boards should not regard the self-governing procedures simply as a means of blocking education authorities' proposals to rationalise school capacity. The recent Accounts Commission report on managing surplus places in school buildings estimated that 13 secondary and more than 100 primary schools could be closed, as there is sufficient alternative provision locally. The savings to be achieved from such rationalisation are significant, and can benefit all the pupils.
  Education authorities have difficult decisions to take to tackle the significant surplus of school capacity in Scotland, and they should be free to consult fully on their plans. Well-structured plans will be to the benefit of all pupils in an area by ensuring that the best use is made of resources. The amendment is designed to help education authorities.
  As matters stand, a school board can start self-governing procedures by passing a first resolution or by receiving a petition from parents, calling for a ballot of parents on whether self-governing status should be sought.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Why have only a couple of schools opted out in Scotland in the past few years?
  4 pm
  Mr. Robertson: I should be happy to debate our self-governing policy with the hon. Gentleman at any time, but this is not the time to do so, because the debate is not on the merits of self-governing but on allowing education authorities to get on with taking difficult and sensitive decisions.
  It is not open to a school board at the moment to take such action in circumstances where the education authority has already taken a final decision to close a school after appropriate consultation with parents of pupils, the school board and, for a denominational school, the relevant denominational body.
  In recent weeks, a total of eight school boards have either passed a first resolution or received a petition calling for a ballot of parents. In each case, the education
  412
  authorities had published proposals consulting on the closure or merger of their schools. Before such proposals emerged, none of those boards had expressed any interest in self-governing status.
  I assure the House that, in due course, should those ballots of parents lead to self-governing proposals being published and submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for approval, the proposals would be fully considered on their merits in the usual way.
  It is clearly possible for a school board, minded to obstruct the progress of an education authority's consultation on school rationalisation, to use the self-governing legislation in a manner that the House obviously did not intend. The amendment provides that, once an education authority has formally resolved to publish proposals for the closure of a specific school, the school board could not validly start self-governing procedures, either through a first resolution or by receiving a petition from parents, until three months after that resolution by the authority, or until such time as the authority had taken a final decision on the closure of the school, whichever was the sooner.
  A longer period of six months could apply in respect of closure decisions that also require the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—those in respect of schools more than 80 per cent. full, primary schools more than five miles from the nearest other primary school, secondary schools more than 10 miles from the nearest other secondary school, and denominational schools in certain circumstances.
  I commend the amendment to the House.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I realise that the Minister did not serve on the Standing Committee the considered the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989, so I have brought along the documentation. Colleagues from other parties will remember the very long mornings, afternoons and, indeed, nights that we spent in that Committee.
  It is difficult to reconcile what the Minister said today with the attitude that was struck by the then Minister of State, Scottish Office, with responsibility for education—now Secretary of State for Scotland—in that Committee when we discussed the clauses relating to self-government.
  The Government are now proposing a very centralising operation, removing the freedom of parents and that of local authorities to undertake a consultative programme to enable them to take decisions. We all accept that those are very difficult, emotive decisions for local authorities to take.
  During the passage of that Bill, many statements were made, when the Government said clearly that in no circumstances would the provisions of the 1989 Act ever become a centralising force.
  For the benefit of the Minister, I shall quote three statements that the then Minister of State made in Committee. First, he said:
  "it is absurd for Opposition Members to argue that this is a centralising measure."
  He said later in the debate:
  "self-governing schools will offer an alternative to schools under local authority management."

  413
  He then said:
  "Under no circumstances will there be a centralising authority by the Government."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 16 March 1989; c. 50, 65.]
  This is a strange situation. We have to reconcile different political positions—the Government said that they were opposed to a centralising philosophy, but they are now centralising.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: We believe in giving local authorities more freedom and more sensitivity in relation to school rationalisation, but we do not believe that that is a centralising measure.
  Mrs. Ewing: In that Committee, the Minister said that there would be no potential for the Government to inflict centralising policies, yet today we have before us a centralising philosophy that is preventing local authorities, parents and teachers from entering a true dialogue about how they can best provide education. The Government are standing in the way of local democracy, contrary to what was said during that Committee. It is despicable. The Government's argument is totally illogical. We believe that local education is best provided at the local level and not by diktat from central Government.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Government are blocking parental choice by their actions. The Minister said that there are greater efficiencies and advantages in opted-out schools—that view is not shared by the majority of Scotland's teachers and parents. He said that he was confident that, in time, other schools would follow the two schools that have opted out—which is an arrogant disregard of parental views. The fact that the Minister said that there are greater advantages and efficiencies in opted-out schools is an insult to Scotland's teaching profession and to the national system.
  I note that the Minister ducked a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), on self-governing schools. That policy is at the heart of the amendment. The Government's policy prevents parents in schools that are earmarked for closure from using the opting-out legislation to delay closure—they are prevented from saying how they feel about opting out.
  I am opposed to the Government's opting-out proposals. I believe that parents would not choose to opt out if they had the choice. Parents do not wish to opt out—they are merely using the procedure as a last-gasp attempt to save their schools because no other mechanism is open to them. The Government are starving the system of resources and they are forcing these decisions on parents.
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he supports that last desperate strategy by parents to keep their schools open?
  Mr. Welsh: My objection is that this is the last-gasp strategy open to parents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan recommended, I would prefer to see a dialogue between the education authority and the parents, to ensure that, wherever possible, a school remains open.
  414
  I am speaking from practical experience—I have helped to save schools locally. When Tayside was run by the Conservatives, I fought tooth and nail to save a rural school that is now, thankfully, thriving. I give due credit to the previous Labour Government and to the late Frank McElhone, who was the then Minister for Education. He listened to my arguments and to the arguments of the parents. The school was saved and it is now thriving. The Government are forcing people into that situation.
  I place on record my opposition to the opting-out proposals. They are destructive of our national school system; they are unwanted by parents and by educationists; they are an anglicisation; and they are a deliberate attack on the national system—a system that has the support and confidence of all Scotland's parents.
  Instead of attacking Scotland's schools, the Minister should have told us how the Government are building on the system's strengths and resourcing the national system properly. The amendment would not be necessary if the system were resourced properly. It is an admission of failure on the part of the Government, as parents choose to opt out only as a last resort in order to fight school closures. Rather than addressing the real problem of under-resourcing in the school system, the Government are responding to the symptoms and blocking an avenue that parents have chosen out of desperation in fighting for local schools.
  Given the choice, it is obvious that parents would prefer to opt into the national system. However, the Government's total failure to provide adequate resources overall has forced parents and education authorities into this situation. Rather than closing the loophole through this amendment, the Government should provide much-needed funds to local authorities to enable them to run schools properly.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: How would the hon. Gentleman reply to the Accounts Commission, which says that there are 300,000 surplus school places in Scotland?
  Mr. Welsh: The Government should examine that problem in consultation with parents and schools. Some school closures cannot be avoided—I am not saying that they should be avoided. However, schools should be closed for educational reasons rather than as a result of deliberate under-resourcing. The Government's policies have forced parents to take desperate measures. I believe that the amendment is a direct result of deliberate Government policy. Ministers should be ashamed of themselves.
  Mr. John McAllion: I did not intend to participate in the debate, but I am a little confused by the contributions from hon. Members from the Scottish National party.
  Mr. Welsh: The hon. Gentleman is easily confused.
  Mr. McAllion: That is true most of the time, but I am more confused than usual by the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate. I have some direct experience, as local government spending cuts have forced the closure of several secondary schools in Dundee. Rockwell school used the procedure to prevent its closure and to halt the consultation process with the local authority.

  415
  In reality, by choosing to ballot to opt out, the school delays any closure decision in that year—the decision must be put off until the next year. However, the cuts cannot be delayed until next year. Savings are lost to the local authority when the school board and the parents begin the procedure. As a result, it must make other cuts elsewhere in the education budget. Teachers in Dundee now face redundancy because parents have used that procedure to prevent school closures.
  I do not understand whether the SNP supports school boards that adopt that procedure. Does it want to see teachers across Scotland sacked because the device remains available to school boards that wish to avoid closure? The hon. Gentleman said that some school closures are unavoidable; I agree with him. Some schools must close—they cannot go on for ever—but the parents at those schools will never agree to it. So long as the device exists, parents will continue to use it to prevent rational discussion about education provision in any city. That is the reality.
  Mr. Welsh: I did not say the words that the hon. Gentleman is trying to put in my mouth. He describes the symptoms of the Government's deliberate policy, and that is what I attacked.
  Mr. McAllion: I said that school boards choose to opt out because of the spending cuts that the Government force upon them. So long as the device exists, we cannot have a rational debate about how to deal with the problem at local authority level.
  The Government operate a centralising policy, in that they control local government spending—they give 85 per cent. of grants and they cap local authority spending. They control the actions of local authorities throughout Scotland. However, the amendment is not a centralising procedure. It aims to give local authorities the freedom to begin consulting about how they will react to the policies of this centralising Government.
  I want to know whether the SNP will vote against local authorities having that freedom. Will local authorities be faced with a situation where they cannot do anything, where their hands are tied and where all schools face serious problems because some schools choose to use this ridiculous device? It should not have been on the statute book, and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and I argued coherently against it in Committee. We warned Ministers what would happen. We warned that local authorities would not be able to close schools because the schools would use the measure to stop the closure. Ministers refused to listen, and now they have had to table an amendment that we told them should have been in the Bill in the first place. We should unite to attack the idiocy of opting out, instead of getting confused and trying to tie the hands of local authorities.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman himself started the argument between the Opposition parties, but does he agree that we have a useful opportunity, which the Minister wanted to avoid, to discuss the total failure of the opting-out policy and its impact, not just on individual schools, but on Scottish education? The hon. Gentleman agreed that some schools should close on educational
  416
  grounds, but does he accept that some schools in Scotland are being closed not on educational grounds, but because of cost pressures on local authorities?
  Mr. McAllion: Not only do I agree with that, but I gave an example earlier of a school in my constituency that is closing because of cost pressures. There is no educational reason to close the school, but the local authority has to find savings. I should like to unite with the hon. Gentleman to attack the Tories and the way in which they have damaged local authority education in the years in which they have held sway over Scotland.
  We debate the issues in a half-empty Chamber; we know that whatever we think as Scottish Members of Parliament will not matter in the end, because Tory Members will troop in from the bars and the restaurants to vote without even knowing for what they are voting. The only time that Conservative Members pay any attention to the Order Paper is when it mentions Members' pay or their individual constituencies. When they come to vote on Scottish issues, they ask where to go and which Lobby to enter. They do not care what the vote is about: they vote against Scotland anyway. That attitude pervades Conservative Members' thinking, and the Opposition should unite to oppose it.
  The Minister gave the game away. He said that eight schools have applied to ballot on opting out since the local government financial settlement. He conceded that those schools do not want to opt out of local education authority control, but they want to avoid closure. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who used to be a Minister, but who has returned to the Back Benches, said some time ago in Committee that opting out would be the most popular decentralising measure ever and that schools across Scotland would use the procedure. He said that the Opposition would be proved wrong, but six or seven years later, only two schools in Scotland have opted out. They will not stay opted out for long, because we shall have a Labour Government and those schools will come back to the education authority sector, where they belong.
  Mrs. Liddell: I am beginning to conclude that we are in the run-up to the Olympics, because we have seen so many somersaults this afternoon. I had thought that the only somersault that we would witness would be from the Minister, but the peculiar contributions from the Scottish National party have set my head birling. Anyone who sought to use the self-governing legislation, which the Government wrongly introduced, to try to save schools, would deliver yet another blow to the structure of Scottish education and assist the Conservatives.
  The Minister's contribution this afternoon should not be overlooked following the strange interventions from the Scottish National party. The Minister has done not just a double somersault, but a back flip. It is as well that the Minister responsible for education, housing and fisheries is also responsible for sport, because sport seems to be much on his mind this afternoon. Government amendment No. 17 proves that the self-governing schools legislation is a dog's breakfast. The Government have acknowledged this afternoon that that dog's breakfast has to be sorted out. I welcome the amendment, because it will give some cohesion to a situation that the Government have made incoherent.
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Lady may have heard the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) say that a

  417
  Labour Government—an unlikely prospect—would take opted-out schools in Scotland back under local authority control, which would cut across the pledges made by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Can the hon. Lady confirm that that would be done?
  Mrs. Liddell: I am delighted to confirm that that would be the case. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition are proud to maintain the distinctive nature of Scottish education, which has, at its core, the comprehensive state system that 97 per cent. of Scottish school pupils use. The interventions by the Scottish National party this afternoon have shown that its commitment to the state comprehensive sector is not as firm as ours.
  The Minister referred earlier to the establishment of a support unit in the Scottish Office; that is yet another example of the dismal failure of the legislation. The Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989 has been a complete and utter failure. Only two micro schools have decided to opt out.
  Mr. Salmond: If in her future parliamentary career the hon. Lady is promoted and is moved to a ministerial position that requires her to speak on education in England on behalf of the Labour party, will she continue to believe in a comprehensive system? Will she still be against schools opting out? Will she continue to hold her present views on selection? Or does she vary her views with different geographical responsibilities?
  Mrs. Liddell: I am delighted to confirm that I am committed to Scottish education. I am proud to speak in the House on behalf of Scottish education and proud to be committed to a separate devolved structure of Scottish education that will ensure that Scottish education remains distinct. That should be clear enough for the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Salmond: But what are the hon. Lady's views?
  Mrs. Liddell: My views are perfectly clear. I believe in Scottish state comprehensive education, and on that basis, I am joined by 97 per cent. of Scotland's parents. The Scottish National party has shown its true colours this afternoon.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: What of mixed ability? Perhaps the hon. Lady will put her views on the record. After all, she has put everything else on the record. What of mixed-ability teaching?
  Mrs. Liddell: I am sure that the Minister will have found time to read Labour's paper on the Scottish manifesto. We have made it clear that we would approach issues in a coherent and sensible manner. We believe in mixed-ability teaching. We believe also in setting—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Mixed-ability teaching has little to do with the amendment.
  Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  418
  The Government have introduced a sensible amendment. They have listened for once to the views of Scotland's parents. Indeed, they have listened to the views of Scottish local authorities. They seek through the amendment to end opt-outs that relate to school closures, but that is not enough. They must now turn their attention to parents' organisations and other bodies that will seek to use opt-out ballots and pre-emptive strikes when closure is likely to be on the agenda. Some closures are driven by local authority cuts, but closures also take place for sound educational reasons. Schools can fall below a certain roll, which makes them educationally unsound. We must protect the structure of Scottish education.
  It is rare for me to be able to accept a Government amendment, but on this occasion, I am glad to recognise that at long last they have seen sense.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23

  GRANTS FOR EDUCATION OF CHILDREN UNDER SCHOOL AGE
  Mrs. Liddell: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 11, leave out from beginning of line 21 to end of line 31 on page 13.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 11, line 32, at end insert—
  '(2A) No arrangements shall be made under subsection (1) above in respect of grants payable under this Act unless and until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament an evaluation of the operation over a period of 12 months of any grant for nursery education in the area of any local authority made during the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98.'.
  No. 8, in page 11, line 32, at end insert—
  '(2A) No arrangements shall be made under subsection (1) above in respect of grants payable under this Act unless and until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament an evaluation of the operation over a period of 12 months of any grant for nursery education in the area of any local authority made during the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98; and in making such evaluation he shall consult those organisations which appear to him to be representative of local authorities, teachers and parents.'.
  No. 10, in clause 24, page 11, line 39, at end insert—
  'and
  (c) shall have regard to quality assurance, including complaints procedures, and other such matters as appear to him to be relevant,'.
  No. 7, in page 11, line 39, at end insert—
  '(2A) Requirements under subsection (1) above shall include—

  (a) appropriate criteria for the quality assurance of the service provided;

  (b) the levels of training and qualifications of staff employed by that person; and

  (c) minimum standards for the premises at which the service is to be provided.'.

  No. 1, in title, line 5, leave out
  'to make provision enabling payment of grant to providers of education for children under school age;'.
  Mrs. Liddell: Nursery vouchers lead us to the substantive part of the Bill. We had lengthy discussions in Committee on the structure of the vouchers. The purpose behind the amendments is to demonstrate that the Government's proposals are seriously damaging to

  419
  Scottish education, especially that which applies to pre-fives. We believe that the voucher provisions are seriously flawed. We became increasingly concerned during our discussions in Committee about the lack of any due consideration by the Government of the quality of education provision for pre-fives.
  Issues of quality assurance lie at the heart of the Government's proposals. In another place, when the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill was being discussed, their lordships saw fit to introduce an amendment that would require the Government to ask the House to evaluate pilot schemes for nursery vouchers.
  The very proposal to introduce nursery vouchers is wrong. It is educationally divisive. At its root is a fundamental flaw: nursery vouchers do not guarantee a nursery place. The Government are intent on using their majority in this place to force through wrong-headed legislation. I urge the Government to take on board the serious quality assurance issues that must be taken into account and to allow the House to apply detailed consideration in evaluating the pilot schemes that the Government are intent on forcing through and implementing.
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Lady suggests that nursery vouchers are divisive. I cannot understand that, because every parent in Scotland will be offered £1,100 for their child's nursery education. That is certainly what my constituents want, and they resent the hon. Lady's attempt to remove the option from them when they are desperate to ensure that their children have a nursery education.
  Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman was a source of great enjoyment to Labour Members in Committee. Yet again he fails to take on board the basic point: a nursery voucher does not guarantee a nursery place. In correspondence, Scottish Office officials have acknowledged that a nursery voucher does not guarantee a nursery place.
  Mr. Foulkes: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. She should not be misled by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). His constituents are getting proper nursery places, not vouchers. South Ayrshire is expanding its nursery provision by providing proper nursery classes in spare classrooms. That is exactly the sort of provision that Labour proposes, and Labour-controlled South Ayrshire council is introducing it. The hon. Gentleman's constituents, who will not be represented by him for much longer, are getting a first-class education service.
  Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the voice of common sense from Ayrshire. It is clear that parents want good-quality nursery provision, and sensible, well-organised nursery provision by local authorities has been widely welcomed.
  One damaging effect of the Bill is that it will undermine important partnerships between the public, private and voluntary sectors in Scotland. All three sectors are as one in condemning the Government for the lack of quality assurance and for the quality of education provision.
  In Committee, Conservative Members paid limited attention to quality and to how nursery providers are to be assessed. Eighty profiles of education provision have
  420
  been received and 57 approved. Who is checking those self-assessed applications to provide nursery places? Everyone, from local authorities to the voluntary sector and to the Scottish Independent Nurseries Association, has one common fear about the provision of nursery education: the intervention of cowboy operators interested only in getting money out of the Government, under a convoluted system that will not benefit anyone who cannot secure a nursery school place for their child.
  I am deeply concerned about the Government's proposals for evaluation. It is critical that the House be given an opportunity to decide whether the pilots have been fair, sensible, open and honest and whether the evaluation scheme has been properly conducted. The university of Stirling is to evaluate the scheme in the four pilot areas in Scotland. Membership of the research advisory committee has not been announced, but we know that applicants with considerable expertise in child care and education, such as Children in Scotland, have not been included.
  The university of Stirling—this is a very important point—is already aware of the terms of the evaluation: cost-effectiveness, not quality. That is deplorable, because the education and care of children at the most vulnerable stage of their education will not be properly assessed for quality. It is all the more disturbing when we bear in mind the fact that 50 per cent. of a child's educational development takes place before the age of five.
  The Government's lack of strategic cohesion for pre-five provision in Scotland has been apparent throughout consideration of the Bill. Their failure to give the Scottish Pre-School Play Association adequate funds to allow it to implement improved training is a clear sign that they do not intend the Bill to contribute to the education debate in Scotland, but are using it as a fudge in the run-up to a general election.
  I do not think that the Government have been clear enough on the whole question of what new money will be made available for the provision of nursery vouchers throughout Scotland; nor have we been given enough information about the true administration costs. On Second Reading, we were told that only 2 per cent. of the budget would be spent on administration. We were told that £22 would be needed to deal with a voucher that would have to go through 10 stages before it could be fully implemented, but we estimate the cost at £290.
  In Committee, many of our questions were not answered. The amendments seek to introduce some cohesion to the legislation, but, at the end of the day, we can improve the quality of education for pre-fives in Scotland only by getting away from the whole concept of nursery vouchers, and introducing a system of nursery education that provides adequately for children aged three and four.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Salmond: Does the hon. Lady feel an apology coming on? She may remember that, in Committee, she denounced my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) for forcing a vote on exactly the same two amendments, on the ground that they would make it impossible to return to the matter on Report. She also said that, because a Tory rebellion was under way, she anticipated an Opposition victory. She was clearly wrong:

  421
  we are now discussing not one but two amendments that would allow us to do exactly the same thing. Will she now apologise to my hon. Friend?
  Mrs. Liddell: Far from apologising, I will make the point that Labour Members are interested in substance rather than stunts. Because of activities of members of the Committee, we missed opportunities to explore issues that should have been explored much more fully with a Government who welcomed the opportunity not to answer questions. The amendments give us a chance to pin the Government down, to ensure that quality assurance is introduced and to return to key issues involving the evaluation of the pilots for the nursery voucher scheme.
  Before the Bill was introduced, the Government undertook a consultative exercise. More than 80 per cent. of those consulted opposed their proposals, but the Government still insisted on introducing the legislation. Here is yet more proof that they do not listen. Earlier this afternoon, the Under-Secretary of State recognised that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) had been talking sense all along. I now give him an opportunity to acknowledge that he has also been wrong in regard to the proposals for nursery vouchers, and ask him to reconsider—on behalf of the Government—this wrong-headed proposal for the education of Scotland's pre-fives.
  Mr. Welsh: I cannot allow the nonsense spoken by the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) about the Scottish National party's commitment to education to go unremarked. I have taught in Scotland, at different levels, and my commitment—and that of my party—to Scottish education is clearly on record: we are 100 per cent. behind it, and we want it to progress. The hon. Lady explains her behaviour in Committee by the claim that she was exploring the details of what the Government meant, but in practice Labour was simply colluding with the Conservatives to get the measure through as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: You have a cheek.
  Mr. Welsh: I do not "have a cheek"—that is what happened, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he reads the Committee record.
  Amendment No. 2 deletes the entire provision relating to grants for the Government's proposed nursery education changes.
  Mr. Hood: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the vote on the Committee of the Regions during the Maastricht treaty debate, and the "Dear Margaret" letter, when he colluded with the Government. We need no lectures from him about colluding with the Government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not need lectures, but we want a debate on the amendment before the House.
  Mr. Welsh: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will not mention when the Labour party colluded with the Government over the referendum vote.
  422
  My amendment would force the Government to undertake consultation and it would delay implementation of vouchers until the proposed pilot schemes have been properly evaluated and reported to Parliament.
  Before moving to the substantive arguments in favour of the various amendments and against the Government's proposals for nursery education, I believe that it is necessary to place this debate in context. This afternoon, Scottish democracy will yet again be sidelined because a majority of Scottish Members will vote for the amendments, but our votes will be ignored and our will overturned by the votes of hon. Members representing a majority of English constituencies—people with no knowledge and even less interest in Scotland's education system. This is the Westminster question and no amount of tartan tokenism, either through the powerless nonsense of a Grand Committee or through returning the Stone of Destiny, will hide the true gesture being made today by the Tory party towards Scotland—two fingers to Scottish opinion, to democracy and to the future of Scottish children's education.
  The Government's proposals are opposed not only by a majority of Scottish Members, but by teachers, parents and local authorities, who have highlighted the legislation's many inadequacies, but their views will be ignored today by the Westminster machine. The Bill is proof of the disservice being done to Scotland and to Scottish education by the outdated Union.
  The debate should have been used by the hon. Member for Monklands, East to apologise. In many ways the hon. Lady apologised for her hysterical misrepresentations in the Scottish press, following my attempt to oppose the Government on this issue in Committee. The hon. Lady assured us that the amendment introducing a further stage of parliamentary scrutiny, now under discussion as amendments Nos. 3 and 8, could not be debated again. I hope that, for once, she will have the decency to admit her mistake and to apologise for her blatant misrepresentations. She told the Scottish press:
  "I am absolutely furious. They have stopped us taking this back to the Floor of the House where we could have defeated the Government."
  She was wrong on both counts: it is back on the Floor of the House and she has little chance of defeating the Government.
  The hon. Lady also said:
  "Mr. Welsh has cost us the ability to disable this Bill".
  We shall find out about that when the Division Lobby empties. The record will show that the amendment was again debated and again defeated—if, indeed, Labour Members press the amendment to a vote; their record in that respect is not good, and I had to move some of their amendments in Committee.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Before the history of this topic is falsified, will the hon. Gentleman recall that we were bound to be defeated on that day? That was why my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) wanted to withdraw the amendment. Tonight we have at least a fighting chance. It all depends on the turnout. There was no chance in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
  Mr. Welsh: I presume that that is why the Labour Whip had to demand two votes—the second time to insist that he did not vote.
  Mrs. Liddell: I must put on record the fact that on that occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) demanded two votes because he had forgotten that he had given a commitment to allow the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), leave to attend to a bereavement in his immediate family.
  Mr. Welsh: I fully understand that, and such pairing is fully acceptable, but any apology should be made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), who made the mistake of voting the first time and then demanding a second vote. Pairing is acceptable and it should have happened in the normal way, but two votes took place. If the Whip is not up to his job and makes mistakes, that is his problem. [Interruption.] I notice the continuing collusion between the Labour and Tory Front-Bench teams, but anyone who reads the Committee will find out exactly what happened.
  From their mailbags, Members should be aware of the many well-expressed concerns of parents, parents' groups, teachers and local government professionals. Again, mainstream opinion in Scotland is lined up against the Government's proposal, but it will be ignored by the massed ranks of Tory Lobby fodder. That is the reality behind the intervention of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).
  The Government claim to favour parental choice, but their actions fly in the face of that. When parents are consulted about nursery education they do not choose these Tory vouchers. By a majority of nine to one they favour free state nursery education for all three and four-year-olds. That is what Scottish people want and the Government should deliver it.
  Perhaps Conservative Members should focus their attention on the parental views that were expressed in the recent Educational Institute of Scotland System 3 survey entitled:
  "Education in 1996: Scots speaking out".
  They should consult that rather than simply following the Whips into the Government Lobby. I recommend that they examine the Scottish National party's fully costed proposals for a free state nursery scheme. They show that a high-quality, universal and free education structure for pre-school children can be created in Scotland. In the first four years of independence, our proposals would create a nursery place for all three and four-year-olds whose parents wished that provision.
  The voucher proposal is political dogma and it will be bad for education in Scotland. As our detailed proposals show, it is not the best way to meet education needs in our country. [Interruption.] Labour Front-Bench Members laugh. When they are asked for a policy they go out for lunch, and when they are asked to put a price on a policy they simply disappear. Unless they have similarly costed pounds and pence policies, they should not laugh. The standard being set in Scotland is what the electorate wish; unless Labour can match that, it is simply failing in its task.
  Mr. George Robertson: Labour made a pledge.
  Mr. Welsh: I know about Labour pledges. I was in the House from 1974 to 1979 and I know how much such pledges are worth.
  The voucher scheme should be abandoned, but the system supported by all unionists in the House will mean that, against the wishes of the Scottish people, the voucher scheme will simply be slammed through by English Members who are not now in their places but who will provide the majority.
  Amendment No. 2 has my full support. It would get rid of the damaging and divisive voucher proposal, prevent the creeping privatisation of our education system and ensure the maintenance of standards which are threatened by the wild and loose drafting of this part of the legislation.
  Amendment No. 8 in my name, and amendment No. 3, would ensure adequate scrutiny of the pilot schemes, which are to be the test bed for the voucher proposal. Surely when the test has been established, its results should be evaluated before proceeding further with the scheme. That straightforward, simple point has been totally denied by the Government. It is eminently sensible and would help to fill the gaps in consultation and consensus which have marked the Government's attempts to steamroller this ideological nonsense through the House.
  The amendments will allow hon. Members to assess the quality of nursery provision under the voucher scheme and to judge the impact on the poorest families who may not be able to afford the top-up costs for the local nursery. The amendments would also allow us to assess the administrative efficiency of the scheme and to see whether too much money was being diverted from education by a clumsy administrative system.
  I have outlined just some of the concerns expressed by parents and professionals and they should be examined again by the House when we are in a better position to judge the impact of the Government's proposals. Obviously, that means after the pilot schemes have run their course. The Government have made no attempt to accept those eminently sensible arguments, which are supported by majority opinion and have consensus outside the House.
  I am sure that hon. Members will agree that too much haste at this stage could have a damaging effect on thousands of Scottish children. I suspect that the legislation has been motivated more by political than by educational considerations. That is why we seek to introduce a time-out period which would ensure that the Secretary of State's narrow and destructive ideology did not seriously damage Scottish nursery education.
  The principle of nursery vouchers is deeply flawed and I welcome amendment No. 7 as an attempt to improve poor legislation. It raises a number of issues that were discussed at length in Committee. The Government have failed to address the issue of quality assurance both in education terms and with regard to the environment within which education takes place. I hope that the Minister will respond to that issue today, because he certainly did not respond to it adequately in Committee.
  Legislation currently covers safety in private nurseries, but there is no provision detailing adequate standards for buildings or fixtures and fittings in those nurseries. While local authorities can ensure the safety of radiators, plugs

  425
  and sockets under current legislation, they cannot ensure such matters as adequate toilet facilities. That is why amendment No. 7 is important.
  The Government's proposals have been shown to be deeply flawed in themselves, but they have been shown to be flawed especially in comparison with the proposals made by the Scottish National party. The House should take the opportunity to remove what is bad, or at least to try to improve it.
  The Minister has a chance to respond to those detailed points, and I hope that he will do so before the end of this debate.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: This group of amendments goes to the heart of the voucher question because, as hon. Members have already made clear, vouchers do not necessarily represent places. In some local authorities it has been suggested that many places are available for four-year-olds—for up to 90 per cent. of them in some areas—and that the extra money would provide local authorities with elbow-room, with which they could build additional nursery schools. I do not think that that is a particularly well-founded assumption. The cost of building or adapting new premises to the standards that we want would certainly not be possible with the type of figures that are currently being mentioned.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Is it in order for me to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) that the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) is currently colluding with the Tory Whip to enable this debate to proceed quickly? Indeed, he scurried back to his seat as I said that. Is not that disgraceful hypocrisy by the SNP?
  Mr. O'Neill: It is no more than we have come to expect from it, with its double standards.
  Mr. Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Neill: No; I do not want to give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get on with it.
  Mr. O'Neill: I was bored to tears by all the nonsense that I heard from the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh)—the girning, moaning and greeting that we hear from him in his customary addresses, whether they are about the system that governs the House, its membership or the fact that Scottish National party supporters have been out of sight for decades because they colluded with the Tories to bring down the previous Labour Government. The people of Scotland and hon. Members are left cold by all of it. What is important is that we deal with the matter in hand, which is the voucher system—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Neill: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have told him that I will not give way, and that is it. We want to get on with the today's business, and I do not want to take up too much of the House's time.
  426
  Certainly the amendment on quality control and the matters of staff training and premises—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. An accusation was made against me that I was trying to speed up proceedings. That is not true. But the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) has now admitted that he wishes to expedite proceedings.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a bogus point of order, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) has made it very clear that he will not give way, and that is a matter for him to decide.
  Mr. O'Neill: If this legislation were to be passed—we do not want it to be—we envisage circumstances in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) said, there is a possibility that hole-in-the-wall, cowboy-type operations will be established. Therefore, we must have standards set down very early on in the proceedings.
  We should have hoped that the pilot scheme would have allowed for such a cool and reasoned response. In his reply, perhaps the Minister will clarify the position and tell us whether only financial cost-effectiveness will be examined or whether the possible impact of the voucher scheme on the quality of available provision will be examined, because the two are not the same. That issue has already been raised by hon. Members.
  Many hon. Members fear that well-intentioned people with a great commitment to youngsters will open nursery facilities, on the assumption that they will be able to make money and to go the distance, but that they will not have the necessary teaching or nursing staffing levels. We must consider those matters, because they were given scant attention at the Committee stage.
  It is important that we pass these amendments to ensure that the Minister has a chance to tell us what will be done to ensure quality control of the play facilities and the course content to which the youngsters will be exposed. We will need far greater assurances that there will be high enough standards of staff training so that the best possible teaching will be provided.
  Last but not least, there is the whole question of premises. In Committee, most of us were disturbed by the cavalier disregard of even the most basic questions of the toilet and washing facilities required by children of this age. They need special facilities. They also need special safety provisions such as consideration of the location of plug points, electrical fittings and so on. We need a great deal more clarification of those matters. They should have been dealt with in Committee but they were not because the Minister did not give us the assurances that we required.
  Even if the principle were to be lost—I hope that it is not—the amendment is essential to ensure that the youngsters are properly protected and are taught appropriately by suitable and qualified people. The children must be instructed and allowed to play in facilities that are safe and in which most parents would be happy to leave them. It is immaterial whether that assurance comes from amendment No. 10 or amendment No. 7, but the point has been identified and it must be addressed. Until it is included, the legislation will be

  427
  unwanted. It will be dangerous for the children whom every hon. Member wishes to protect and nurture. As currently drafted, the Bill does not meet that requirement.
  Mr. Wallace: In a debate that has so far caused a considerable amount of dispute, I shall begin by saying something that I hope will be agreed on both sides of the House, which is that there is a recognition of the value of pre-school education. Studies in the United States have shown that for every dollar spent on pre-school education, the payback over subsequent years is something like seven times that. Clearly, the investment is well worth it to get our children on to the right path before they go to school.
  The problem is the method by which the Government are seeking to honour the pledge given by Baroness Thatcher when she was responsible for education in 1972. She opened up the prospect of nursery education for all.
  My hon. Friends and I are concerned that the Government's chosen route of nursery vouchers will not necessarily deliver the expectations. It does not automatically follow that, because a parent has a voucher, there will be a place for the child. In some parts of the country we know that the availability of nursery places is scant. As the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) said, many parents will not be able to afford the top-up costs. Also, we have not yet had an assessment of the effect that it will have on nursery education currently provided for three-year-olds, which may be stopped in some cases if there has to be expanded provision for four-year-olds. So there are serious drawbacks to the chosen route of nursery vouchers.
  The funding that will be made available will do nothing to enable the expansion of the number of properly trained nursery teachers. Anyone who has anything to do with young children recognises the skill, dedication and particular training required by pre-school teachers. None of the debates has mentioned any resources that have been earmarked to allow that expansion of trained teachers. When I raised that matter with the Secretary of State in the Scottish Grand Committee in Stirling in January, he seemed to suggest that the provision of well-trained teachers was an ideal to which we might aspire, with the clear implication that it would not always be the case. That is why I particularly welcome amendment No. 7, in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and amendment No. 10 in my name and those of my hon. Friends, as they seek to import into the voucher scheme some element of quality assurance and quality control.
  Will the Minister specifically address the two amendments which seek to impose minimum requirements? It is not unreasonable that parents should have some quality assurance when they are asked to send their children to a particular establishment. I accept that there probably will not be agreement on all the different requirements, so amendment No. 10 allows considerable flexibility as to the range of quality assurance that would be required. Parents will be able to decide where to send their children, if they have that choice, so in some respects, there will be a subjective element of quality. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that there must be a floor and minimum standards.
  Amendment No. 10 would require that the regulations established by the Secretary of State should include a complaints procedure. If we are to have quality assurance,
  428
  it is important that there should be a complaints procedure so that parents who believe that the quality of pre-school education to which their children are entitled and have every legitimate right to expect is not being delivered have a relatively simple means of expressing that concern and using the complaints procedure to ensure that any difficulty is addressed as quickly as possible.
  It is important that there should be a complaints procedure, particularly in respect of inspection. Although we were told on Second Reading that there would be an increase in the number of inspectors of nursery and pre-school establishments, there remains a widespread belief that it will still be insufficient. If inspection is to be limited, it is even more important that the parents have an opportunity to raise complaints and concerns in a way that will result in action.
  Although the point does not need much elaboration, we have not yet heard an explanation from the Minister as to why the Government have thus far set their face against basic minimum requirements for those providing nursery education. The Government claim to be the friend of the consumer, so the consumer should expect at least minimum quality control in respect of a vitally important issue such as the education of our young children.
  Mrs. Fyfe: A few days ago when I was opening my mail, I saw an envelope marked, "Important voucher enclosed". I thought that there must have been some mistake, but I discovered that it was from one of those firms that offers a car as a major prize if one enters a prize draw. We are all accustomed to receiving such mail and we are all inclined to condemn it, but it has to be said on behalf of the firms that engage in such enterprises that at least there is a real car to be won by somebody. They do not pretend that if those who have been given the vouchers gather together in one place, someone will make sure that they all win a prize.
  The difference between those offers and the Government's scheme is that with the latter, having a voucher does not guarantee anything. It does not guarantee a place at any particular nursery; it does not even guarantee that there will be a nursery on any given site anywhere in Scotland.
  The Government's belief that somehow the market will provide and respond to people waving £1,100 vouchers has still to be demonstrated. Parents in Scotland will be severely disappointed as the Government are leading them to believe that there will be provision, at least for four-year-olds. In some areas, particularly in rural Scotland and the islands, it will be difficult to ensure that there is a nursery school. That is the basic reason why we are so opposed to a voucher scheme and seek a proper guarantee from the Government. I look forward to a Labour Government introducing such a scheme so that children have a real nursery place and not merely a piece of paper saying that there may be a place somewhere at some time.
  There are two further specific aspects to which I hope the Minister will respond. We debated special needs of the under-fives at length in Committee. It is true that, in some of the publicity material that the Government put out, reference was made to children with special needs, but key questions remain unanswered. It is still not clear how we can be sure that any provider—especially some Johnny-come-lately who has just started up, happened to read some information on how to run a nursery school

  429
  and filled in the form correctly—will be able to identify all children who happen to have special needs. Such children are not always readily recognisable. It is important that their needs are recognised and acted on at as early an age as possible, not only to save future costs that could climb rapidly, but for the sake of the children, so that they can be helped to develop to their full capability. We are still awaiting reassurance on that point. I cannot understand how the Minister can be so sensible, open-minded and forthcoming about the Scottish Qualifications Authority when we are talking about relatively adult people, but delay giving us clear guarantees on the under-fives.
  5 pm
  If I recall correctly, when Labour Members raised the question in Committee of the value of the voucher and how grossly inadequate it is likely to be in relation to the needs of special needs children, we were told that the pilot scheme, which is being supervised by people who are still at university, would be able to identify the sums concerned. But parents are still waiting for any reassurance that those needs will be met. Substantial sums could be involved.
  We could have sold tickets for the Committee at times. At one stage, the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) and I had a run-in—I wish that he was present today—about why a nursery must have facilities such as toilets, cloakroom accommodation and all sorts of equipment permanently available and not stashed away every night in a church hall or some other adult provision. Is that the level to which we have fallen? It sounds as if hon. Members are so unaccustomed to discussing the needs of the pre-fives that such things need to be spelled out. It was an extraordinary debate. I thought that the message had finally got across and that it was understood why permanent provision for under-fives was essential and why they should not be forced to make do with anything that happens to be available in the way of a hall that is free for a few hours. That is not an adequate way in which to deal with the needs of our under-fives.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I will save the Labour Whip a heart attack by intervening on my hon. Friend rather than making a speech of my own.
  To return to the point about special needs, does my hon. Friend agree that where children have been identified as having special needs and they enter mainstream education, there is no question but that they receive special assistance? It is contradiction of the idea that the programme is educational if Ministers persist in saying either that no special assistance for children with special needs will be recognised in the voucher system, or that some pilot project from Stirling university is needed to establish whether special needs provision is required. Everybody knows that special provision and a little extra expenditure is needed. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is absolutely no reason why that concession or right should not be granted?
  Mrs. Fyfe: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have always said that it is not satisfactory just to accept whatever the people at Stirling university come up
  430
  with when they comment on the pilot scheme. The Government should have been willing to say something more definitive and give more of a guarantee to parents of children with special needs. As my hon. Friend quite rightly points out, children at school may get a record of special needs, but, as we all know how, it is sometimes difficult to enforce provision of what that record says that the child requires. It is therefore all the more important that the identification of needs is made at the earliest possible stage by competent people and that the sums involved are guaranteed.
  Unless guarantees are given, a system could evolve in which a child with special needs did not receive a place or had less access and choice than children who did not have special needs. Special needs children could be treated less justly through no fault of their own, simply because they have needs that are expensive to provide for. That would be totally unacceptable and unjust, and it is high time the Minister said something more definitive. I hope that he will do so tonight.
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: I, too, support the amendments in the names of my hon. Friends calling for a proper assessment of the pilot schemes before the Government go ahead with full implementation of the voucher scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) gave cogent reasons why that is necessary, and I should like to add a particular concern of mine about why such a proper assessment is required.
  My concern relates to the way in which the voucher scheme will impact on the Gaelic-medium sector of pre-school provision and the need to ensure that such an impact is properly assessed when we review the results of the pilot schemes. There is a Gaelic-medium sector in three of the four pilot areas—in east Renfrewshire, in Highland and Argyll, and in Bute, and it is important that the impact on them is considered.
  The Gaelic-medium sector is one of the fastest growing sectors in pre-school provision, and the Minister will be aware by now that there is a great deal of concern in the Gaelic community that the voucher system will not cater properly for that sector. Provision in the sector involves greater costs because, obviously, special materials need to be developed. They cannot just be taken off the shelf. Such additional costs cannot be incorporated into a simple voucher scheme that attaches the same amount to every child.
  At the same time, there is a historical record of exclusion of Gaelic from education, which we all now recognise and acknowledge. Indeed, it was recognised by the Secretary of State in his speech at Stirling university earlier this year. Given the Government's recognition, we have every right to expect their rhetoric to be put into practice.
  There are two specific ways in which the Minister could respond to the concern, and I would be grateful if he could give specific answers to them. First, the remit of the Stirling university team that will be conducting the assessment should include the task of looking specifically at how the pilot scheme has impacted on the Gaelic-medium sector. Has it catered properly for the additional costs involved, has it dampened the rise in the sector's popularity or has it been given a helping hand?
  The second specific suggestion has been made to the Minister by representative organisations from the Gaelic community, especially the Gaelic Pre-School Association.

  431
  It is suggested that someone with experience of the Gaelic-medium sector should be on the advisory research committee—the overall committee that will be considering and supervising the work of the Stirling university team. I know that the Minister has indicated that he wants that advisory team to be more focused on general issues than a particular issue, but I ask him to reflect on the fact that if the Government are concerned about overcoming the historical legacy of the exclusion of Gaelic from mainstream education, they should think very seriously about having someone with experience of Gaelic-medium education on the advisory team. If the Minister insists that there is no place for someone with specific Gaelic experience on the advisory committee, may I further suggest that the advisory committee at least consult Gaelic organisations? The Minister should make it clear to the advisory committee that he will make that requirement in the committee's review. Much attention will be paid to the Minister's response to those suggestions.
  The Government have prided themselves on supporting the Gaelic-medium sector in recent years and I acknowledge the support that has been received, but that support has generated an ever-increasing demand. The Government cannot just rest on what has been achieved: they must keep pace with the demand. I hope that the Minister will take seriously the need to include the Gaelic-medium sector in the research to be undertaken by the Stirling university team and the work of the advisory research committee.
  Mr. McAllion: I was very interested in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe); she could have sold tickets for the Committee stage of the Bill. It is a bizarre notion that anyone would part with good money to listen to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), although they might part with good money not to have to listen to him.
  Even more bizarre was the contribution of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh). The Scottish National party allegedly holds this Parliament in contempt, yet he spent the latter part of his speech picking over the arcane rules of the Westminster Parliament. Indeed, he boasted of the SNP's prowess in manipulating those rules better than any other Scottish party; so if people want to vote for the true Westminster party at the next election in Scotland, I suppose that they should vote SNP.
  The substance of the debate is far more important than the contribution of the hon. Member for Angus, East. I wish to support everything that my hon. Friends have said. Conservative Members' claims about nursery vouchers are entirely bogus. A few moments ago, when the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) was in the Chamber, he made it sound as though, if people vote for the Tories at the next general election, they will receive in the post a cheque for £1,100 with which they can buy a nursery place for their child. That is entirely wrong, because no such thing can happen. A nursery voucher is just a piece of paper which guarantees no one a nursery place in any school anywhere in Scotland.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill said, the vouchers are socially divisive, because some people can top up that £1,100 and use the state money and their own private money to guarantee that their child has access to quality nursery education, while others cannot top up the
  432
  £1,100 and will be prey to cowboy operators and other Johnny-come-lately operators who will appear on the scene with the support of the Tories to make a quick buck at the expense of three and four-year-olds.
  The Minister cannot simply brush the amendments aside, because they are about quality and standards in nursery schools throughout Scotland. We shall achieve quality and high standards only if we are prepared to pay for them, but the Government are not prepared to do so. The amendments are about the standard and safety of buildings and the quality of the teachers and helpers who run nursery schools. In the wake of the recent tragic incidents involving young children in schools, we cannot afford not to invest the maximum amount of public money in school provision, including nursery education.
  Ultimately, this country's future will turn on our education system and, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, the earlier we intervene in education, the more beneficial will be the reward to society as a whole. Society must make it clear that it is prepared to invest whatever is required to ensure that our children have access to the best possible education.
  I support all the amendments in this group. Some have been tabled by my hon. Friends who represent the Scottish Labour party and others have been tabled by Scottish National party members and Scottish Liberal Democrats. Taken together, those three Scottish parties represent 62 of the 72 Scottish constituencies, and we can be sure that all three will vote for the amendments when Divisions are called. However, it is also guaranteed that they will be defeated.
  5.15 pm
  Conservative Members ask me, "What could a Scottish Parliament do that a Scottish Committee of this House cannot do?" I shall tell them what it could do: defeat this Government. It could defeat the proposal for nursery vouchers; and it could carry these amendments and guarantee that quality nursery education was available to three and four-year-olds throughout Scotland. The House is not prepared to do that because, essentially, it is not interested in what happens in Scotland.
  Amendment No. 3 is similar to an amendment that was carried in the House of Lords and caused the Government some concern. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment in England and Wales described it as a wrecking amendment. I have a copy of her letter, in which she deals with the Government's defeat in the Lords. She says:
  "Addressing the issue in the Lords is preferable to waiting until Commons consideration of Lords amendments. We may experience greater difficulty overturning the amendment in the Commons."
  The Government would experience greater difficulty overturning that wrecking amendment in the Commons, because hon. Members who represent constituencies in England and Wales, who are not present tonight, would be here and would fight for their constituents. They would thus help to defeat the Government. But that is not the case with this amendment, because even Scottish Conservative Back Benchers are not concerned to be here. They are so supine that they will lie down and do whatever the Government ask them to do. English Conservative Back Benchers will vote down anything that Scotland wants, because it does not matter to them.

  433
  The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has rebelled against the Government in the past and has been admired for doing so, but is he prepared to vote for the amendments? Do they contain anything to which he objects? Does he not think that Parliament should look again at the pilot scheme and ensure that Scottish kids have access to good-quality education?
  Sir Hector Monro: If I thought that there was anything in what the hon. Gentleman was saying, of course I would support him, but I do not. What the Government are doing is right.
  Mr. McAllion: The right hon. Gentleman contradicts himself. I am not the only person who supports the amendments. All the Scottish Members of Parliament do so; public opinion in Scotland and the right hon. Gentleman's constituents say the same as us. They do not want to proceed at breakneck speed with a voucher scheme which may ultimately destroy the basis of nursery education. They want Parliament to take its time to ensure that it gets it right and that enough money is invested in the scheme. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see that, it is just as well for him that he will retire at the next general election. Whoever his Tory successor is, he will come neither here nor to any other Parliament once it is established in Scotland.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Did my hon. Friend notice that the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has just gone on record saying that he does not think that it is necessary to have
  "appropriate criteria for the quality assurance of the service provided"?
  I should have thought that that amendment and the others before us were common sense.
  Mr. McAllion: Every Opposition Member thinks that they are plain common sense, but the right hon. Gentleman probably has not even read the amendments that he is prepared to vote down. If he does so, I am sure that he will vote for them, because he is a man of honour.
  Anyone with a genuine interest in nursery education should support the amendments. If people vote against them, they do so for political reasons: because they have been told to do so by their Whips; and because they are interested in cutting public spending but not in public services and ordinary people. They are interested only in the big City financiers who worry about the size of the public debt and public spending, and want a bigger share of gross domestic product for their own private profit rather than to spend it on public services. They are the masters whom Conservative Members serve, but they are not served by the Opposition.
  We are in favour of quality education and we will vote in support of the amendments. When we get into power, we will ensure that Scottish children get the best—not the second best, which is offered by the Government.
  Mr. Salmond: At the risk of upsetting the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)—I do not want to pick a fight with him, because he is in enough trouble with his own party—I shall start on the subject of
  434
  procedures. Knowing the procedures of the House of Commons is not a symptom of being Westminsterised; it is a symptom of competence.
  Earlier, I intervened on the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) and drew her attention to remarks that she had made in Committee when the amendments were discussed. She said clearly in several newspapers and on television that this precluded discussion of the same amendments on Report. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Lady does not look enthusiastically in agreement with that, so I checked the record. Here is The Herald of 21 June 1996. Stephen McGregor, the parliamentary correspondent, quotes her as saying—
  Mr. O'Neill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we talking about the amendments that we dealt with in Committee, about the previous set of amendments or about the group of amendments before us?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should not have thought that the House would need reminding that it is talking about the amendment before the House this afternoon, not previous ones. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is quite in order in comparing them.
  Mr. Salmond: Yes, we are discussing amendments Nos. 3 and 8—the very amendments that the hon. Member for Monklands, East said could not possibly be discussed on Report. I quote from The Herald newspaper:
  "I am absolutely furious. They have stopped us taking this back to the Floor of the House where we could have defeated the Government … Mr. Welsh has cost us the ability to disable this Bill".
  I do not so much mind the fact that the hon. Lady did not understand that aspect of procedure—she has been in the House for two years. I do mind the fact that, having made that major attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) in the Scottish press and elsewhere, she does not have the elementary courtesy to come to the Dispatch Box—
  Mrs. Liddell rose—
  Mr. Salmond: I will let the hon. Lady in in a second or two. She need not concern herself about that.
  It is interesting that the hon. Lady took the position that these amendments could not come back on Report, so why on earth does her name appear on an amendment that does exactly that on Report?
  Mrs. Liddell: We are witnessing another example of how, because we are discussing nursery vouchers, the hon. Gentleman is determined to behave with nursery antics. He well knows that, if we have a vote in Committee on a subject, it places in jeopardy the possibility of a vote on the Floor of the House. It also put us in the position where our tactics were apparent and, frankly, it was a stunt by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) to cover up his own limitations in Committee.
  Mr. Salmond: That is not what the hon. Lady said in the Scottish press. She said that it precluded a vote and a discussion on the Floor of the House. Obviously, that is

  435
  untrue. We have two amendments before us that do exactly the same thing as the amendment that was voted on in Committee. The hon. Lady would do herself a lot of good if she would admit her mistakes, show a little humility—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We should get away from the mistakes and personalities now and get back to the amendment before the House.
  Mr. Salmond: I am extremely glad that we are debating amendments Nos. 3 and 8 on the Floor of the House tonight.
  I am told that the second aspect of what the hon. Member for Monklands, East said was that there was some chance of the amendments being defeated on Report. If they are defeated, it certainly will not be because of my eloquence or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) or any Labour Member, for, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East so astutely pointed out, hardly any Conservative Members are present, and most of the eight or nine who are present are on the payroll vote, with the sole exception of the hon. Member for Dumfries.
  Sir Hector Monro: Right hon. Member.
  Mr. Salmond: The sole exception is the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—I beg his pardon—to whom we should presumably direct all our attention, because we must convince him to be the Conservative rebellion on amendments Nos. 3 and 8.
  That betrays the folly of an argument that I have heard many times on the Floor of the House; it was used by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) during the passage of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill in 1994. We read in the Scottish papers that there would be a Conservative rebellion and that, if the arguments were put in the right way, the 1994 Act would be disabled. After 120 consecutive defeats in Committee, the hon. Gentleman clung to the same argument we have heard today on nursery education.
  How on earth, even if we could appeal to the better nature of Members from English constituencies on these aspects, can we appeal to their better nature when they are not even here to listen to the substance of the argument? They will not even do us the elementary courtesy of listening to our arguments before rejecting them.
  Some hon. Members know that I have known the Secretary of State for Scotland for a long time. I remember clearly that, at St. Andrews university, he argued for vouchers, not for nursery education but for primary education, for secondary education, for tertiary education—throughout the education system.
  That puts this measure into context. This is the foot in the door to the general changing of the education system in Scotland from universal provision at primary, secondary and tertiary level. The Government want to get a nursery voucher system in as a foot in the door for a voucher system where education can be bought and sold, like any other commodity in the marketplace.
  On Monday, the Secretary of State said that he would launch a petition in Scotland to harness the will of the Scottish people on the issue of the constitution. However,
  436
  in the consultation document on these provisions, 80 per cent. of Scottish opinion was against the voucher system. If the Conservative party will appeal to Scottish opinion on one measure, why is it not prepared to listen to the clearly enunciated Scottish opinion on the issue of vouchers?
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East rightly mentioned social divisiveness. I do not know whether I will get him into more trouble by agreeing with him or disagreeing with him, but he made a profound point about the socially divisive nature of a scheme in which better-off families will be able to top up the voucher value—an option that is not available to many families in Scotland. If a comprehensive national system of education in Scotland has meant anything—it has meant a great deal to many of us in increasing our life opportunities—it has meant the availability of the best education to every child in Scotland, regardless of parental background, income or social stratum.
  It comes ill, especially from Ministers such as the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), who have benefited from that opportunity, to start introducing into our education system a voucher system that can only undermine and disable the national and comprehensive characteristic that makes education available to all, regardless of background.
  That is why it is vital that we press amendments at every opportunity, whether it be in Committee or now, on the Floor of the House, because what is at stake is not only a measure on nursery education. This measure in the Bill and the ideology that lies behind it represent a frontal attack on the essence of Scottish education.
  Mr. Davidson: I believe that this is a missed opportunity. It is one of the few occasions when pre-five provision in Scotland has been discussed and debated.
  Mr. Eric Clarke: Do any more hon. Members wish to speak?
  Mr. Davidson: I reassure my hon. Friend that I will not be long.
  Mr. Welsh: Collusion!
  Mr. Davidson: There was certainly no collusion; if there had been collusion, I should not be speaking. I intend to speak on the amendment. Had the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) spoken to me beforehand, we might have reached an agreement on this matter.
  The curse of parts of Scotland is poverty and deprivation, and one of the ways in which many of our people can be helped to break out of that cycle of poverty and deprivation is by spending on pre-five services. Neither the Government nor, regrettably, my party takes this matter sufficiently seriously. We should say clearly and emphatically that much more money should be spent on children from birth to age five, especially those in areas of poverty and deprivation.
  There is a connection with the earlier debate about surplus school places. Often, surplus school places have emerged in the areas of greatest deprivation. We have the buildings there and we have the need there. Relatively

  437
  small cost would be involved in providing the staffing to provide services for the pre-five children in areas of greatest need. That should be the focus of our provision and of our spending.
  It is also important that we consider the needs of single parents who want to return to employment. Pre-five provision is important, not only for the children who receive it but for the members of their family.
  Regrettably, the existing pattern of pre-school education is not family friendly or designed to help parents, particularly single parents, find employment—the hours are short and the holidays are long. Pre-five provision should be family friendly, should be longer, should be flexible and should have a longer operating year. People seeking employment should be assisted, but again, it costs money. The Labour party would be prepared to spend the necessary amount of money to ensure that children in areas of deprivation are able to get a first-class education and that their families are able to find jobs.
  Finally, I reiterate the fact that the Scots do not want the measure—they have rejected it up and down the country. It has come about only because of the present practice of unionism—the way in which it is operated by the Government. I can think of few measures more designed to drive support away from the Union than the way in which the Government intend to drive the measure through the House today.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) was a bit like watching summer television: repeat after repeat after repeat. There was no need for the hon. Lady to give the House edited highlights of her pretty press releases. I was flattered that she used some of my best lines when responding to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
  As hon. Members know, the evaluation of the pilot year will be carried out by an independent team from Stirling university. As I have explained, its remit is extensive and it is available for all hon. Members to see. Since my first public comments about the evaluation—at the evidence-gathering sitting of a Select Committee of another place in Glasgow—I have stressed the importance that my colleagues and I put on the evaluation. We are determined that the voucher system should deliver the maximum benefits for its ultimate consumers—pre-school children—and the evaluation will be a crucial tool in ensuring that that happens.
  The Opposition have consistently attempted to convince the watching world that the results of the evaluation will arrive all in one go and without much prior warning. The results of the evaluation of the pre-school voucher pilot will not emerge suddenly and from nowhere; they will emerge steadily over the pilot year. In addition, many of the key findings—especially vital results relating to operational aspects of the system—will be known early on. Moreover, we will share the results widely.
  We have arranged with the Stirling university team that it will provide not just a final report but interim reports—and not just interim reports but dissemination events at which the emerging findings can be reported and discussed.
  438
  Moreover, Stirling university will not be conducting the evaluation in isolation; it will do so with local evaluations conducted by each of the pilot authorities.
  In addition, the team will conduct the evaluation with the advice of the evaluation advisory committee. The committee will include individuals nominated by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Hon. Members are already aware that a survey of parental views is part of the remit of the research team. I am confident that the broad range of views available will prove useful to the research team. I hope that its make-up will satisfy the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), who referred to consultation at the end of his amendment No. 8.
  Mr. Macdonald: Will part of the team's specific remit be to look at the impact of the pilot scheme on the Gaelic-medium sector?
  Mr. Robertson: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member said and I shall write to him. The research commissioned by the Scottish Office is generally published, and this evaluation will be no exception. I shall be happy to lay before Parliament copies of the final report of the Stirling team.
  Amendment No. 7, to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred, seeks to place a requirement on providing centres in relation to the level of qualifications and the training of staff. This matter is capable of being regulated, where necessary, by local authorities under legislation. All authorities require that persons dealing with children in establishments registered under legislation are fit and proper people for such a position. Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools makes judgments on the quality of education provision in a centre.
  All the amendments that we have debated seek to destroy the Government's pre-school education initiative in Scotland. I am confident that the House will support my determination not to let that happen.
  Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Robertson: No, I wish to make some progress. The results of the pre-school voucher initiative are becoming clear, and the verdict is good. More than 3,200 parents have applied for vouchers and received them. Moreover, there has been a massive expansion of provision in the pilot areas.
  Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister refused to give way to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) because he looked at the clock. Am I right in saying that the Report stage is not time limited?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member is correct: the Report stage is not time limited. The Minister may look wherever he likes in the Chamber.
  Mr. Robertson: There were once only 20 local authority nursery schools and classes—next year, there will be more than 60. In addition, more than 70 centres in the voluntary and private sectors will be educationally accredited for the first time, having satisfied Her

  439
  Majesty's inspectorate of the quality of the education that they have to offer. For the first time, from August, every child in the pre-school year will be guaranteed a place in a quality, accredited pre-school centre. The latest report is that there will be a surplus of places—that is a remarkable achievement, which the Labour party seeks to diminish.
  The amendments cannot be accepted—the future of young children in Scotland would be blighted if they were. Hon. Members must oppose the amendments and approve the Government's far-sighted strategy as set out in the Bill.
  Mrs. Liddell: I regret that the Minister has not seen fit to accept the amendments. They were placed on the amendment paper to seek an improvement in the quality of pre-five education in Scotland. Instead of addressing the significant issues that the amendments raise, certain hon. Members have chosen to go down the route of posing and posturing. The issues are important to the people of Scotland. It is regrettable that hon. Members who represent a party that has Scotland in its name should try to duck the issues of great importance. We have heard the smug and patronising tones of hon. Members who wish to cover up the fact that the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) made limited contributions on these issues in Committee.
  I refer to the amendments in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends. The Minister has not addressed some significant issues. Quality assurance is an important element of our pre-five provision—that is recognised by people in Scotland who support the Labour party and by those who do not. The Government have ducked the issue. The Government do not have sufficient confidence in their proposals to allow hon. Members to debate the evaluation of the pilot scheme.
  I believe that amendment No. 3 is the most significant amendment on the amendment paper. I shall put it to the vote, because it is very important that hon. Members have the opportunity to evaluate a proposal that will have a fundamental impact on the provision of pre-five education in Scotland.
  My hon. Friends made important points, not least of which was that made repeatedly by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), about special needs. The Government have not responded to her points. I am delighted to hear that the Minister will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) about the Gaelic-medium sector.
  I make no apology for repeating again and again that a nursery voucher is not a guarantee of a nursery place—it will flaw the provision of pre-five education in Scotland. The Government have not answered the points that were made in Committee and on Report. It is regrettable that the Government are seeking to introduce such a measure when it is against the will of hon. Members and the people of Scotland.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 291.

  Division No. 184]

  [5.39 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Alton, David

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Ainger, Nick

  Ashton, Joe

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Allen, Graham

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  440

  Barron, Kevin

  Galbraith, Sam

  Battle, John

  Galloway, George

  Bayley, Hugh

  Gapes, Mike

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Garrett, John

  Bell, Stuart

  George, Bruce

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Benton, Joe

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godsiff, Roger

  Berry, Roger

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Betts, Clive

  Gordon, Mildred

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Graham, Thomas

  Blunkett, David

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Boateng, Paul

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bradley, Keith

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grocott, Bruce

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gunnell, John

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

  Hain, Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hall, Mike

  Byers, Stephen

  Hanson, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Heppell, John

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cann, Jamie

  Hodge, Margaret

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hoey, Kate

  Chidgey, David

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Home Robertson, John

  Church, Judith

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clapham, Michael

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

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

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clelland, David

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hutton, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ingram, Adam

  Corston, Jean

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cox, Tom

  Jamieson, David

  Cummings, John

  Janner, Greville

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davidson, Ian

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

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

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Denham, John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dewar, Donald

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dixon, Don

  Lewis, Terry

  Dobson, Frank

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Litherland, Robert

  Dowd, Jim

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Eastham, Ken

  Loyden, Eddie

  Etherington, Bill

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAllion, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fatehett, Derek

  McCartney, Ian

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fisher, Mark

  McFall, John

  Flynn, Paul

  McKelvey, William

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McLeish, Henry

  Foulkes, George

  Maclennan, Robert

  Fyfe, Maria

  McNamara, Kevin

  441

  MacShane, Denis

  Rooney, Terry

  McWilliam, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Madden, Max

  Rowlands, Ted

  Maddock, Diana

  Salmond, Alex

  Mahon, Alice

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mandelson, Peter

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marek, Dr John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Short, Clare

  Martlew, Eric

  Simpson, Alan

  Meacher, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

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

  Michael, Alun

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Spellar, John

  Milburn, Alan

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stevenson, George

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stott, Roger

  Morley, Elliot

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mudie, George

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mullin, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Murphy, Paul

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Touhig, Don

  O'Hara, Edward

  Trickett, Jon

  Olner, Bill

  Turner, Dennis

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tyler, Paul

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Pearson, Ian

  Wallace, James

  Pendry, Tom

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pike, Peter L

  Watson, Mike

  Pope, Greg

  Welsh, Andrew

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wilson, Brian

  Radice, Giles

  Winnick, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Wise, Audrey

  Raynsford, Nick

  Worthington, Tony

  Reid, Dr John

  Wray, Jimmy

  Rendel, David

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rogers, Allan

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice and

  Rooker, Jeff

  Ms Ann Coffey.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Booth, Hartley

  Alexander, Richard

  Boswell, Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Allason, Rupert

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Arnold, Jacques

  Bowis, John

  Ashby, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Brazier, Julian

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Bates, Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Batiste, Spencer

  Burns, Simon

  Beggs, Roy

  Burt, Alistair

  Bellingham, Henry

  Butcher, John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Butler, Peter

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Butterfill, John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Carrington, Matthew

  442

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Cash, William

  Hendry, Charles

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Churchill, Mr

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Clappison, James

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Horam, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coe, Sebastian

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Congdon, David

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Jack, Michael

  Cran, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Day, Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Devlin, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dover, Den

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan, Alan

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knox, Sir David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Elletson, Harold

  Legg, Barry

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Evennett, David

  Lidington, David

  Faber, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Luff, Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fishburn, Dudley

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forman, Nigel

  MacKay, Andrew

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Forth, Eric

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Madel, Sir David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Malone, Gerald

  French, Douglas

  Mans, Keith

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Marlow, Tony

  Gallie, Phil

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Garnier, Edward

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Mates, Michael

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  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)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hannam, Sir John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Norris, Steve

  Hawkins, Nick

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hawksley, Warren

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Page, Richard

  443

  Paice, James

  Stephen, Michael

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Stern, Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Allan

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Streeter, Gary

  Pawsey, James

  Sumberg, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Sweeney, Walter

  Pickles, Eric

  Sykes, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Richards, Rod

  Thomason, Roy

  Riddick, Graham

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Tracey, Richard

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Trend, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Trotter, Neville

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Twinn Dr Ian

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sackville, Tom

  Viggers, Peter

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waller, Gary

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Ward John

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Watts, John

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Whitney, Ray

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Whittingdale, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Wilkinson, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Willetts, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Wood, Timothy

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Yeo, Tim

  Spring, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sproat, Iain

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

  Steen, Anthony

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 11, line 32, at end insert—
  '(2A) No arrangements shall be made under subsection (1) above in respect of grants payable under this Act unless and until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament an evaluation of the operation over a period of 12 months of any grant for nursery education in the area of any local authority made during the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98.'.—[Mrs. Liddell.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 288.

  Division No. 185]

  [5.52 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Barron, Kevin

  Ainger, Nick

  Battle, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Allen, Graham

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Alton, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bell, Stuart

  Ashton, Joe

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Austin-Walker, John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  444

  Benton, Joe

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Berry, Roger

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Betts, Clive

  Godsiff, Roger

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Blunkett, David

  Gordon, Mildred

  Boateng, Paul

  Graham, Thomas

  Bradley, Keith

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

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

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gunnell, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Hain, Peter

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hall, Mike

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Harvey, Nick

  Canavan, Dennis

  Heppell, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Chidgey, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoey, Kate

  Church, Judith

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Clapham, Michael

  Home Robertson, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

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

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hutton, John

  Corston, Jean

  Illsley, Eric

  Cousins, Jim

  Ingram, Adam

  Cox, Tom

  Jackson, Gtenda (H'stead)

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Janner, Greville

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

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

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

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

  Denham, John

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dewar, Donald

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dixon, Don

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dobson, Frank

  Lewis, Terry

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Uddell, Mrs Helen

  Dowd, Jim

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Livingstone, Ken

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eastham, Ken

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Etherington, Bill

  Loyden, Eddie

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McAllion, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Faulds, Andrew

  McCartney, Ian

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fisher, Mark

  McFall, John

  Flynn, Paul

  McKelvey, William

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McLeish, Henry

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Foulkes, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fyfe, Maria

  MacShane, Denis

  Galbraith, Sam

  McWilliam, John

  Galloway, George

  Madden, Max

  Gapes, Mike

  Maddock, Diana

  Garrett, John

  Mahon, Alice

  George, Bruce

  Mandelson, Peter

  445

  Marek, Dr John

  Salmond, Alex

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marttew, Eric

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Meacher, Michael

  Short, Clare

  Meale, Alan

  Simpson, Alan

  Michael, Alun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Soley, Clive

  Milburn, Alan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Miller, Andrew

  Spellar, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Stevenson, George

  Morley, Elliot

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Murphy, Paul

  Tayior, Matthew (Truro)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Timms, Stephen

  Olner, Bill

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Touhig, Don

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Trickett, Jon

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Dennis

  Pendry, Tom

  Tyler, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Pike, Peter L

  Wallace, James

  Pope, Greg

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Watson, Mike

  Purchase, Ken

  Welsh, Andrew

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Radice, Giles

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Randall, Stuart

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wilson, Brian

  Reid, Dr John

  Winnick, David

  Rendel, David

  Wise, Audrey

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Worthington, Tony

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Rogers, Allan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Rooney, Terry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice and Ms Ann Coffey.

  Rowlands, Ted

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Alexander, Richard

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bowis, John

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Amess, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Ashby, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Burns, Simon

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Burt, Alistair

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Butler, Peter

  Bates, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carrington, Matthew

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Carttiss, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cash, William

  Body, Sir Richard

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Booth, Hartley

  Churchill, Mr

  Boswell, Tim

  Clappison, James

  446

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochtord)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Horam, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coe, Sebastian

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dtord)

  Congdon, David

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Couchman, James

  Jack, Michael

  Cran, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

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

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jessel, Toby

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Duncan, Alan

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Knapman, Roger

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knight Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Dykes, Hugh

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

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Knox, Sir David

  Elletson, Harold

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Leigh, Edward

  Evennett, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Faber, David

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lord, Michael

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Luff, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  McNair-Wlson, Sir Patrick

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Madel, Sir David

  French, Douglas

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Malone, Gerald

  Gallie, Phil

  Mans, Keith

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marland, Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Marlow, Tony

  Gill, Christopher

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mates, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mills, Iain

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Norris, Steve

  Hawksley, Warren

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Page, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Paice, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Pawsey, James

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  447

  Pickles, Eric

  Sweeney, Walter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Sykes, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sr Teddy (Southend, E)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Richards, Rod

  Thomason, Roy

  Riddick, Graham

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tracey, Richard

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Tredinnick, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Trend, Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Viggers, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Walden, George

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Waller, Gary

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Ward, John

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Waterson, Nigel

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Watts, John

  Smith, Tm (Beaconsfield)

  Wells, Bowen

  Soames, Nicholas

  Whitney, Ray

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Whittingdale, John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wilkinson, John

  Spring, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wood, Timothy

  Steen, Anthony

  Yeo, Tim

  Stephen, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stern, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

  Sumberg, David

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 328

  ASSESSMENT OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PUPILS
  Mrs. Liddell: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 18, leave out lines 16 to 28.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in page 18, line 20, after 'assessment', insert
  ', at the request in writing of their parents or guardians,'.
  No. 9, in page 18, line 22, at end insert
  '; but before making such regulations he shall consult such organisations as appear to him to be representative of local authorities and teachers.'.
  Mrs. Liddell: The amendments will initiate a substantive debate on compulsory testing in schools. I wish to be clear: Labour supports testing as it is outlined in the five-to-14 curriculum. We believe, however, that parents' views should be taken into account whenever we discuss the recently introduced concept of compulsory national testing in Scottish schools. It is, of course, a concept that goes against the principle of post-primary education in Scotland.
  448
  We have a five-to-14 curriculum that is based on assessment of the pupil. The pupil is tested at the discretion of the teacher. Following that assessment, it is decided which band of testing should be introduced. There is a history in Scotland of parental opposition to compulsory testing.
  It was the Secretary of State, whom we have not seen this evening, who was responsible for seeking to introduce compulsory testing in primary schools. There was a widespread outcry from parents and teachers. As a consequence, an arrangement was brokered by the Minister of State, which resulted in a system of testing, which I confess has been operated with parental support to date. I do not understand why the Government have now seen fit to introduce a system of testing that is at odds with the criteria laid down in the five-to-14 curriculum.
  The Government make much of parental choice. I do not understand, therefore, why they should be opposed to the amendment. After all, the purpose behind it is to ensure that parental rights are explicitly stated, and that parents must be given the right to withdraw their children from compulsory tests.
  In Committee, we discovered some disturbing elements of the Government's proposals. They were not properly thought out. It seems that they were introduced more as a consequence of electioneering on the part of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), at the Conservative party conference than as a result of careful thought. The Government's proposals were foisted on the Committee at the last moment.
  The House will recall that, in the other place, a Special Standing Committee took evidence from a number of notable experts. As that Committee was not aware that compulsory national testing was to be introduced, it was denied the opportunity to consult experts on Scottish education. The eleventh-hour attempt to introduce compulsory national testing is designed to hoodwink the people of Scotland and disguise the Government's intentions.
  In considering the Bill in Committee, it became apparent that it was the Government's intention to introduce testing as soon as children arrived for their first year of secondary education. I contend that we are talking about a return to the 11-plus system. We are talking also about introducing a system that will be externally set and marked. It will therefore not be part of the critical testing at is embodied in effective teaching and learning. That i testing within the natural confines of the classroom, as part of the natural teaching process, which is honoured by good teachers as part of their attempt to draw children on i to different grades in the five-to-14 curriculum.
  Externally set tests mean that time is being taken from t aching during the first two years of secondary school. I reiterate my concern because we have seen a dip in pupil performance in S1 and S2. Rather than addressing that important matter, the Government seek to introduce bureaucratic external testing of young people. It is artificial, and it eats up valuable and sometimes limited time for teaching and learning.
  If compulsory tests are introduced, children in secondary schools in Scotland will be tested in their first, cond, fourth, fifth and sixth years. They will be the most tested young people in Europe. Such testing will not add anything to the quality of teaching in the classroom, or to Vie quality of information that is available to parents.

  449
  If the Government genuinely believe in parental choice, they must give parents the right, explicitly stated, to withdraw their children from the testing that I have described. It is not enough for the Minister to say, "If parents do not want their children to do it, they can withdraw." It must be explicitly stated in the Bill that parents have that right. Otherwise, we shall be back to the conflicts when the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) tried to introduce compulsory testing in primary schools. Children who will be going to secondary school in a few weeks' time are the same children whose parents withdrew them from compulsory testing in primary schools.
  Compulsory testing is at odds with parents' requests, and with the genesis of the five-to-14 curriculum. Furthermore, it covers only three aspects of the curriculum. What will happen to the other aspects that are not being tested, bearing in mind the time that will be lost in teaching those subjects?
  If the Government were genuine about trying to improve performance in S1 and S2, they would examine the problems experienced by children who had been tested in primary school. A significant number of children are tested up to level D under the five-to-14 curriculum at primary school, so when they go to secondary school they experience a fallow period. The Government would do better to consider such details and issues affecting overload, teachers and the resources available to produce materials to ensure that five-to-14 testing is upgraded for secondary schools, because many of the test materials used are the same as those used in primary schools.
  Compulsory testing goes against the advice of educationists. It is an ideological move to reintroduce the 11-plus and streaming. The Minister has told us that Her Majesty's inspectorate is to conduct an examination of streaming. Why is he so determined to prejudge that examination?
  On Second Reading, the Secretary of State suggested that to attempt to educate a pupil without testing is as absurd as running a business without keeping accounts. That is a fallacious analogy. The Minister is seeking to introduce a system of testing whereby schools would be run by external auditors.
  Furthermore, the Government have not advanced convincing arguments about the Scottish Qualifications Authority. We have not had any advice about what the tests are likely to cost. In the first two years, 366,000 tests could be set. It is ludicrous that the Government have not sought to give us information on this, which suggests that the whole proposal has been ill thought out.
  The amendments seek to introduce a critical element of parental involvement. They seek to ensure that we get rid of a system that does not support the best ethos of Scottish education, and they seek to put in context a move that has been introduced by the Government for the most spurious of reasons.
  The Government complain that there has not been sufficient testing in S1 and S2, but fail to acknowledge that testing as such could have been available only from August 1994. The figures from which they work are outdated, and they fail to take into account the need to re-evaluate bands A to D in the five-to-14 curriculum.
  450
  I urge the House to support the amendments. They are commonsense amendments, that would strike a chord with Scotland's parents, teachers and educationists.
  Mr. Welsh: I shall speak to amendment No. 9, because I believe that consultation is of the essence.
  The Government must listen to the views of those most affected by their proposals. The amendment says that, before making regulations, the Secretary of State
  "shall consult such organisations as appear to him to be representative of local authorities and teachers."
  Given the controversy, opposition and fears about testing, there must be some mechanism to express genuine consumer reaction. That is the purpose of amendment No. 9.
  Previous votes proved the Labour party wrong on three counts: first, the voucher amendments were debated on Report; secondly, the Government won easily—so two predictions fall—and, finally, Labour does not propose to divide the House on amendment No. 4. If it does not do so, there is always the Scottish National party to force the issue.
  The Government's novel approach to secondary testing has been a recent addition to the Bill, and therefore requires maximum scrutiny by us. It is a pity that it has not been scrutinised more. The Labour and Conservative parties seem to be rushing the Bill through. That, too, is a pity, because it is so important that it requires the widest scrutiny.
  Those who followed the Committee stage of the Bill will have witnessed the Government's repeated failure to address the many concerns of parents and professionals. I hope that the Minister will respond more positively, now or on Third Reading. His cavalier response to those genuinely expressed concerns was disturbing.
  Those who followed the Committee stage will also have witnessed quite unprecedented collusion between the Front Benches. That disgraceful lack of effective opposition was highlighted in the attempt to rush through the debate on testing, and it has been replicated now.
  6.15 pm
  Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman's speeches took up about a fifth of the column space in Hansard that was taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) and other Labour Members on the Committee. An objective reader of Hansard will realise who fought the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating not the Committee stage but a particular amendment and those associated with it.
  Mr. Welsh: My speeches fitted the task. I was outnumbered 18 to one on the Committee, which left me vulnerable to such nonsense—and Labour nonsense it surely is.
  The most galling feature of the Bill is that Tory Members from English constituencies will decide whether 120,000 Scottish S1 and S2 pupils are to be tested under the new system proposed by the Government. Only one of the silent three Tory Members who served on the Committee is present, although I dare say that the other two will vote. They do not understand the intricacies of

  451
  the issue, but their voices will be heard above those of parents and teachers in Scotland—people with a deep knowledge and experience of the Scottish system. The views of Scottish Members and Scottish teachers and parents will come to naught in the face of the unquestioning and obedient Tory Lobby fodder. Who knows, the promised Government defeat might be delivered by the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell), but we shall not hold our breath.
  I wish to raise a number of issues, but I shall limit my remarks to a small selection of concerns on which I should like a response from the Minister. Will he give some assurances about the logistics of the proposed S1 and S2 tests? About 360,000 examination papers and the associated curriculum must be in place in a little over a year—a year supposedly devoted to consultation on issues relating to testing materials and the development of the curriculum.
  Does the hon. Gentleman honestly expect the House to believe that this is not a rushed project? He expects us to believe that he is allocating sufficient time for the development of the new S1 and S2 test. It cannot be over-emphasised that this new system is being loaded on a teaching profession which already works under the burden of previous Government-imposed burdens.
  In Committee, we were not given a satisfactory estimate of costs, because the Government have not decided the basis for the tests or the type of materials to be used. What element of local authority expenditure is to be sacrificed to pay for these tests?
  If local councils are to pay the Scottish Qualifications Authority for tests, the money will have to come out of some local authority budget. Are the new tests the best value for money for our local authorities? The Minister is normally prone to use that phrase. I do not think they are, and education professionals in Scotland share my judgment. There are cost implications and logistical difficulties, for a brand new type of test. The introduction of a test that flies in the face of the accepted structure of the five-to-14 system constitutes an important change to Scottish education.
  The Minister has given figures relating to the level of testing in S 1 and S2, but those figures take into account only a narrow definition of assessment. The Minister knows that teachers are constantly assessing pupils' achievement; to say otherwise is to insult teachers in Scotland. Any extension of formal testing in secondary schools should proceed according to the five-to-14 model rather than—as the Government now suggest—in complete opposition to it.
  The Minister has not given us an adequate assurance about the position of primary school pupils who have reached band E in the five-to-14 test. He has not explained why we should move from a system in which pupils are tested as and when they are judged to have reached a standard allowing them to progress to the next level to a system involving an inflexible test on a fixed day. Although that is a fundamental tenet of what the Minister is suggesting, he has never explained the educational reasons for such a system, or how it can be delivered.
  Previous tests were developed to meet pupils' needs. The Government's proposals, however, are contrary to the accepted system, and seem to have been designed simply to meet their own short-sighted, narrow political needs. The five-to-14 system was developed, with much care and concern, in conjunction with the teaching profession.
  452
  The Minister's proposal goes against that consensus: he is tearing up a well-worked compromise, and forcing through a new anglicised system that jars with the experience and advice of teachers.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Welsh: The Minister shakes his head, implying that he has not received such advice. I suggest that he has not spoken to many teachers; he certainly has not spoken to members of the Educational Institute of Scotland, because what I have said represents its stated view.
  Amendment No. 4 would delete the provision for testing of secondary school pupils. For all the reasons that were given in Committee and have been given much more briefly today, it is important to halt the Government's damaging proposal and to leave time for the development of the five-to-14 system within S 1 and S2. The Scottish National party will support the amendment.
  Amendment No. 6 introduces a more explicit statement of parental choice, which would guarantee that only children whose parents want them to take tests must do so. Rather than allowing ignorance of rights to result in some children's taking the tests, the amendment requires explicit action from parents who want their children to take them. We support it as well.
  Amendment No. 9, which I tabled, simply highlights the lack of consultation involved in the drafting of this part of the Bill. The test proposal was foisted on us in Committee; it is disgraceful that the views of the professionals were not properly sought before the Bill was introduced. The amendment would introduce a statutory requirement for consultation with relevant bodies. In the course of such consultation, it would become apparent to the Government how deeply flawed and badly thought out their present proposal is—but the important thing is for the consultation to take place.
  I urge the House to support the amendments, for the sake of the integrated five-to-14 system and to defend Scottish education from yet another politically motivated Tory innovation.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I was struck by the way in which clause 32 was introduced at the last minute. The Minister behaved rather like the Spartans, who, when about to die, stayed behind their shields before perishing in a hail of arrows from their enemies. Similarly, determined to retain all their ideologies as they fought to the death, the Government introduced this last crazy measure, not only to introduce testing in S I and S2 as a substitute for the 11-plus, but to introduce external testing in secondary schools.
  That shows how out of touch the Government are with the people of Scotland. This is not about education, but about ideology: in a final effort before going into their death throes, the Government have gathered all their crazy ideology into an education Bill. I am glad they have, because the people of Scotland will have even more reason to vote them out of office when they have the chance.
  The Minister consistently said that the measure concerned the level of testing in S1 and S2, and named one or two Scottish regions where he considered the level very low. He did not recognise that the real problem was persuading the teaching profession that resources and

  453
  materials would be made available to make it relevant to use the five-to-14 testing and assessment structures worked out by the Government, the profession and Scottish schools over the past decade.
  It seems that the Minister is putting down a marker to the English constituencies where he will have to plead for a job after he is rejected by the Scottish people. This is not anglicised ideology, but ill-thought-out ideology, wherever it is found—on whichever side of the border, and in whichever country. The Government will say that they tried to introduce it in Scotland. Admittedly, the Minister will probably add that he failed, but he will say that he did at least try.
  The Government's proposal is not about educational development, or the philosophy of assessment papers in the five-to-14 curriculum. I am not sure whether the Minister has read and considered them in the context of his silly plan for external testing. The Minister of State, Scottish Office, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who was responsible for developing the assessment philosophy for some time, clearly read and understood the papers, because he turned against the compulsory testing that the present Secretary of State for Scotland tried to introduce. If this Minister had read them, he would realise that there was a good deal that people could be persuaded to introduce in terms of assessment.
  Everyone recognises the need for a level A in five-to-14 assessment, to stretch pupils in S1 and S2 who have not yet reached that level. The Minister, however, has set up an external process of "setting". He said in Committee that there would be no streaming, but that there would be setting.
  Taking three different subjects, testing pupils and trying to "set" them according to three different responses, however, along with the difficulty of timetabling in a secondary school, will result in de facto streaming. If an attempt is made to set an external test in three different subjects for pupils who have reached a particular level when there is a timetabling difficulty, groups of pupils will constantly be streamed into lower sets, and will be deprived of educational opportunities.
  That is worse than pandering to the philosophy that I have heard in some secondary staffrooms. Some teachers feel that the less able kids get under the feet of the bright ones in senior secondary schools, and would prefer them to be removed from classes by some means or other. It is worse because it allows an external agency to come into schools and put pupils into separate categories without giving teachers a chance to assess them. I deprecate that philosophy, which still exists in some senior secondary schools in Scotland which have turned into comprehensives, but I deprecate even more the idea that an external agency will come in and do the setting, which will lead to streaming.
  As we heard in Committee, some people applauded this initiative, comparing it with their experiences of the old weeding-out process. That is what the 11-plus was about—weeding out the children who were seen to be less able, and getting them out from under the feet of those who were seen to be brighter. We used to do that by sending them to junior secondary schools, and sending the brighter ones to senior secondary schools.
  454
  As hon. Members said in Committee, the process was deeply flawed: many who went to junior secondary schools found their way back into education at a higher level, and proved that they were as bright as those who had secured senior secondary places and passed the 11-plus. That will be repeated in Scotland if the Government ever have a chance to implement this scheme. Pupils will be weeded out and put into lower sets and streams, and will have to fight their way back into adequate education.
  I am thinking of every parent in Scotland, not just those in less well-off communities who may not have academic achievements themselves. The Government's proposals do not concern only them; they concern every middle-class home that faces the possibility that an external agency will mark down children of 12 or 13 as failures, weeding them out of the higher sets and higher streams in secondary schools and depriving them of educational opportunities.
  I ask the House to reject this mad idea, and I ask parents to resist testing if the Government try to implement it—just as a trial run, to flex their muscles in preparation for the opportunity to reject this Government, which will come within a year.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Wallace: On Second Reading, the Secretary of State for Scotland produced the idea of secondary testing in S1 and S2 out of a hat. It was clear, as the debate progressed and, in particular, after my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) had asked him about parental choice, that the policy had never been thought through in any great detail. It almost seemed to develop as the debate progressed.
  I have the horrible feeling that we have been here before. As the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) said, it was the Secretary of State who, when he was a junior Minister with responsibility for education, caused chaos in classrooms through his insistence on external testing. It took all the diplomatic skills of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), when he took over the reins of junior Minister with responsibility for education, to—
  Mr. Salmond: Clear up the mess.
  Mr. Wallace: To clear up the mess.
  The development of assessment by teachers, of a pupil-oriented system, of where testing can be used, of a bank of tests, of close consultation with the profession and of testing to evaluate assessments, is envied in many other parts of the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State wants, however, to put the clock back and to re-sow the seeds of compulsory testing and all the disruption that that caused.
  The objection is to the rigid imposition of testing. As the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) has said, there is no bank of tests. We have not been told what the cost is. If the proposal had been in the Bill from the outset, its financial memorandum would have told us what the cost would be, but, as it was introduced by way of an amendment in Committee, we do not know the cost or where the local authorities can find resources to fund the policy.

  455
  Many people are concerned that testing early in the secondary lifetime of a young person could reintroduce the 11-plus by the back door. I was possibly in the last year that sat the 11-plus, but it damaged generations of young Scots, who were branded at a relatively young age. As the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) said, some managed to recover, but many were classified as having failed at that age, and never quite made their way back.
  The important part of amendment No. 6 is that it will ensure that any testing would require the written consent or request of parents and guardians. When the matter was debated on Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said:
  "the SQA will be supplying exams at standard grade and higher grade. It is up to parents, teachers and pupils whether pupils sit those exams. It will be the same for new national exams set by the SQA at S1 and S2."—[Official Report, 4 June 1996; Vol. 278, c. 444.]
  He said, "parents, teachers and pupils". Perhaps when he replies to the debate, he will confirm either that testing will take place only if teachers, parents and pupils all agree that it should take place, or that he is retreating from that. If he can give that assurance, that might put testing in a different light.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: As I said repeatedly in Committee, it is up to parents to decide whether their child sits the test. Parents can consult anyone they want to consult. It could be the pupil, the teacher or the child's granny, for that matter. It is the parents' decision.
  Mr. Wallace: That being the case, I am sure that the Minister will have no difficulty in accepting amendment No. 6. My hon. Friends believe that the Government's proposal is potentially a Trojan horse, which could damage young people. Therefore, we believe it would be much better if the Government dealt with other important issues, such as the proper development of the five-to-14 curriculum in S1 and S2, which is widely accepted as not having been properly progressed. It might be better if that were the focus of the Government's attention, rather than the wish to proceed with potentially dangerous and rigid compulsory testing, as proposed in the clause that they added in Committee.
  Mr. Salmond: In rising to support all three of the amendments in this group, I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) that I could do a lot worse than to start with the arguments of the magnum opus—the excellent 90-minute speech in Committee made by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), who went through the debate issue by issue, and discussed the impact of compulsory testing on parents and teachers. [Interruption.] I can do that, if hon. Members want. My hon. Friend demonstrated how the Minister's proposals were rejected by every person with an interest in the vast majority of Scottish opinion.
  This debate exemplifies the Government's problems with Scottish society. Professional and parental opinion is firmly against the Minister's proposals on this issue, yet those expressions of opinion are treated with total contempt. When my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East mentioned the Educational Institute of Scotland, I saw the Minister roll his eyes and look up to the ceiling,
  456
  as if he could just dismiss that professional organisation's opinions as below consideration in his evaluation.
  When they came to see me to discuss these measures, EIS members were divided on the Minister's political future. None of them wanted him to be the Minister with responsibility for education in Scotland, but some were worried that, if he lost his seat, he might return to the profession. There is no excuse for the Minister treating with such contempt the expressions of both parental and professional opinion on these matters. That goes to the heart of what is wrong with the Conservative party's approach to Scottish legislation and to wider Scottish society.
  The Conservative party is exercised by the view that many people in Scotland, including its supporters, regard it as anti-Scottish, so it has embarked on a series of publicity and public relations stunts to try to massage back a Scottish image. It has a new logo, and it has returned the Stone of Destiny. It is trying to emphasise the party's Scottish credentials at every opportunity, but, on the issue of Scottish education, it treats with contempt the expressions of opinion from Scotland. Eighty per cent. of people involved in the consultation process say that the Conservative party is going in the wrong direction, but that is swept aside by the Minister in his approach.
  On the legislative process, during this debate there have never been more than six Conservative Members in the House. There are currently five. Every one of them is on the payroll vote. The Conservative party cannot even bother to bring its members in to debate the issues, which it knows are regarded with derision and opposition in Scottish society. It then wonders why so many people in Scotland, including its supporters, regard it as anti-Scottish in its approach to legislation and to politics.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East when he said that this was not an anglicisation process. I think the Secretary of State has embarked on such a process. The same point has been made by the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell). The essence of the Secretary of State's approach to Scottish education has been to try to run down its integrated character and to introduce the social divisiveness and fragmentation that exists in the education system south of the border.
  Mr. Connarty: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many other countries still hold to the mythology that people should be divided at an early age into those who will be technocrats and those who will be academics? It is flawed in those countries, as it is when applied in the UK.
  Mr. Salmond: I fully accept that point, but I am dealing with the motivation of the Secretary of State for Scotland, with whom I had discussions a long time ago. He has regarded Scottish education and the integrated nature of Scottish education as a bulwark against his party's interest in Scotland. He regards the facts that 97 per cent. of Scottish children go to comprehensive schools and Scottish education does not have social divisiveness in the system as an obstacle to the Conservative party's political progress in Scotland. That is why he takes as his model what has happened south of the border, with the fragmented state of education there, and why my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East and the hon. Member for Monklands, East were right to point to an anglicisation process.

  457
  If the Under-Secretaryof State wants to know why his party is so poorly regarded in Scotland, and why it is thought of as anti-Scottish, he needs to reflect no further than on his attitude towards the submissions made by professional and parental organisations on this measure, and on the contempt with which he and his colleagues have treated this part of Scottish legislation this night, even to the extent of refusing to take an intervention from the leader of the Liberal party in Scotland—the Minister is clock-watching, worried that the issue of ministerial salaries will not be debated according to the timetable set by the Whips. That shows the extent of the Minister's contempt for Scottish education, and as long as he holds it in contempt, the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people will hold him and his party in contempt.
  Mr. Davidson: There is a great deal to be said for testing and assessment in S1 and S2 and for devising measures to assess the value that is added by individual schools as part of a thorough system of measurement and assessment that will analyse weaknesses and support pupils and schools. In view of that, why is it that so much of Scottish opinion is so strongly hostile to the Government's proposals? The simple answer is that the Scottish people do not trust the Tories on education. Everything that is propagated by the Government is treated with suspicion, if not derision, because people assume that there is a hidden agenda that runs counter to the general trend of Scottish opinion.
  The measure is designed to introduce CCT—compulsory competitive testing—into Scottish education. It is about setting school against school and pupil against pupil. It is about not diagnosis and assistance but passing and failing. It is about assessing the output of primary schools, setting one against the other, to see which school has managed to produce the most passes at secondary level. It measures one secondary school against another to see the percentage of the intake with higher passes at S1 and S2.
  As hon. Members have said, the measure is about separating pupils into the sheep and the goats—those on whom the school system should be encouraged to spend more time and effort and those whom it should decide simply to leave by the wayside, the people who will be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water in our future system. That is the complete opposite of the way in which the vast majority of people view the Scottish education system and believe that it should develop, and that is why Scottish opinion is so hostile to the Government's proposals.
  I have some questions about compulsion and I should be grateful if the Minister could find time to answer them. I understand that he is to give education authorities a specific statutory duty to conduct tests in S1 and S2. The same would apply to school boards and presumably to the boards of opted-out schools. How does he square that with the idea that opting out gives schools greater flexibility and freedom? Would opted-out schools not have to participate in S1 and S2 tests? If they have to participate in those tests, their position is no different from that of any other school in Scotland.
  What about the right of individual members of staff to choose? I know where I stand on the issue of whether staff should have the right to choose whether to participate
  458
  in those tests, but it will be valuable to hear the Government's stand. The Minister seemed to suggest, although I may have misunderstood him, that parents would not be compelled to make their youngsters participate in the tests. In that case, does the Minister intend to have an opt-in or an opt-out procedure or will the child simply participate unless the parents take the child away from the school on the day of the tests? Scottish parents need to know exactly how that would operate.
  It seems that we are being given the opportunity to have referendums in Scotland on education. How many Scottish parents were prepared to allow their children to participate in testing during the Government's previous attempts to have compulsory competitive testing for primary pupils? I know the answer to that because at that time I was the chair of education in Strathclyde. It is, not a lot. The vast majority of parents chose to withdraw their children from compulsory competitive testing in the primary sector and I think that they will choose to do the same in the secondary sector. When that happens, I hope that the Government will not back away from their measure. Let us have it as a referendum. Introduce the tests this year and measure the success of the Government's policy by the number of parents who are prepared to allow their children to be tested when they are given a free choice. The result will be an indictment of the Government and will show that people in Scotland have no faith in them. It will be a clear measure of the way in which unionism in the House is being operated by the Government in a way that is detrimental to Scotland's interests, to Scottish education and to the Union itself.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: In Committee, I described in detail the reasons why my hon. Friends and I consider it vital for measures to be taken as soon as possible to ensure that S1 and S2 pupils and their parents are able to benefit from the introduction of national tests. I shall repeat the main reasons for clause 32.
  Since 1994, education authorities have failed to ensure that national tests are carried out in secondary schools, despite having agreed to conduct them. Pupils who progress through primary school and receive regular information on the basis of nationally set tests lose access to that as soon as they move to secondary school. Testing early in S1 and towards the end of the time in S2 would enable information to be made available on the progress that had been made during those two vital years of a pupil's formal education.
  National testing in primary schools has proved successful and has been welcomed by pupils, parents and teachers. It is quite unacceptable for education authorities to be allowed to continue to deny parents and children those key benefits at such an important stage in a child's education.
  The acceptance of amendment No. 6 would mean that each year the parents or guardians of children in S1 or S2 would have to submit in writing a request for their children to sit a national test. That would place an unnecessary burden on parents and guardians and on the education authorities, which would have to divert resources to that exercise. I think that the vast majority of parents would want to have their children tested and to have access to the results and to the teacher's informed

  459
  judgment about the next appropriate steps in the child's educational development. In our primary schools, where 90 per cent. of children are being tested at one of the five-to-14 attainment levels, withdrawals are so rare that education authorities have never drawn them to our attention.
  Our position on parental choice is perfectly clear, workable and straightforward. Parents who do not wish their child to participate in national tests in S1 and S2 are free to withdraw that child. We envisage that that would be done by the simple expedient of the parents making their wishes clear in writing to the head of the school. I cannot support the introduction of what would be a completely unnecessary burden on parents and education authorities, a burden that is designed to frustrate the Government's plans to spread the benefits of national testing to secondary schools.
  On amendment No. 9, I have made it abundantly clear in Committee and elsewhere that I intend to consult widely and in depth before introducing the proposed regulations and details of the test arrangements. I fail to see why it is necessary to include in statute reference to bodies which I shall involve in that exercise as a matter of course. The House has my assurance on that, and I ask it to oppose the amendments.
  Mrs. Liddell: I regret that the Minister has failed to take account of the many points that were raised in the debate. His argument against amendment No. 6 is bizarre in the extreme and totally spurious. He said that it would place an unnecessary burden on parents. The burden that he is putting on parents is their right to withdraw their children from testing. His response to the speech by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) about the role of parents, teachers and pupils withdrawing a child from testing was also bizarre. Apparently anyone, including the pupil, can withdraw a child from the tests.
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Lady was obviously talking to her hon. Friend, which is what she has been doing for most of the debate. I said that it was up to the parent to decide whether to withdraw a child but that, as always, the parent was at liberty to consult anyone. The final decision belongs to parents. That is what I said, and the hon. Lady does me a disservice by misquoting me.
  Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing that up, because I did misunderstand him. I heard him say that grannies could be involved as well.
  The Minister has failed to take into account some key issues about the progress of testing in primary schools, and he has repeatedly failed to take into account the fact that there is assessment up to band D in primary schools. One major reason for many children not being tested in S1 and S2 under current arrangements is that they have already been tested to that level in primary school. He also failed to take into account the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), who pointed out the impact that failure can have on a child.
  We have a very good education system in Scotland, but one of our disadvantages—which has built up over time—is that we do not inculcate self-confidence in our young people. What possible chance do we have to create a climate of achievement when we build failure into the system at a time when children should be instilled with
  460
  the confidence to go forward with their secondary education and to feel that they had an opportunity to achieve vocationally and academically?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) pointed out that one of our main criticisms of the Government is that the people of Scotland do not trust the Tories with Scottish education. We have debated whether there is anglicisation of Scottish education. I think that there is. Even the timing of this amendment demonstrates that, as it was introduced at exactly the same time as the Secretary of State for Education and Employment introduced proposals for England and Wales. The Prime Minister said that he wanted a grammar school in every town. I contend that the Minister, who is responsible for education in Scotland, wants a senior secondary in every town.
  We have had an interesting debate. I regret that the Minister has not dealt with the points that we made. Therefore, we shall press amendment No. 4 to a Division.
  We have also had an interesting diversion today by hon. Members from the Scottish National party, one of which reminded me of the words of that great parliamentarian, Lord Healey. Like him, I now know what it feels like to be savaged by a dead sheep. It is very interesting that SNP Members have shown such great interest in attacking the Labour party and Labour's plans for putting Scottish education back where it belongs.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 291.

  Division No. 186]

  [6.51 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Alton, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Clelland, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Austin-Walker, John

  Coffey, Ann

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Connarty, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Battle, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Corbett, Robin

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bell, Stuart

  Corston, Jean

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cousins, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cox, Tom

  Benton, Joe

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Berry, Roger

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Betts, Clive

  Dafis, Cynog

  Blunkett, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Boateng, Paul

  Darling, Alistair

  Bradley, Keith

  Davidson, Ian

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

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

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Denham, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Dewar, Donald

  Callaghan, Jim

  Dixon, Don

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dobson, Frank

  Campbell, Mercies (Fife NE)

  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

  Chidgey, David

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  461

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fatchett, Derek

  McFall, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  McKelvey, William

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fisher, Mark

  McLeish, Henry

  Flynn, Paul

  Maclennan, Robert

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  MacShane, Denis

  Foulkes, George

  McWilliam, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Madden, Max

  Galbraith, Sam

  Maddock, Diana

  Galloway, George

  Mahon, Alice

  Gapes, Mike

  Mandelson, Peter

  Garrett, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Martlew, Eric

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Meacher, Michael

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Michael, Alun

  Godsiff, Roger

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Milburn, Alan

  Graham, Thomas

  Miller, Andrew

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  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)

  Hain, Peter

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hall, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hanson, David

  Mudie, George

  Hardy, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Harvey, Nick

  Murphy, Paul

  Heppell, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hodge, Margaret

  Olner, Bill

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Home Robertson, John

  Parry, Robert

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  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, Simon (Southwark)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hutton, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Illsley, Eric

  Purchase, Ken

  Ingram, Adam

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Radice, Giles

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jamieson, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Janner, Greville

  Reid, Dr John

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môm)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooney, Terry

  Keen, Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

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

  Rowlands, Ted

  Khabra, Piara S

  Salmond, Alex

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lewis, Terry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Simpson, Alan

  Litherland, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Livingstone, Ken

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Soley, Clive

  Loyden, Eddie

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Spellar, John

  McAllion, John

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McCartney, Ian

  Stevenson, George

  462

  Stott, Roger

  Wareing, Robert N

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Watson, Mike

  Straw, Jack

  Welsh, Andrew

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Wilson, Brian

  Timms, Stephen

  Winnick, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wise, Audrey

  Touhig, Don

  Worthington, Tony

  Trickett, Jon

  Wray, Jimmy

  Turner, Dennis

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Tyler, Paul

  Young, David

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Wallace, James

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Walley, Joan

  Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Colvin, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Congdon, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Amess, David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Couchman, James

  Ashby, David

  Cran, James

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

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

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Day, Stephen

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Devlin, Tim

  Bates, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dover, Den

  Beggs, Roy

  Duncan, Alan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dunn, Bob

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Body, Sir Richard

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Elletson, Harold

  Booth, Hartley

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Evennett, David

  Bowis, John

  Faber, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Brazier, Julian

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Forth, Eric

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Burns, Simon

  French, Douglas

  Burt, Alistair

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Butcher, John

  Gale, Roger

  Butler, Peter

  Gallie, Phil

  Butterfill, John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Garnier, Edward

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gill, Christopher

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carttiss, Michael

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Cash, William

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Channon, Fit Hon Paul

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Gorst, Sir John

  Churchill, Mr

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Clappison, James

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  463

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Norris, Steve

  Hawksley, Warren

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heald, Oliver

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Page, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Paice, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  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

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Riddick, Graham

  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

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Gwirym (Cardiff N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sackville, Tom

  Key, Robert

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knox, Sir David

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Legg, Barry

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  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

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stewart, Allan

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Streeter, Gary

  Malone, Gerald

  Sumberg, David

  Marland, Paul

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marlow, Tony

  Sykes, John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thomason, Roy

  Merchant, Piers

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mills, Iain

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Tracey, Richard

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Tredinnick, David

  464

  Trend, Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Trotter, Neville

  Whittingdale, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Viggers, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Willetts, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Walden, George

  Wolfson, Mark

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Wood, Timothy

  Waller, Gary

  Yeo, Tim

  Ward, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Watts, John

  Mr. Derek Conway and

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. Roger Knapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed: No. 9, in page 18, line 22, at end insert
  '; but before making such regulations he shall consult such organisations as appear to him to be representative of local authorities and teachers.'.—[Mr. Welsh.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 276

  Division No. 187]

  [7.04 pm

  AYES

  Beggs, Roy

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Canavan, Dennis

  Rendel, David

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Chidgey, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dafis, Cynog

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

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

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Tyler, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Wallace, James

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Mr. Alex Salmond and

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Bowis, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Ashby, David

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Butcher, John

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Butler, Peter

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Butterfill, John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Bates, Michael

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bendal, Vivian

  Cash, William

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Body, Sir Richard

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Churchill, Mr

  Booth, Hartley

  Clappison, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Coe, Sebastian

  465

  Colvin, Michael

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Congdon, David

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jessel, Toby

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Couchman, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Cran, James

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

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

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Key, Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Day, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knox, Sir David

  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)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lidington, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lord, Michael

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Luff, Peter

  Evennett, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Faber, David

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Madel, Sir David

  Forth, Eric

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Malone, Gerald

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Marland, Paul

  French, Douglas

  Marlow, Tony

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gale, Roger

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gallie, Phil

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Garnier, Edward

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gill, Christopher

  Merchant Piers

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mills, Iain

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Gorst, Sir John

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Norris, Steve

  Hampson, Dr. Keith

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hannan, Sir John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Page, Richard

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Paice, James

  Hawkins, Nek

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hawksley, Warren

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Heald, Oliver

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Pickles, Eric

  Hendry, Charles

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Richards, Rod

  Horam, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  466

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Thomason, Roy

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Sackville, Tom

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Scott Ftt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Trend, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Trotter, Neville

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Skeet Sir Trevor

  Viggers, Peter

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walden, George

  Soames, Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Waller, Gary

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Sr Michael (S Worcs)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spring, Richard

  Watts, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Wells, Bowen

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Whitney, Ray

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whittingdale, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stephen, Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Stern, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Stewart Allan

  Willetts, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Sumberg, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wood, Timothy

  Sykes, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Roger Knapman.

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Question accordingly negatived. Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The Bill is all about choice, quality and diversity—the themes at the heart of all that we do in Scottish education. Scottish young people deserve only the best. The Bill helps give them that, and I commend it to the House.
  7.16 pm
  Mrs. Liddell: The Bill is about anything but choice. It is about inflicting nursery vouchers on pre-five education in Scotland. It will not guarantee nursery places for children in Scotland who deserve the best nursery education. Nor will it guarantee quality. Indeed, there is a real danger that it will dilute the quality of nursery education in Scotland. I can make a commitment that, whenever Labour forms a Government, nursery vouchers will be abolished in Scotland. What is more, we will abandon the last-minute proposals for the compulsory testing of schools.
  It is regrettable that the Secretary of State for Scotland has not seen fit to join us this evening when he is inflicting on Scotland yet more legislation that is out of tune with Scottish education and will do nothing to advance the cause of the children of Scotland.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Wallace: Parts of the Bill are welcome. The creation of the Scottish Qualifications Authority, the method of dealing with placing requests and the provisions relating to school boards have commanded widespread support. However, my hon. Friends and I cannot support the Bill on Third Reading because it has at its heart the alien concept of nursery vouchers, which is not wanted by the vast majority of the Scottish people—and certainly not by Scottish Members of Parliament.
  It is interesting that the Minister refused to give way to me during the debate on amendment No. 10, which stood in my name. It was an attempt to get quality control and a complaints mechanism into the vouchers scheme. The Minister described my amendment and those grouped with it as wrecking amendments. That shows what the Government are proposing. The Minister's suggestion that a proposal to ensure quality would wreck the nursery vouchers scheme tells us all that we need to know about that scheme. We shall, therefore, vote against the Bill.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Welsh: I note a sudden interest—which was not apparent earlier—in the Scottish education system. We have also witnessed the unique spectacle of the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson rushing through their speeches so fast that they sounded like Pinky and Perky.
  I shall not respond to the rather sheepish attempt at malice by the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) except to say that the Labour party has been well and truly found out in the Bill. I should also tell the hon. Lady that a brass neck is no cover for a red face. The Bill fundamentally affects the Scottish education system. That is not a small matter; it is very important to Scotland and it is quite disgraceful that the Bill is being rushed through in such a fashion. If the Government have their way, the Bill will be of major importance in shaping and setting the future course of the education system in Scotland. It should have been scrutinised, questioned and opposed at every opportunity. Instead, for other reasons, the Conservative and Labour parties are rushing it through.
  Nursery vouchers are simply socially divisive and inadequately funded in the Bill. They are objectively opposed by the vast majority of Scottish people, yet once again their views will be swept aside when we vote. Tory dogma is introducing an alien element into Scottish education, and market forces where they simply should not be. There is none of the parental choice of which the Minister has been boasting. When parents were consulted, they totally rejected the Government's proposals. The Minister's idea of consultation is to ask for views and then simply ignore them when they disagree with his own political bias. The Scottish National party view is quite clear: nursery education should slot in as a natural part of the Scottish national school system, thus guaranteeing quality, stability, standards and consistency of provision.
  The education system is known and trusted by parents throughout Scotland, and we should be playing to its strengths by having a trained, graduate, professional work force and, most important, a broad educational provision that is open to all Scottish children. The Government are introducing some English ideas. I do not want the divided, fragmented English system ever to be visited on Scotland. What the Minister proposes goes against the grain of the Scottish people and the five-to-14 programme. The Bill is
  468
  yet another example of rushed, botched legislation that puts extra burdens on the teaching profession. Teachers will cope with the measures, but they deserve better. The Bill should have been better thought out and better planned, with consultation.
  There is a consensus on education in Scotland, but it is one of which the Government are not part. I greatly regret that they have not listened to Scottish people, Scottish parents or Scottish educationists. The Bill is quite simply a mistake.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 255.

  Division No. 188]

  [7.21 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Conway, Derek

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Alexander, Richard

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Couchman, James

  Amess, David

  Cran, James

  Arbuthnot, James

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

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Ashby, David

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Day, Stephen

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Devlin, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dover, Den

  Batiste, Spencer

  Duncan, Alan

  Beggs, Roy

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dunn, Bob

  Bendall, Vivian

  Durant Sir Anthony

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dykes, Hugh

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Elletson, Harold

  Body, Sir Richard

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ield)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Boswell, Tim

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Evennett, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Faber, David

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bowis, John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brazier, Julian

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Forth, Eric

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  French, Douglas

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Gale, Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  Gallie, Phil

  Butcher, John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butler, Peter

  Garnier, Edward

  Butterfill, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Carrington, Matthew

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Cash, William

  Gorst, Sir John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Churchill, Mr

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clappison, James

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Congdon, David

  Hannam, Sir John

  469

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Page, Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Paice, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hendry, Charles

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Pickles, Eric

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Horam, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Riddick, Graham

  Howell, Sr Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jack, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jessel, Toby

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Sackville, Tom

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Key, Robert

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Knight Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Skeet Sir Trevor

  Knox, Sir David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Legg, Barry

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Leigh, Edward

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Spring, Richard

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Sproat Iain

  Lidington, David

  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

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stewart, Allan

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Streeter, Gary

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sweeney, Walter

  Madel, Sir David

  Sykes, John

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Thomason, Roy

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mates, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  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)

  Trotter, Neville

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Viggers, Peter

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Walden, George

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waller, Gary

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Ward, John

  Norris, Steve

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  470

  Waterson, Nigel

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Watts, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wells, Bowen

  Wood, Timothy

  Whitney, Ray

  Yeo, Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wilkinson, John

  Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Michael Bates.

  Willetts, David

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Dowd, Jim

  Ainger, Nick

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Allen, Graham

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Alton, David

  Eastham, Ken

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Etherington, Bill

  Ashton, Joe

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Barron, Kevin

  Faulds, Andrew

  Battle, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Bayley, Hugh

  Flynn, Paul

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bell, Stuart

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foulkes, George

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Fyfe, Maria

  Benton, Joe

  Galbraith, Sam

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Galloway, George

  Berry, Roger

  Gapes, Mike

  Betts, Clive

  Garrett, John

  Blunkett, David

  George, Bruce

  Bradley, Keith

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

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

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Byers, Stephen

  Gordon, Mildred

  Callaghan, Jim

  Graham, Thomas

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Grocott, Bruce

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gunnell, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Hain, Peter

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hall, Mike

  Chidgey, David

  Hanson, David

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hardy, Peter

  Clapham, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clelland, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Coffey, Ann

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Connarty, Michael

  Home Robertson, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Corston, Jean

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hutton, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Illsley, Eric

  Darling, Alistair

  Ingram, Adam

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

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

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Janner, Greville

  Denham, John

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Dewar, Donald

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dixon, Don

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Dobson, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  471

  Jowell, Tessa

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Alan

  Quin, Ms Joyce

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

  Radice, Giles

  Khabra, Piara S

  Randall, Stuart

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Reid, Dr John

  Lewis, Terry

  Rendel, David

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Litherland, Robert

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rooney, Terry

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Rowlands, Ted

  McAllion, John

  Salmond, Alex

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCartney, Ian

  Sheerman, Barry

  Macdonald, Calum

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McFall, John

  Simpson, Alan

  McKelvey, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McLeish, Henry

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  McNamara, Kevin

  Soley, Clive

  MacShane, Denis

  Spearing, Nigel

  McWilliam, John

  Spellar, John

  Madden, Max

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Maddock, Diana

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mahon, Alice

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mandelson, Peter

  Stevenson, George

  Marek, Dr John

  Stott, Roger

  Martlew, Eric

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Meacher, Michael

  Straw, Jack

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Meale, Alan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Milburn, Alan

  Timms, Stephen

  Miller, Andrew

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Touhig, Don

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Trickett Jon

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Turner, Dennis

  Morley, Elliot

  Tyler, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Vaz, Keith

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Wallace, James

  Mudie, George

  Walley, Joan

  Mullin, Chris

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Murphy, Paul

  Wareing, Robert N

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Watson, Mike

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Welsh, Andrew

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Olner, Bill

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wilson, Brian

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Winnick, David

  Parry, Robert

  Wise, Audrey

  Pearson, Ian

  Worthington, Tony

  Pendry, Tom

  Wray, Jimmy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Pike, Peter L

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pope, Greg

  Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

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

Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
  Clause 1

    CONSTITUTION, FUNCTIONS AND MEMBERSHIP OF DEER COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND
    7.33 pm
    Mr. John McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 18, after 'deer', insert—
    '(aa) have regard to the desirability of preserving freedom of access to the countryside.'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 2, line 24, leave out from 'Commission' to end of line 38.
    No. 9, in page 2, leave out lines 35 to 38.
    Mr. McFall: I shall be brief because I can see that many hon. Members are interested in this Bill. It contains a provision against night shooting, but I have a feeling tonight that I may not be safe in the Chamber as a result of that.
    Amendment No. I deals with freedom of access where outdoor groups in Scotland contribute much to the highlands and islands economy—indeed, they contribute more than the red deer sports centres. Their interests are neglected and sometimes obstructed by landowners and red deer sports centres, and the amendment would maintain access.
    We debated amendment No. 9 at great length in Committee and elsewhere. The wording of the clause was changed in the other place and, despite five years of consensus, an amendment moved by Lord Pearson of Rannoch ensured that a third of the new Deer Commission for Scotland would comprise sporting interests. In a letter from WWF Scotland, Simon Pepper, head of operations, said:
    "In long and tortuous discussions with civil servants and with Lord Lindsay over the last few days, we have now secured their verbal but very clear and specific confirmation that the intention of the clause is indeed to provide 'traditional sporting estate interests' with a guaranteed representation of a third of the new Commission."
    That destroys at a stroke the consensus about the need for a new Bill to replace the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959, which did not cater for the issue of red deer in Scotland. When that Act was passed, there were some 150,000 red deer; the latest estimate is that there are more than 300,000. A consensual approach is thus needed, because the system is not working.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Has my hon. Friend read about the proposal to introduce the wolf to the isle of Rum? Does he believe that it is worth exploring the reintroduction of the deer's natural predator to Scotland, rather than shooting those animals?
    Mr. McFall: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but I should be straying out of order if I pursued it. There has been interest in that, but we must take social

    473
    and environmental considerations into account. We shall have to discuss the matter on a future date, however. I see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are nodding vigorously.
    The WWF has 20 voluntary groups in the highlands and islands, including crofters, the John Muir Society and the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, which are on its side in this matter. The Government have let down the people of the highlands and islands and those groups by accepting that naked amendment in the other place. The voice of the people and of those groups must be listened to. As the Government have not done that and have broken their promise, we shall press the issue vigorously.
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Amendment No. 9, which stands in my name, relates directly to the controversy surrounding the proposed method of selecting members of the new Deer Commission for Scotland. Many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) are pertinent to my remarks.
    There is no doubt about the strength of our opposition to the Government's attempt to give one specific interest group a dominant and unrepresentative influence on the control and management of deer in Scotland. The amendment seeks to combat new subsection (3B)(c), which is an explicit attempt to ensure that a third of the commission's members represent the interests of deer managers.
    What the Government mean by "deer managers" can no longer be in serious doubt. The Government introduced the subsection after consistent lobbying in the other place, led by Lord Pearson, which sought specifically to protect the traditional sporting estates' interests. Lord Lindsay's initial defiance crumbled as pressure was applied by his colleagues. Bit by bit, initial Government policy unravelled, and the result was a complete betrayal of the initial commitment that the commission would not be dominated by one sectional interest. Paragraph (c) must therefore be seen as the culmination of a cynical and systematic betrayal. In short, it is an attempt to protect the sporting lobby.
    That preferential treatment is entirely without justification. Its effect is not in doubt. The WWF says:
    "Domination by the sporting interests in the 37 year history of the Red Deer Commission has been a crucial factor in the failure of the Commission to control deer numbers."
    The concern that has grown about the proliferation of deer in Scotland is that it has been brought about by the very big landed interests that will now be built into the new Bill if the Government have their way. It is likely that they will thereby exactly replicate the mistakes that were made in the past.
    First, the preferential treatment is insupportable in the face of the facts of the deer issue in Scotland. One of the key features of the new commission is that it now has responsibility for all species of deer. Figures produced by the WWF show that more deer now live in forests and woodlands throughout Scotland than on the open hills in the sporting estates—and, perhaps more tellingly, the proportion is rapidly increasing in that direction. More people are now employed in the management of deer in woodlands than on sporting estates. More deer are killed every year to protect crops and trees than for sport.
    474
    Is it not clear, to even the most fervent defender of the Bill as it stands, that to give pride of place in the new commission to an interest group that is declining in relative importance is to fly in the face of common sense?
    Secondly, that preferential treatment completely wrecks the consensus that was so important to the originators of the Bill. I quote the words of Lord Lindsay:
    "If the balance of interests on the deer commission is reduced or in any way skewed so that it is less of a level balance across the different interests, the commission would be in danger of losing some of its credibility and legitimacy in the wider community in Scotland."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 1996; Vol. 570, c. 16.]
    We should ask the simple question: what has changed? If balance was so important then, why is it no longer of interest to the Government?
    Thirdly, there is disbelief in the organisations involved in Scotland's natural heritage that sporting interests are now, at a time when they are in relative decline, given greater representation than they have been allowed at any time in the past 37 years. We must ask why.
    May I suggest a possible answer to those questions? Is it just possible that, once again, the Government are putting their preferences before those of the wider community? We are witnessing favouritism on a grand scale.
    Let me take an example. Damage to forestry caused by deer is estimated at £10 million per annum, a figure many times greater than the money brought in by sporting estates. Despite that, the failure to recognise the importance of forestry is clear from the blatant advancement of sporting interests to the exclusion of all others. The people of Scotland can only be confirmed in their belief that what is being promoted is the result of a quasi-aristocratic relationship, which has very little to do with real consultation and shows no desire to find an effective, lasting consensus among disparate interest groups.
    In opposing paragraph (c), the Scottish National party is articulating what most of the interest groups involved in the issue believe. The following is a sample of the range of interests: the National Trust for Scotland, the Ramblers Association, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Scottish Crofters Union, the Scottish Countryside Rangers Association, the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the Woodland Trust.
    I tabled amendment No. 9 because I had concerns about amendment No. 3, in the name of Labour Members. Amendment No. 3 has in common with the Scottish National party amendment the desire to remove paragraph (c), so I welcome the fact that the Labour party is on board on this issue.
    There are two problems with Labour's desire to remove the stipulation that the Secretary of State must
    "afford to such organisations as appear to him to represent the interests of persons concerned … an opportunity to suggest the name of any person … appropriate".
    First, new subsection (3B)(a) provides the only effective check on the powers of the Secretary of State. Labour's amendment leaves those powers unfettered, which cannot be acceptable.
    In an area as controversial as this, the removal of a guarantee that the Secretary of State will consider the views, opinions and compliance of all interested parties is

    475
    a deeply divisive step to take. Be in no doubt; the future success or otherwise of the new commission depends almost entirely on the maintenance of consensus and on the belief of all interested parties that they are being heard. A power of appointment without control becomes political patronage and serves only to demolish the broad alliance that it has taken so long to cement.
    7.45 pm
    Secondly, not only is the control of the Secretary of State important, but so is the issue of how to resolve the problems that surround the management of deer. In all the political wrangling, there remains the question how best to move our approach to deer management to a new level.
    I firmly believe that, if we allow the whole range of views and evidence to be considered, the decisions reached will be fair and widely supported. By removing the statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to allow representations from all interested parties with regard to representation on the new commission, not only is the Secretary of State given unfettered power of appointment, but that is at the expense of the good will and consensus that were so painstakingly pieced together.
    One or two concerns are being expressed informally by those who are perhaps not entirely au fait with the arguments raging about the proliferation of deer in Scotland. Indeed, I believe that, in some quarters, the Bill has been rather more informally called the Bill to increase the killing of Bambi. The fact is, deer cause an enormous amount of destruction in Scotland, and—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should be talking specifically to the amendments. There will be a Third Reading debate, when a wider speech would be more appropriate.
    Ms Cunningham: I conclude by saying that I intend to press amendment No. 9.
    Mr. Sam Galbraith: I am glad that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) concluded her remarks. In fact, if she had accepted the place offered to the Scottish National party on the Committee, she might have heard all these arguments put in Committee and we should not have been subjected to them once again tonight. However, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I shall be brief—and, unlike him, I shall indeed be brief.
    The first amendment seeks to place a duty on the Deer Commission for Scotland to consider access to the countryside. One of the problems with stalking is that it sterilises the mountains while it is taking place. Not only does it sterilise them when the stalking is going on, but the landowners use it as an excuse to impose a blanket sterilisation to keep people off the mountains.
    It would be much better if a system could be considered which would keep people off the mountains only when stalking was taking place. There is a sign on the road and the path up to Ben Starav down Glen Affric which tells one not to climb because stalking is in progress, and it is still there on a Sunday, when everyone knows that stalking cannot take place. Mr. Gordon-Duff-Pennington has kindly discussed that with me in private and said that he will look into it.
    476
    I hope that the deer commission will take that issue on board and pursue it further, to seek an amicable arrangement. Individuals should not go into the mountains when stalking is taking place, but the quid pro quo is that the landowners must ensure that their areas are opened up when stalking is not taking place.
    I conclude by referring to amendment No. 3 and by quoting from The Herald. A letter to the paper stated:
    "That consensus was the result of compromise by all parties—not least the landowners' recognition of the legitimate concern of other bodies in relation to natural heritage."
    The letter continued:
    "We consider the specific recommendations to the Secretary of State—that at least a third of the commission shall be persons having knowledge or experience of deer management".
    That is a re-writing of history. The Government did not wish to have the amendment—it was forced on them by the landowning groups and by Lord Pearson. The letter concluded:
    "The proposal should not be seen as being about the promotion of landowning interests but as proper management by people with the required expertise."
    The letter is signed by the Association of Deer Management Groups and by the Landowners Federation. The people with expertise are those who produced the problem in the first place—we are allowing those who created the problem to write the legislation to deal with the problem. They will be over-represented on the commission, which cannot be right.
    This is an historic piece of legislation: it will be the last time that vested interests—the Scottish landowners and the hereditary interests—will write legislation in their own interests. From now on, they will have to queue up with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, have a cup of tea and a biscuit with the Minister—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's speech is beginning to sound like a Third Reading speech.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: I am concerned that we are still arguing about the membership of the Deer Commission for Scotland. As far as I am concerned, the two amendments are six of one and half a dozen of the other.
    We went through this matter on Second Reading and in Committee. In clause 1, the Secretary of State is given the power to appoint nine to 12 members whom he considers appropriate, including those who represent the interests of persons and organisations concerned with deer management. It is important that we have people on the deer commission who know about deer management. In addition, many people in the highlands believe that it is important to have representation from agriculture, particularly hill farming.
    The Bill includes crofting—although crofting is in parentheses, and it should not be, because it is a legitimate and particular interest. In fact, while I am talking about words in brackets, the next thing that the Secretary of State should do is get rid of the brackets round the word "Scotland", which appear in all such Bills. Perhaps the Secretary of State can think about that for the next Scottish Grand Committee.
    Obviously and rightly, there is representation from forestry and woodland management, and from natural heritage. The Bill says that the Secretary of State should

    477
    appoint appropriate people, which I take to mean people who have a legitimate interest in, and a knowledge of, all the duties that the deer commission has to carry out, as spelt out in the Bill. We must look for a balanced membership.
    In Committee, the Minister said that he wanted to create more flexibility. That flexibility is immediately lost by the inclusion of new subsection (3B). Under new subsection (3A), the Secretary of State can appoint from deer management organisations, including those with sporting interests. The turnover of estates with sporting activities is approximately £154 million, which is a considerable contribution to the economy.
    It is irritating that there is all this hassle and argument, which can only be damaging to relationships. Why does the Minister put up with it? He is making matters worse by insisting on the inclusion of new subsection (3B), when the powers for a balanced commission are already in the Bill. As I said earlier, it is important that some members of the commission have a real knowledge of deer management. After all, that is the purpose of the commission and the Bill. Why make it more difficult with the inclusion of this unpopular new subsection (3B)? I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter.
    Mr. Brian Wilson: What we are discussing in amendment No. 3 is more fundamental to the future of democracy in this country than anything that we shall discuss later tonight.
    I refer to the Second Reading of the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill in the other place. Members of the House of Lords who have landowning interests in Scotland queued up to argue their vested interests under the guise of being parliamentarians. Of the eight speeches made from the Back Benches in support of the Bill, six Members found it necessary to declare a vested interest as a landowner. Baroness Robson of Kiddington commenced her speech as follows:
    "My Lords, before speaking I have to declare an interest as I am an owner of a deer forest in the western Highlands."
    Lady Saltoun of Abernethy commenced her speech as follows:
    "My Lords, I suppose that I have to declare an interest because, although I do not own a deer forest, my husband did own Mar Forest".
    The Earl of Woolton commenced his speech as follows:
    "My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I rise to speak today as a relative newcomer to the subject of deer management in Scotland, but now finding myself at the very centre of the issue as the owner of an estate in the Angus glens."
    Lord Campbell of Croy stated:
    "I declare an interest. I and my son own a modest estate in northern Scotland where there are many roe."
    Lord Pearson of Rannoch commenced his speech as follows:
    "My Lords, I should start by declaring an interest as the largely absentee owner of a west Highland sporting estate."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 December 1995; Vol. 567, c. 835–49.]
    478
    Lord Burton is so arrogant that he did not even bother to declare an interest, but I assure hon. Members that he owns—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful in his use of language. I remind him that he should not be quoting directly from the other place unless it is a ministerial statement.
    Mr. Wilson: I am grateful, because I have finished. The Minister, the Earl of Lindsay, said that it is terribly important that the commission commands status and respect among all those who are likely to have an interest in the way that deer are managed and that it is not simply seen as the supporter of one particular interest group. That is exactly what has happened.
    Those people had the power to argue their case in what is theoretically the highest debating chamber in the land, and they had their interests written into the Bill. There are no crofters along the corridor, there are no conservation groups along the corridor and there are no other vested interests that form themselves into groups to pass legislation in the House along the corridor—only the Scottish landowning fraternity has that privilege, and that must end.
    No Member of the House of Lords is there as an elected right—if they stood for their local district council, they would be defeated, and many of them have indeed been defeated. They go into what is theoretically the highest debating chamber in the land and they legislate in their own interests. What is even more shameful is that the elected Members of this House—who have responsibility for the legislation—are not prepared to reverse what has been written into this naked piece of special pleading in the House of Lords. That is a scandal.
    When the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill is forgotten and when the rest of tonight's proceedings are forgotten, there will be a case for abolishing the hereditary principle in the House of Lords.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will remember that he is speaking to the amendment and not making a general speech.
    Mr. Wilson: I am trying hard to stick to the amendment, but the case—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is trying hard—perhaps he could become a little more successful.
    Mr. Wilson: The case for amendment No. 3 lies exclusively in the genesis of the amendment that was written into the Bill in the other place—and that must not happen again. It is an affront to a democratic society. It is a constitutional issue on which I would be happy to march the length and breadth of Scotland and Britain to argue. The hereditary principle is an affront to any self-respecting democracy.
    8 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I shall refer first to the issue of access, raised by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). We recognize

    479
    the importance of access to the countryside. However, the Deer Commission for Scotland is concerned primarily with issues relating directly to deer. We do not consider it appropriate or necessary to create a primary function for the commission of having regard to preserving freedom of access to the countryside. The access issue is more relevant to the role of Scottish Natural Heritage arid it is currently being pursued through the access forum, which includes the Association of Deer Management Groups. I believe that that is the most appropriate way forward.
    Much has been said about the amendments that were accepted in another place. I assure the House that they have not changed the Government's policy. The amendments were designed to clarify the Bill's provisions and to state the Government's intention more explicitly. Opposition Members claim that the appointments provision has damaged the consensus surrounding the Bill. However, the legislation before us today is based firmly on proposals submitted to us by the chairman of the Red Deer Commission, Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington. I pay tribute to the work that he has done in bringing all interested parties together around the table.
    Consensus requires some flexibility on the part of each interest group. Opposition Members are focusing on one small part of the appointments provision in isolation. That does a great disservice to all those who have worked hard to secure the legislative changes necessary to provide for effective deer management in the future.
    The commission, whatever its precise composition, will have to work within its new legal framework, which provides important new functions and duties. The commission's role is extended to cover all species of deer, and it will have a new function of furthering the sustainable management of wild deer. The Bill gives the commission important new powers to protect the natural heritage, while retaining the rights of farmers, crofters and foresters to protect crops and woodland. The Bill strengthens the commission's powers to promote voluntary control and agreements. Overall, it is a balanced measure, which contains something positive for all interests.
    Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Minister confirm that, if the Bill is passed, it will give deer management interests—that is, the sporting interest—a larger proportion of places on the commission than they have enjoyed during its 37-year history? Why is the Minister doing that this year?
    Mr. Robertson: The Bill gives deer management interests one third of the commission's membership, which means that the other two thirds will comprise other interest groups. By anyone's arithmetic, that constitutes a minority for the deer management interests. As the hon. Gentleman knows, some organisations argued for a majority interest on the commission, or that all commission members should have knowledge or experience of deer management. We resisted that move.
    The proposal of one third retains the balance with other interests. I have made it clear, as has my noble Friend Lord Lindsay, that the remaining two thirds of the commission will be appointed to cover all other interests. The provision accurately reflects the Government's intentions and it is now stated expressly in the Bill in order to remove any doubt.
    The Bill's underlying strategy is the promotion of the voluntary principle. The commission must retain the confidence and co-operation of deer managers if it is to
    480
    exercise its new powers effectively. Without that confidence and co-operation, the deer commission would find it very difficult to carry out its day-to-day work. In order to ensure the continuing confidence of deer managers in the work of the commission, the Bill provides that a third of those appointed should be nominees of organisations representing the interests of deer managers. That ensures representation for those whose primary interest is deer.
    We intend that provision to cover organisations that represent deer managers as one of their main concerns. Deer management includes the sporting interest, and organisations representing that interest will be included in that category. Those who manage deer, but whose primary interest is natural heritage or forestry, already have an alternative route for appointment to the commission.
    As things stand at present, bodies such as the Association of Deer Management Groups, the Scottish Landowners Federation, the British Deer Society and the British Field Sports Society can be said to have representation of deer managers, including those with a sporting interest in deer, as a main concern. In the past, those bodies were considered eligible to nominate members to the commission. Taken together, the representation of nominees from those organisations under the new system would be broadly in line with what occurs under the present system. That is entirely reasonable, as they represent a group that is vital to the commission's work.
    Opposition Members claim that the Government accepted the provisions only in response to vested interests. As I said before, the Government's strategy is the promotion of the voluntary principle. The commission must retain the confidence and co-operation of deer managers in order to be able to exercise its new powers effectively. We have amended the Bill in order to clarify our intentions and to improve it. The policy proposals made by the commission and accepted by the Government for inclusion in the legislation remain intact in the Bill before the House today. Therefore, I believe that the Bill deserves the full support of the House. I hope that Opposition Members will not press their amendments, but if they do, I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against them.
    Mr. McFall: Given the Minister's unconvincing answers, we shall press amendment No. 3 to a vote.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 2, line 24, leave out from 'Commission' to end of line 38.—[Mr. McFall.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 257.

    Division No. 189]

    [8.05 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Ainger, Nick

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Allen, Graham

    Benton, Joe

    Alton, David

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Austin-Walker, John

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

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Barron, Kevin

    Callaghan, Jim

    Battle, John

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Beggs, Roy

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Bell, Stuart

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    481

    Canavan, Dennis

    McAllion, John

    Cann, Jamie

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    McFall,John

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    McKelvey, William

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    McLeish, Henry

    Coffey, Ann

    McNamara, Kevin

    Connarty, Michael

    McWilliam, John

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Madden, Max

    Corbett, Robin

    Maddock, Diana

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Mahon, Alice

    Corston, Jean

    Martlew, Eric

    Cousins, Jim

    Meacher, Michael

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Meale, Alan

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Miller, Andrew

    Darling, Alistair

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Davidson, Ian

    Morley, Elliot

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Dewar, Donald

    Mudie, George

    Dixon, Don

    Mullin, Chris

    Dobson, Frank

    Olner, Bill

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Parry, Robert

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Pike, Peter L

    Eastham, Ken

    Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

    Etherington, Bill

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Primarolo, Ms Dawn

    Flynn, Paul

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

    Randall, Stuart

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Reid, Dr John

    Fyfe, Maria

    Rendel, David

    Galbraith, Sam

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Galloway, George

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Garrett, John

    Rooker, Jeff

    George, Bruce

    Gerrard, Neil

    Rooney, Terry

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Sheerman, Barry

    Gordon, Mildred

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Graham, Thomas

    Simpson, Alan

    Grant Bernie (Tottenham)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Grocott, Bruce

    Spearing, Nigel

    Gunnell, John

    Spellar, John

    Hain, Peter

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Hanson, David

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Hardy, Peter

    Stott, Roger

    Harvey, Nick

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Home Robertson, John

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Tipping, Paddy

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    Trickett, Jon

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Turner, Dennis

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Tyler, Paul

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Vaz, Keith

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Wallace, James

    Hutton, John

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Ingram, Adam

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Wilson, Brian

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Winnick, David

    Jowell, Tessa

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Keen, Alan

    Worthington, Tony

    Khabra, Piara S

    Wray, Jimmy

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Lewis, Terry

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Livingstone, Ken

    Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. John Cummings.

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    482

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Faber, David

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Fabricant, Michael

    Alexander, Richard

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Amess, David

    Forth, Eric

    Arbuthnot, James

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sr Norman

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Ashby, David

    French, Douglas

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Gale, Roger

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Gallie, Phil

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Gill, Christopher

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Bates, Michael

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Batiste, Spencer

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gorst Sir John

    Bendall, Vivian

    Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Booth, Hartley

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Boswell, Tim

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Hannam, Sir John

    Bowis, John

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Hawkins, Nick

    Brazier, Julian

    Hawksley, Warren

    Bright Sir Graham

    Heald, Oliver

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

    Hendry, Charles

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hicks, Sir Robert

    Burns, Simon

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Burt, Alistair

    Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

    Butcher, John

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Butler, Peter

    Horam, John

    Butterfill, John

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Cash, William

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Churchill, Mr

    Hunter, Andrew

    Clappison, James

    Jack, Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Coe, Sebastian

    Jessel, Toby

    Congdon, David

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Couchman, James

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Cran, James

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Key, Robert

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Day, Stephen

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Diva, Nirj Joseph

    Knight Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Devlin, Tim

    Knox, Sir David

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Dover, Den

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Duncan, Alan

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Dunn, Bob

    Legg, Barry

    Durant Sir Anthony

    Leigh, Edward

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

    Lidington, David

    Elletson, Harold

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Lord, Michael

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Luff, Peter

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Evennett, David

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    483

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Soames, Nicholas

    Madel, Sir David

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Malone, Gerald

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Marland, Paul

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Marlow, Tony

    Spring, Richard

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Sproat, Iain

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mates, Michael

    Steen, Anthony

    Merchant, Piers

    Stephen, Michael

    Mills, Iain

    Stern, Michael

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Stewart, Allan

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Streeter, Gary

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Sumberg, David

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Sweeney, Walter

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Sykes, John

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Thomason, Roy

    Norris, Steve

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Page, Richard

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Paice, James

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Patnick Sir Irvine

    Tracey, Richard

    Patton, Rt Hon John

    Trotter, Neville

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Pawsey, James

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Pickles, Eric

    Viggers, Peter

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Porter, David Waveney,)

    Walden, George

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Waller, Gary

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Ward, John

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Richards, Rod

    Waterson, Nigel

    Riddick, Graham

    Watts, John

    Robathan, Andrew

    Wells, Bowen

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Whitney, Ray

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Whittingdale, John

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Wilkinson, John

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Willetts, David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Wood, Timothy

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    Yeo, Tim

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Sims, Sir Roger

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Derek Conway.

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Amendment proposed: No. 9, in page 2, leave out lines 35 to 38.—[Ms Roseanna Cunningham.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 254.

    Division No. 190]

    [8.16 pm

    AYES

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Harvey, Nick

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Dafis, Cynog

    Lynne, Ms Liz

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

    Maclennan, Robert

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Maddock, Diana

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    484

    Rendel, David

    Wallace, James

    Salmond, Alex

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Skinner, Dennis

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Mr. Andrew Welsh and Ms Roseanna Cunningham.

    Tyler, Paul

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Elletson, Harold

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Alexander, Richard

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Amess, David

    Evennett, David

    Arbuthnot, James

    Faber, David

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Ashby, David

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Forth, Eric

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    French, Douglas

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Bates, Michael

    Gale, Roger

    Batiste, Spencer

    Gallie, Phil

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bendall, Vivian

    Gill, Christopher

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Body, Sir Richard

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Booth, Hartley

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Boswell, Tim

    Gorst, Sir John

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bowis, John

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Hannam, Sir John

    Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Burns, Simon

    Hawkins, Nick

    Burt, Alistair

    Hawksley, Warren

    Butcher, John

    Heald, Oliver

    Butler, Peter

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Butterfill, John

    Hendry, Charles

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hicks, Sir Robert

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

    Cash, William

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Horam, John

    Churchill, Mr

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Clappison, James

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    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)

    Congdon, David

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Conway, Derek

    Hunter, Andrew

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Jack, Michael

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Cran, James

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Jessel, Toby

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Day, Stephen

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Devlin, Tim

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dover, Den

    Key, Robert

    Duncan, Alan

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Knapman, Roger

    Dunn, Bob

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Knox, Sir David

    Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    485

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Legg, Barry

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

    Sims, Sir Roger

    Lidington, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lord, Michael

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Luff, Peter

    Smyth, The Reverend Martin

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Soames, Nicholas

    MacKay, Andrew

    Speed, Sir Keith

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Madel, Sir David

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Spring, Richard

    Malone, Gerald

    Sproat, Iain

    Marland, Paul

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Marlow, Tony

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Steen, Anthony

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Stephen, Michael

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stern, Michael

    Mates, Michael

    Stewart, Allan

    Merchant Piers

    Streeter, Gary

    Mills, Iain

    Sumberg, David

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Sykes, John

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Thomason, Roy

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Norris, Steve

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Tracey, Richard

    Ottaway, Richard

    Trotter, Neville

    Page, Richard

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Paice, James

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Viggers, Peter

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Walden, George

    Pawsey, James

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Pickles, Eric

    Waller, Gary

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Watts, John

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Wells, Bowen

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Whitney, Ray

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Whittingdale, John

    Richards, Rod

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Riddick, Graham

    Wilkinson, John

    Robatnan, Andrew

    Willetts, David

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Yeo, Tim

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Mr. Timothy Wood and Dr. Liam Fox.

    Shaw, Sir Giles (pudsey)

    Question accordingly negatived.

  Clause 11

    FARMED DEER
    Amendment made: No. 4, in page 10, line 28, at end insert—
    '(bb) section 25AA;'.—[Mr. Raymond S. Robertson.]

  Schedule 1

    MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Amendments made: No. 5, in page 13, line 14, after 'each";' insert
    ';and
    (iii) after the word "been" there shall be inserted the words "taken or";'.
    No. 6, in page 17, line 5, at end insert—
    'The Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948 (c.45)
    .—(1) The Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948 shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In section 39 (control of injurious animals), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(3A) In subsection (3) above "deer" means any species of deer which is not included in the definition of "deer" in section 35A of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 (interpretation).".'.
    (3) After section 42 there shall be inserted the following section—
    "Meaning of "animals" for purposes of section 40 to 42
    . In sections 40 to 42 of this Act "animals" does not include any species of deer which is included in the definition of "deer" in section 35A of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 (interpretation).".'.—[Mr. Raymond S. Robertson.]

  Schedule 2

    REPEALS
    Amendments made: No. 7, in page 17, leave out lines 27 to 29.
    No. 8, in page 18, line 13, leave out
    'in subsection (3), the words "the carcases of," and'.—[Mr. Raymond S. Robertson.]
    Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Raymond S. Robertson.]
    8.28 pm
    Mrs. Ray Michie: I welcome the Bill's Third Reading. It has been a long time in the making.
    I hope that the Secretary of State will choose the members of the Deer Commission for Scotland wisely. I hope also that they will co-operate and support the chairman, Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington, who has worked so hard. We know that the new commission has an important part to play. My right hon. and hon. Friends will support the Bill's Third Reading.
    8.29 pm
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I shall be brief; I understand that another subject is coming up that appears to be distracting many hon. Members.
    There is a real issue at stake and it is not just about killing Bambi. The stag at bay is a great concept and tourist attraction in Scotland, but behind that superficially dramatic sight lies a sorrier tale of serious environmental problems because of the deer population and the consequential detrimental effect on the economy. That has all been for the short-term advantage of those trying to attract game hunters.

    487
    The extensive culling of deer is essential, and in that regard the history of the past 30 years has been an object lesson in sustainability being the basis of all initial decisions.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. McFall: I shall be brief.
    The Scottish National party could have made its case in Committee if it wished, but its Members always jump into Committee, sit for two minutes to get their press and then walk out. "Hard work" is not a phrase that is in their vocabulary.
    I wish the Bill success. Its purpose is the sensible management of deer in Scotland. Five years of hard negotiations went into the Bill, involving many interest groups. Not everyone got what they wished. That is why a number of groups in the highlands and islands are very bitter about the Government's acceptance of the amendments in the House of Lords.
    I should like to correct the Minister's statement about the chairman of the Red Deer Commission, Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington. I spoke to him, and he was not sympathetic to the Government's proposals. He tries as best he can to work with all interests in the highlands and islands and elsewhere. The Labour party is firmly behind him on that issue.
    I remind hon. Members that the amendment was moved by Lord Pearson of Rannoch in the debate in the other place on 4 December 1995. He suggested that Scotland appears to be an uncertain place politically at the moment. He said that we must reluctantly consider what a Secretary of State sympathetic to the wilder elements could do with the Bill.
    Scotland is not an uncertain place at the moment. The Conservative party is down to single figures in the opinion polls. There will certainly be a Labour Government, and we shall take a consensual approach. The Labour party will consider the wider elements and ensure that the legislation is progressive and sensible. I wish the Bill well.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

    Members' Salaries
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Leader of the House, I must make three announcements. Madam Speaker has ruled that all Back-Bench speeches shall be limited to 10 minutes. All amendments are open for debate, and since the list of hon. Members wishing to contribute is long I remind them that the debate is restricted to three hours and ask them to show some restraint within that limit.
    8.32 pm
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
    That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—
    (1) In respect of service in the period starting with 1st July 1996 and ending with 31st March 1997 the yearly rates of salaries payable to Members in accordance with the Resolution of this House of 3rd November 1993 should be increased by three per cent.
    (2) For each year starting with 1st April, from 1997 onwards, the yearly rates should be increased by the average percentage by which the mid-points of the Senior Civil Service pay bands having effect from 1st April of that year have increased compared with the previous 1st April.
    (3) The mid-point of a Senior Civil Service pay band is the point half way between the maximum and the minimum.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: motion 5—Parliamentary Pay and Allowances:
    That this House takes note of the Review Body on Senior Salaries' Report on Parliamentary pay and allowances presented to Parliament on 4th July (Command Paper 3330), and calls on the Government to take any necessary action to enable implementation of the recommendations.
    Motion 6—Members' Salaries (No. 1):
    That the following provision shall be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—
    (1) In respect of service in the period starting with 1st July 1996 and ending with 31st March 1997 the yearly rates of salaries payable to Members in accordance with the Resolution of this House of 3rd November 1993 shall be increased by three per cent.
    (2) For each year starting with 1st April, from 1997 onwards, the yearly rates shall be increased by the average percentage by which the mid-points of the Senior Civil Service pay bands having effect from 1st April of that year have increased compared with the previous 1st April.
    (3) The mid-point of a Senior Civil Service pay band is the point half way between the maximum and the minimum.
    Motion 7—Members Salaries (No. 2):
    That the following provision shall be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—
    (1) In respect of service in the period starting with 1st July 1996 and ending with 31st March 1997 the salary of a Member shall be at a yearly rate of £43,000.
    (2) For each year starting with 1st April, from 1997 onwards, the yearly rate shall be increased by the average percentage by which the mid-points of the Senior Civil Service pay bands having effect from 1st April of that year have increased compared with the previous 1st April.
    (3) The mid-point of a Senior Civil Service pay band is the point half way between the maximum and the minimum.
    Motions 8 and 9—Parliament:
    That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1996 (No. 1), which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.

    489
    That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1996 (No. 2), which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.
    Motion 10—Parliamentary Pensions:
    That this House takes note of, and calls on the Government to implement. Recommendation 16 of the Review Body on Senior Salaries' Report on Parliamentary Pay and Allowances presented to Parliament on 4th July (Command Paper 3330) (supplementary scheme for Ministers and other paid office holders).
    Motion 11—Car Mileage Allowance:
    That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the rates of the car mileage allowance payable to Members in respect of journeys—

    (a) by Members, or

    (b) by spouses or persons in respect of whom the secretarial and research allowance is payable—

    (1) In respect of journeys commenced in the year starting with 1st April 1997, the allowance shall be payable to any Member at the higher rate up to a total of 20,000 miles and at the lower rate thereafter.
    (2) The higher rate is 47.2 pence per mile increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 1997 has increased compared with the index for March 1996.
    (3) The lower rate is 21.7 pence per mile increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 1997 has increased compared with the index for March 1996.
    (4) For each subsequent year starting with 1st April, the rates shall be increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for the previous March has increased compared with the index for the March before that.
    (5) The rates shall be calculated to the nearest tenth of a penny (with exactly one twentieth being rounded up).
    (6) Arrangements shall be made by the Fees Office for ensuring that claims are supported by appropriate particulars.
    (7) In this Resolution "the retail price index" means the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Office for National Statistics (or any index or figures published by that Office in place of that index).
    Motion 12—Office Costs Allowance:
    That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the limit on the Office Costs Allowance—
    (1) The limit for any quarter in the year starting with 1st April 1997 should be £11,591 increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 1997 has increased compared with the index for March 1996.
    (2) For any quarter in each subsequent year starting with 1st April the limit should be the limit for a quarter in the previous year increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for the previous March has increased compared with the index for the March before that.
    (3) The limit in relation to Mr. David Blunkett should be 2.57 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2).
    (4) The limit in relation to Mr. Bernie Grant should be 1.33 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2).
    (5) The limit should be calculated to the nearest pound (with exactly 50 pence being rounded up).
    (6) In this Resolution—

    (a) "quarter" means a period of three months starting with 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January; and

    (b) "the retail prices index" means the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Office for National Statistics (or any index or figures published by that Office in place of that index).

    Mr. Newton: In view of the many motions and amendments on the Order Paper, I hope that it will be thought sensible if I begin by setting out the structure as clearly and as briefly as I can.
    490
    Essentially, what we have done is to reflect as straightforwardly as possible what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his written answer last Thursday—that we would enable the House to decide whether to endorse the Government's advice that pay increases should be restrained to 3 per cent., or whether to endorse the increases proposed in the Senior Salaries Review Body's report. Those propositions are motions 4 and 5 respectively. Both are expressions of opinion that are freely amendable but do not have direct effect. Thus, the following four motions are the matching substantive resolutions to give practical effect to whatever the House decides. Motions 6 and 8 would implement 3 per cent. for Members and Ministers respectively; motions 7 and 9 would implement the full SSRB pay recommendations for Members and Ministers respectively.
    The remaining three motions concern three SSRB recommendations which do not relate to pay as such. Motion 10, which would not be needed if motion 5 were carried, is concerned with parliamentary pensions. Motions 11 and 12 enable the House to agree, if it wishes, the detailed implementation of the SSRB proposals on motor mileage allowance and the office costs allowance respectively. I shall return to those motions later.
    The main issue—but certainly not the only one—is clearly the choice between the restraint that the Government urge and the much larger increases proposed in the SSRB report. Before I turn to that, it may help the House if I say something about some of the SSRB recommendations which have, in some cases, attracted rather less attention but which nevertheless are not insignificant.
    First, I refer, but only in passing, to the five recommendations described as "development recommendations"—possibilities on which the review body did not make firm recommendations but on which it wished to do further work. These concern pay relativities between Whips and Parliamentary Secretaries and Lords and Commons Ministers below Cabinet level, and suggestions—for the House particularly—about additional pay for certain Members such as Select Committee Chairmen, increased central provision of office equipment and an "exceptional needs" allowance for certain constituencies related to some measurement of work load.
    There is plenty of scope for argument about some or all of those, but it is not an argument that we need to carry to a conclusion today, although the Government and the SSRB will obviously wish to take account of anything said in the House today in considering how any such work might best be carried forward.
    Secondly, there are a number of recommendations which simply reaffirm the status quo: for example, on the additional costs allowance, the London supplement and the arrangement by which Members who are also Members of the European Parliament continue to receive one third of a Member's salary in respect of their second job—the so-called duality rate. Although none of these requires action by the House, I should make it clear that the Government accept them.
    Thirdly, there is a recommendation which will in due course require a resolution by the House but on which further work will plainly be needed before such a resolution can be framed. This is the proposal for an ill-health retirement grant—the introduction, for those whose health makes it undesirable for them to continue to

    491
    the end of a Parliament, of the equivalent of the resettlement grant for those who leave at the time of an election. Regardless of the outcome on the main issue tonight—I am looking around for the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who has tabled an amendment on this—the Government believe that this recommendation should be accepted in principle and the necessary work on detail put in hand. Thus, should it be necessary to move motion 10, and should the hon. Member for Cynon Valley wish to press her amendment, I would be very happy to accept it. It is exactly in line with what I have just said.
    Fourthly, there are those recommendations, other than on the pay rates themselves, reflected in the resolutions before the House tonight. I take them in the order in which they arise. Two concern the mechanism and timing of future increases in pay from whatever levels are decided today. As motion 4 makes clear, the Government accept, and recommend that the House should agree, that the normal date for such increases should be moved from January to April from 1997 onwards and that any such increases should be determined by reference to what is in effect a basket of the pay band mid-points in the new senior civil service pay system.
    The House knows—and, I believe, shares—my strongly held view that we need a system which provides for appropriate annual increases without the need for an annual vote on our pay. The sooner we re-establish such a system, the better, and that is what the proposals seek to do. Indeed, whatever the outcome of other matters, the House would wish me to express its thanks to Sir Michael Perry and the members of his review body, not least for their work on this aspect of their remit.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why do the Government refuse to include evidence on the remuneration of peers? Many working peers find it difficult to manage; yet they do as much work as many Members of this House. Are they not being treated disgracefully?
    Mr. Newton: The remuneration of working peers is a matter for the other place. There are three recommendations in the report on which I have not touched, and on which I was not planning to touch because they are for determination by the other place, but I am sure that my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal and others in another place will note the hon. Gentleman's concern.
    I have explained about the linking and dating of future increases. Motion 10 relates to parliamentary pensions. As I have said, that motion will not be needed if motion 5, which would implement the full SSRB report, is passed; but if the House accepts motion 4—the 3 per cent. proposal—motion 10 will be required to signal the House's approval. That would endorse the SSRB's recommendation that the changes relating to accruals and death-in-service gratuities in the parliamentary pensions scheme for which the House voted last year should be carried through to the associated supplementary scheme for Ministers and office holders. That proposal is plainly sensible, and we recommend its acceptance. If the House agrees, implementing regulations will be required. I am currently consulting the trustees on a draft, which is available in the Vote Office.
    Motions 11 and 12 concern the car mileage and office costs allowances. The Government believe that the recommended office costs allowance increase of
    492
    6 per cent., from £43,908 this year to £46,363 in 1997–98, should be accepted. Again, I make that recommendation regardless of the outcome on other issues. I am afraid that I cannot smile on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), which would go beyond the SSRB's recommendations. Although the hon. Gentleman will doubtless make his case with his usual eloquence, it is unlikely that I shall be able to advise the House to vote for the amendment.
    I do not think that the position relating to the mileage allowance is as straightforward. Having noted the view that the top rate of that allowance was high in comparison with the rates provided by other schemes, but also the point that a number of Members of Parliament will have bought cars in the light of a pattern that had been established for many years, the SSRB concluded, "on balance", that it should be abolished—along with the bottom rate—and that all mileage should be reimbursed at what is currently the middle rate.
    Whatever else may be said, this would undoubtedly be a radical upheaval of arrangements under which decisions about the purchase and replacement of cars, with significant financial effects, have already been made. The Government feel that, in the context of a similarly radical change in remuneration—that is, if the House votes for the SSRB recommendations on pay—the proposal should be accepted. If, however, the House votes for restraint in relation to beneficial proposals on pay, I think that it can reasonably expect similar restraint in relation to adverse changes elsewhere. Paragraph 21 of the report itself states:
    "The primary recommendations in this report are designed as an integrated package."
    Accordingly, if—as I hope—the House accepts motion 4, I do not intend to move motion 11.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am astonished by what the Leader of the House has said about the Government's attitude. Will he confirm that the proposals relating to the car mileage allowance are not due to take effect until April? Will he also confirm that any Member of Parliament who seeks re-election at the next general election could not, in any circumstances, receive a guarantee that the allowance would be provided after the election, because of the decision of the electorate? Why should the Government prolong the scheme beyond April, given that the election will take place in May at the latest? Surely that position is indefensible.
    Mr. Newton: I do not think so, especially in the light of what I have just said about what the report states. I am postulating circumstances in which the Government have not felt able to make a recommendation to the House—and the decision is for the House—and in which the House does not accept what the SSRB recommended across the board. The SSRB specifically said:
    "The primary recommendations in this report are designed as an integrated package."
    What I have said reflects the position accurately. It is a proper, balanced approach.
    Mr. James Wallace: The Leader of the House has just said that the decision will be a matter for the House, but he must move motion 11 for it to become a matter for the House. He said that he might not move the motion. Will he give an undertaking that,

    493
    whatever happens to motions 4 and 5, he will move the motion relating to car mileage allowances and let the House decide?
    Mr. Newton: I said quite clearly that in those circumstances I would not expect to move motion 11, and I will not depart from that.
    Mr. Chris Mullin: No doubt the Leader of the House has noticed that motion 11 carries my name as well as his. If he does not move it, I shall.
    Mr. Newton: I had indeed noticed, and that thought had occurred to me. Although it does not alter what I have said, it will no doubt encourage the Liberal Democrats.
    Mr. John Carlisle: As my right hon. Friend and the House will know, I have some commercial interest in the matter. I declare that interest now.
    If the 74p mileage allowance is removed almost immediately, or within 12 months, that will cause great distress and financial hardship to many right hon. and hon. Members who have legitimately purchased cars on the basis of that allowance. The blackmail tactic of balancing one motion against another is unacceptable. I plead with my right hon. Friend to extend the period to at least two or three years to accommodate Members of Parliament who have bought cars recently on the basis of that allowance.
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has made a number of points that others may wish to weigh when considering what I said a few moments ago. I must tell him, however, that on the question of whether motion 11 should be moved in the context of the House's acceptance of motion 5—which supports the full SSRB package—the Government made it clear that the House would be able to make decisions on the SSRB report as a whole. In those circumstances, it would not be right for me to decline to move motion 11. It is reasonable for me to do so in the context of the much more limited proposals that the Government prefer, but it would be inconsistent with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week about enabling the House to make decisions on the SSRB package as a whole.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What worries me is that the committee apparently took no real evidence from those who know about the cost of maintaining a vehicle. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has seen the illustrative vehicle running costs issued by the Royal Automobile Club last November. Is it not obscene, immoral and wrong for people who have cars with low running costs to be able to claim an allowance that will make them a huge profit, while people living many miles from London who need a more comfortable car in which to travel long distances will be subsidising their parliamentary and constituency work mileage?
    Mr. Newton: I am well aware that my hon. Friend—along with, for all I know, other hon. Members on both sides of the House—feels strongly about the matter. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will probably want to develop his points further. I have already made it
    494
    clear, however, that the Government feel that if the House accepts the SSRB's highly beneficial pay recommendations, it should be prepared to accept this recommendation for the same reason—that it was presented as part of a package.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I live a great deal further from London than my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and I find that I can do the journey comfortably in a middle-grade car. I reach my destination safely, without breaking the speed limit.
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes a somewhat different point and I am bound to say that I do not particularly want to get caught in the crossfire between Lancashire and Cheshire.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that what he is proposing tonight is the perpetuation of a fudge? It is far better to accept the whole package, the good and the bad—and I speak as one who does have a large car and a long distance to travel—than to fudge it and to go on and on, as we have year after year, in a wholly undesirable way.
    Mr. Newton: Again, my hon. Friend makes a point that will be shared by others and no doubt made in the debate. The Government have provided the House with the opportunity, as they said that they would, to take that decision if it wishes, but the Government cannot escape the responsibility of giving the House advice. That is what I have been seeking to do.
    Mr. Michael Stern: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Newton: I will give way, but for the last time, I think, remembering what you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said about the number of hon. Members wishing to speak.
    Mr. Stern: My right hon. Friend has referred to the SSRB package as a balanced package. How can he possibly justify that description when changes in salary will be evenly felt across the House while changes in the car allowance are totally random in their effect on individual Members, depending on the size of their constituency and the distance from London?
    Mr. Newton: I simply quoted from the SSRB's report—its own description of the basis on which it had made its proposals, taken as a whole.
    Mr. Joseph Ashton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Newton: May I make this other point?
    Mr. Ashton: The right hon. Gentleman has been giving way to Conservative Members.
    Mr. Newton: I have given way to several Opposition Members. Many hon. Members want to speak and I do not wish to speak for a length of time that prevents many of those Members from speaking.

    495
    Before I respond to any more interventions, I should like to make this point, which is of some importance. Either way, whatever the House decides on the motor mileage allowance proposals, the House should accept the SSRB's associated recommendation for the system of controls for vehicle mileage allowance claims to be reviewed and strengthened, because the plain fact is that, whatever the allowance level, it must be right to ensure proper accountability.
    Mr. Ashton: I wish to make just one point. When the allowance was fixed—I was in the House at the time and the right hon. Gentleman may have been too—the Committee simply asked the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club, as independent bodies, to fix an allowance. Until then, we had been claiming the train fare. The agreement was that if hon. Members used their cars they got what it cost for a railway warrant. We then went to a system in the early 1970s where the RAC and AA fixed the mileage, which has since gone up, index linked. Why has the report changed it to a market rate during a depression when employers are screwing it down to what they can get away with? That is the yardstick that they have been using. They have changed the yardstick.
    Mr. Newton: I am of course aware of the work of the Peyton committee in the early 1980s, which led to the allowance in its present form. As it happens, the RAC ceased some years ago to publish the relevant index, which is why I found myself with the difficulty of not being able to uprate the allowance at all.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt, but my right hon. Friend is incorrect. I have a copy of the RAC's illustrative running costs—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Winterton: From November 1995.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Chairmen's Panel. He should sit down immediately. He can make a speech later, if he catches the Speaker's eye.
    Mr. Newton: The last thing I would wish to do is to mislead either my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) or the House. We are simply at cross-purposes. As I was told repeatedly as I tried to find a new way of uprating the motor mileage allowance some two or three years ago, the index on which the allowance was based had ceased to be published by the RAC. It may be that it publishes a different sort of index of motoring costs, but that calls into question whether it had not revised the basis underlying the 1983–84 arrangement.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Newton: I will, but I shall take far too much time.
    Mr. Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know, if he looks at page 100 of the appendices given by the review body, that it quotes the RAC rate for 2000 cc motor cars as
    496
    79.7p, which is more than we are currently getting. The press likes to tell people that we are getting an inflated rate, when in fact it is a reduced rate and it takes no account of the fact that, because we have to have our cars in London, we are duty bound to provide a car for our spouses, which is not paid for by the House.
    Mr. Newton: As I expected, this issue is clearly a matter of considerable contention in the House. I have sought to set out what the Government believe to be the right approach, but if the House wishes to accept the SSRB package, it should be willing to accept the whole package. If, however, the House accepts the Government's advice to be much more restrained, it would be reasonable to take a different view on the matter. Beyond that, it would be sensible if hon. Members would develop their arguments in the debate.
    Mr. John Greenway: As my right hon. Friend knows, I have one of the largest constituencies in England. I simply want to ask him this: what evidence did the review body take from individual Members as to their motoring needs in their constituencies? I believe the answer to be none, in which case, regardless of what the House decides tonight on pay, this matter should surely be referred back for proper investigation because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said, it impacts differently on Members across the House and will create injustice.
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is introducing a further line of argument. I respect that, but I do not think that I am in a position to add to what I have said.
    I come now to the SSRB's main pay recommendations. As the House knows, the review body recommended a salary of £43,000an increase of just over 26 per cent. on the present figure. It also recommended that Ministers and office holders in the House of Commons should henceforth receive a full, rather than a reduced, parliamentary salary—the abatement now is 25 per cent.—and that after the next election there should be large increases for Cabinet Ministers, the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. As was made clear last week, the Government think that those recommendations are too high and instead propose an increase of 3 per cent., which would lead to a salary of £35,108 per year for Members.
    On that basis, the Government also propose to continue their policy of giving Ministers the same percentage increase as Members. We have therefore proposed increases of 3 per cent. for Ministers and other office holders. Ministers would of course also move to an effective date of 1 April for increases, like Members, and receive the same percentage increases that Members receive under the proposed new arrangement.
    Members will have their own views about the merits of the SSRB proposals considered in isolation, and of the surveys, comparability studies and judgments on which they rest, but the plain fact is that they cannot be considered in isolation, either by the Government or, in my view, by the House. Inescapably, such recommendations have to be considered in relation to their impact on the wider aims of public policy, and in particular in relation to the overriding importance of maintaining progress towards our economic objectives—

    497
    with firm control of public spending, in which public sector pay is an important ingredient, playing a crucial part in that.
    Mr. Stuart Bell: If the Government intended to give Members a 3 per cent. increase, in line with their other policy objectives, why did the right hon. Gentleman have this review in the first place?
    Mr. Newton: The background to the review is that, unhappily from my standpoint, the linkage system which I thought that I had put in place two years ago had, to put it bluntly, fallen apart and we were left with no basis.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: You broke the linkage in 1992.
    Mr. Newton: For once, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is not on the ball. In 1992 or 1993—I forget which year—the Government decided to match the freeze that we had asked for in other areas. In moving the House out of the freeze I re-established a linkage related to civil service pay rates and it proved to be less than durable due to continuing changes in the way in which civil service pay is settled.
    Earlier this year, we found that there was no basis for any increase at all next January. It was extremely difficult to see what could be substituted for the linkage that had been broken and it seemed right to ask the SSRB to look at that. The House will know that more than half of those hon. Members who by convention are entitled to sign early-day motions, including nearly 200 Opposition Members, signed an early-day motion demanding a review. It was not unreasonable for the Government to respond to that, but it was clear that that could not be on the basis of a commitment to implement whatever emerged from the review regardless of the Government's judgment as to what was right.
    Sir David Steel: Does the Leader of the House agree that one of the most important sentences in the report is in paragraph 36? The review body states:
    "Had the TSRB recommendation of £19,000 per annum been accepted in 1983 and subsequently uprated by the percentage factors which were actually applied each year, it would have produced a Parliamentary salary of £42,300 today, as compared with the current £34,085."
    The Leader of the House is inviting us to make the mistake that was made in 1983, thus saddling our successors with the embarrassment that we have today.
    Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman obviously feels strongly on this subject. I note that, and I read with interest that sentence in the report. However, I do not think that it can absolve the Government from making a judgment about the advice to offer in today's circumstances.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Newton: I will give way for the last time.
    Mr. Miller: If the Government have a view about what is acceptable in terms of overall pay in the current climate, what evidence did they present to the pay review body on that?
    Mr. Newton: We gave evidence on these matters in relation to what is sometimes known as affordability and
    498
    it was very much in line with the evidence that we gave to other pay review bodies last September, but updated. [Interruption.] The review body does not publish any of the evidence that is given to it other than that which it has commissioned from management consultants and other such people. For example, it would not have published what the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said to it or wrote to it or, indeed, such evidence from anybody else.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the SSRB had evidence from the Government on affordability before it came to its conclusions and decided on its package?
    Mr. Newton: The Government put written evidence to the SSRB. We submitted the same evidence for that review as we submitted to all other pay review bodies last September. The only difference was that this year's evidence was slightly updated.
    Mr. Miller: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I asked the Leader of the House a perfectly reasonable question. The list containing the names of those who gave evidence to the review body contains the name of my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House and other hon. Members, but it does not contain the name of anyone in the Government. May we be clear about precisely who gave evidence?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): That is not a point of order for the Chair.
    Mr. Newton: Evidence was given by, for example, the Lord Privy Seal. As I have said, the Government put in a written statement of evidence on affordability.
    Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Newton: No, I shall not give way again.
    The approach that we have adopted in recent years has successfully constrained public sector pay to reasonable and realistic levels. It is one of the policies that has contributed to restraint in other sectors and thus to low inflation, lower interest rates, falling unemployment and faster growth. The question that the House and the Government have to answer is whether we can ask for restraint from others without exercising it ourselves. Uncomfortable as it may be, my answer to that is clear. I urge the House to accept motion 4.
    .9.4 pm
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I am afraid that the House is not looking its most elegant and best. It is perceived outside as in an ugly mood on these matters. We are being portrayed as a bunch of Dickensian money-grubbers, and the very credibility of Parliament will be at stake if we must regularly go through this type of debate.
    The problem appears to be a very simple one, because we all know that we have a case for a substantial pay increase. As we all know, the reality is that when we compare our roles with those of others in our communities—with those in the fire service and police

    499
    service, in local authorities or in the education services—we find that we are not paid realistically or reasonably in comparison with their rates.
    The problem is that the public are not prepared to stomach our case, and the reason for that is to be found in the background debate before the setting up of the Nolan committee. The truth is that the public want to see Members of Parliament conducting themselves a little better before they are prepared to stomach such a major increase. Therefore, my strategy is to block the £43,000, because I think that it is wrong.
    We have two ways in which to block the £43,000. We can vote for the Government's motion—motion 4. Alternatively, I have tabled an amendment that would effectively block the £43,000 by introducing it in a three-phase process over three consecutive years. In tabling that amendment, I was conscious of the real reason why many hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, are pressing for the proposals of the Senior Salaries Review Body.
    I have discussed the matter with many of my colleagues, and the first reason why they are pressing for the proposals is that they are totally dissatisfied with the arrangements for office costs. The reality is that, through the Fees Office, many hon. Members—I do not do it, because in principle I have decided that I am not prepared to do it—transfer funds from their salary to their secretarial allowance to compensate for the inadequate funding of their offices.
    We know from reports in the newspapers even this morning that some researchers and secretaries are still not properly remunerated and that offices are still underfunded. In some cases, hon. Members are providing office accommodation free for their constituents because they do not believe that it is possible to claim enough under their current allowances.
    Secondly, many hon. Members are motivated by the difficulties that they know hon. Members have when they leave the House to retire. This morning, I was speaking to a Member of the other place who had spent many years in the House of Commons. He was a senior hon. Member when he left. He told me that his pension is £180 a month, and that, in a recent period of illness, he found that he had to attend the other place because he could not survive on his pension. I really do not think that that is the way to run a modern Parliament. Our constitutional arrangements—if they are constitutional arrangements—surely must be changed to secure the financial viability of pensioners leaving this place on retirement.
    The SSRB certainly failed on the first count. Therefore, as I said, my amendment would give hon. Members the opportunity to secure the £43,000 objective over three consecutive years. In the interim period—while the SSRB is still reviewing secretarial costs—my amendment would give hon. Members the opportunity to transfer moneys to their secretarial allowances to see them through the period before us.
    The fifth paragraph of my amendment sets a notional £43,000 for pension purposes. The precedent for that is to be found in the 1975 resolution on the proceedings of the House when pay and pensions were dealt with.
    The sixth paragraph provides for a salary supplement for pension contribution purposes to secure a pension on £43,000. My amendment is a compromise, and I hope that the House will consider it.
    9.10 pm
    Sir Timothy Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will excuse my not commenting in detail on his amendment. My view on expenses is that they should fully cover the costs that hon. Members have to incur, but should not be expected to produce a profit and should be properly monitored.
    Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was the executive director of a major company, and about a year after I retired from Government, I rejoined the board of that company as a non-executive director. As most hon. Members will know, it is now one of the largest public companies in the country. I am a member of the remuneration committee of that public company.
    I recognise straight away that the public service differs from the wealth-creating private sector, but I suggest that the difference in many cases is in there being fewer obvious measures of performance for those in the public sector than for those in the private sector. It is more that difference than any difference in the nature of the tasks and responsibilities.
    The remuneration committee of a public limited company advises the board on the pay of executive directors. The objective of a remuneration committee is quite clear; it is to attract, retain and motivate people of the highest calibre to fulfil the duties. I emphasise the words "attract" and "retain". The annual report of the company to which I am referring also makes it clear that, in carrying out its responsibilities, the remuneration committee has regard to comparable salaries and remuneration packages in comparable companies outside the one under consideration.
    The review body has been given a similar task in respect of hon. Members and Ministers. It has used similar methods. It has looked carefully at a wide range of comparables—I know that they cannot be exact—and anyone who has read the report would agree that those comparables have some relevance.
    I hope that the review body had similar objectives to the remuneration committee of which I am a member, which is to attract and retain men and women of the highest calibre who will offer themselves for election to the House and be prepared to serve as Ministers of the Crown. Surely we can all agree that that is a sensible objective.
    I believe that the review body's recommendations would enable us to attract and retain Members of Parliament and Ministers of ability. In my view, it has done a first-class job, and a reading of the report bears that out. It has covered the ground fully and its members are extremely experienced people who deserve the congratulations of the House and of the country on their work. I submit that it is in the interests of future Parliaments and future Governments that we should accept and implement the recommendations in their entirety straight away.
    The review body's task was easier in respect of ministerial salaries than for the salaries of hon. Members, because it is easier to evaluate the job and to find comparable jobs in the outside world. I know that it will be of interest, particularly to Opposition Members, to know that ministerial jobs are full time and, as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends know, they are very full time.

    501
    It struck me, as it may have struck other hon. Members, that the report notes that many hon. Members suggested that improving ministerial pay is a higher priority than increasing their own. That was most commendable. Indeed, I am not aware that any serious commentator does not accept the need for a substantial increase in ministerial pay. There is no need for a detailed argument, as many hon. Members want to speak. The facts and figures are all in the report.
    I remind the House, however, that one of the inevitable consequences of failure to make the increase will be that the House will not be able to attract and retain sufficient hon. Members of sufficient ability who are prepared to serve as Ministers. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) has pointed out the consequences of having put off making a decision on this issue.
    I shall make two final points. First, we frequently hear the old story that there is no need for an increase because there is no shortage of applicants. There is no shortage of applicants for many jobs, including journalists, television newsreaders, lawyers and even supermarket managers. However, we have to ask not whether there is a shortage of applicants but whether we are attracting—and are likely to continue to attract—applicants of the right calibre. We cannot continue to ignore the comparables to which our attention has been drawn, not least in early-day motion 1101, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley).
    Secondly, on pages 9 and 10 of volume 2, the review body's report draws attention to the jumps between different ministerial posts. Many hon. Members will be familiar with the general view that it is bad practice to have too large a jump between different levels of responsibility. If we greatly increase Ministers' salaries at all levels—as we must—and if we do not take similar action in respect of ordinary hon. Members, there is a risk that any hon. Member might feel that a successful parliamentary career required him or her to fulfil a Front-Bench job. In addition, those on the Opposition Benches—whichever party they represent—would be automatically deprived of the greater opportunities provided by a ministerial salary.
    I emphasise that the undoubted justification for a substantial increase in ministerial salaries is another supporting justification for the report's recommendation on salaries of hon. Members. We need to attract and retain hon. Members of ability—I would suggest outstanding ability—and, if we fail to do so, we risk damaging not so much this Parliament as future Parliaments and the reputation of the House and the country.
    The review body has set out what is required and we should accept it. We have put off acting on these matters for far too long. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will accept that there will always be a case for restraint, on whatever occasion the matter is brought before the House. Of course there is a case for restraint on this occasion—my right hon. Friend has put it to the best of his ability—but there is also an overwhelming case for taking long delayed action. The longer we put it off, the greater difficulty we shall face and the greater the risk to the House, future Governments and future hon. Members.
    502
    I cannot foresee a better opportunity to take action that we should have taken a long time ago. I recommend to the House that we accept the report in its entirety as a complete package, as my right hon. Friend suggested, and we should do so this evening.
    9.18 pm
    Mr. Alfred Morris: I rise to address the two amendments standing in my name as chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. They were tabled also in the names of other managing trustees of the fund from both sides of the House.
    It is not generally understood, even by Ministers, that under the Government's new, post-Maxwell pensions legislation, the managing trustees of the parliamentary fund have legal duties and responsibilities in relation to recommendations from the Senior Salaries Review Body—SSRB—where the interests of its members and their dependants are at issue. As those who have read it will have noticed, the SSRB's report demonstrates how inextricably pay and pensions are linked. That link alone eminently justifies the tabling of the amendments in the names of managing trustees of the fund.
    It was because of our additional legal duties as managing trustees that we sought counsel's opinion on their effect on our freedom of manoeuvre in relation to the SSRB's recommendations. The advice we received was unequivocal and clear. It was, first, that it is proper for the managing trustees, in considering what is best for Members, to regard recommendations of the review body as a proper guide for their decisions. We were told also that it is not proper for the trustees to have regard to party viewpoints or whether it is the Government's policy not to implement a particular SSRB recommendation.
    The House will know that, in the course of the SSRB's recent inquiry, I gave oral evidence on behalf of the managing trustees and made a range of proposals for improving the parliamentary fund. They reflected, in particular, the growing opinion now that more could and should be done to help retired Members, their widows and other dependants.
    For pensions, however, the SSRB concluded that our scheme compares well with other public sector schemes and that
    "the best comparators are with the public sector".
    Inevitably, this disappoints the managing trustees, more especially since it takes no account whatever of the fact that the civil service—it is to the civil service that the SSRB looks for the best pay comparator for Members of Parliament—has a non-contributory pension scheme.
    As the Leader of the House said in his speech about the parliamentary fund on 17 July last in response to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins):
    "there is no getting away from the fact—nor do I seek to disguise it—that this is a contributory scheme and that the civil service scheme is not".—[Official Report, 17 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1416.]
    Nor does the SSRB's treatment of parliamentary pensions take any account of what happened in 1983 when, long before the Maxwell scandal erupted, the then Government decided to raid our fund to offset part of the cost for phasing in a pay award by gratuitously increasing the Member's contribution to a wholly unnecessary 9 per cent. of salary.

    503
    There was no talk then of the civil service being the best comparator for parliamentary pensions or of the repercussive effects of that huge and unnecessary increase in the Member's contribution on other schemes in the public sector. The decision to impose a rate of 9 per cent. was totally unrelated to the financial needs of our fund at the time, but of direct and substantial benefit to the Exchequer. It was a clear case of manipulating a pension fund at the Members' expense: a technique which was later refined and perfected by others and which the present Government, to their credit, have now legislated against.
    That is but one reason why it is not for Ministers or anyone else to complain now of Members of Parliament unfairly benefiting at the expense of the Exchequer. As I have shown in previous debates, the Exchequer contribution was seriously and most unfairly out of line with what Members had to pay over many years after 1983. The Exchequer was also the main beneficiary of the managing trustees' investment policy. For far too long, we were, in fact, victims of our own success: the more that policy succeeded, the more disproportionately it helped the Exchequer.
    If the managing trustees are disappointed with the SSRB' s treatment of our proposals to improve the fund, the SSRB, too, has every justification for being disappointed, indeed deeply disquieted, by the way in which its recommendations have been treated by the Government. In his letter to Sir Michael Perry last February, the Prime Minister asked him and his colleagues on the SSRB
    "to undertake a comprehensive review of the level and structure of Parliamentary Pay and Allowances and to make recommendations for the future".
    Yet on 4 July, some five months later, and within just a week of seeing the SSRB's report, the Prime Minister told this House:
    "The Government … are clear that the recommended increases for Members' and Ministers' pay are too high and that the motions to give these effect should not be passed".—[Official Report, 4 July 1996; Vol. 280, c. 506.]
    That reply treated the SSRB's report as if it was one about an annual pay round increase that had to be compared with others in the current year and particularly with increases being paid in the public sector, whereas in fact what the report provides and what the SSRB was commissioned to undertake—again I quote the Prime Minister's own words—was a comprehensive review of the level and structure of parliamentary pay and allowances with recommendations for the future.
    This is not just a disquieting way to treat the SSRB: it is also damaging to the whole future of independent pay reviews and feeds the prejudices of those who deliberately misrepresent the scope and longer-term significance of the report. It also obscures the strong signal sent to the Government by the SSRB that any new link with civil service pay, which the Prime Minister's parliamentary reply of 4 July says he himself wants to forge
    "will only be effective if"
    parliamentary
    "salaries are set at a correct level".
    That warning to Ministers not to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors comes at a time when, by common consent, parliamentary pay is worth no more, in real terms, than it was in 1964. Indeed, the most recent league
    504
    table on parliamentary pay shows the UK in the relegation zone, third from the bottom, about which a leader in The Times on 14 November 1995 said:
    "In the past 30 years the average real income of Britons has risen by 80 per cent.; that of MPs is still the same as it was in 1964".
    In an apparent criticism of successive Ministers, one as sharp as I have ever seen in any review body report, the SSRB pointedly asserts that the increase it now recommends is needed to make up the ground lost by failure to implement the review body's 1983 report. Had the Top Salaries Review Body recommendation of £19,000 per annum been accepted in 1983 and subsequently uprated by the percentage factors which were actually applied each year, it would have produced a parliamentary salary of some £42,300 today, as compared with the current £34,085. That means that a Member who was in the House then and is still here has lost a cumulative total of £75,800 over the years since 1983, due wholly to the failure to implement the independent review body's report of that year. There can be few other people, here or anywhere else, who have sacrificed more in pay restraint than Members of this House. It makes Job, by comparison, seem guilty of irascible impatience.
    It must be said that the only change since the SSRB was commissioned to undertake its inquiry in February and the Government's summary rejection of its report on 4 July is that we are now five months nearer to a general election. It is not a pretty picture, and I entirely agree with those in the media who say that it is high time now for us to be realists and not populists on this issue.
    I have respect for any hon. Member who decides not to vote for the recommended pay increase and refuses to accept it. In the case of every increase of parliamentary pay approved by this House over my 32 years here, there have been those who were said to have so decided. But I have to say, as of now, that I understand that there are only two Members on less than full salary. For how long those who refused but now accept the last increase held out, I have no idea. Nor do I know how many will refuse the increase that the independent review body recommends if it is approved by the House. What I am sure they will feel, with me, however, is that it is not for anyone to pressurise Members on how they should vote tonight. While party leaders must state their views, it must ultimately be for individual Members to decide the issue.
    Many Members will have foremost in their minds—and rightly so—the effect of what they decide tonight, not for themselves but for their dependants. Some enjoy less robust health than others—as the managing trustees of the pension fund know all too well from their work—and worry more about the security of their families. That is one compelling reason why it is not for anyone to pressurise them on how they should vote in this debate.
    Why seek independent advice if one is not prepared to accept it? To consult an independent review body is to imply a readiness to accept its findings and, if the Government succeed tonight, the SSRB will be well justified in asking them to go elsewhere for any future review of parliamentary pay and pensions. At the very least, we shall owe Sir Michael Perry and his colleagues at the SSRB profound apologies—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.
    9.29 pm
    Sir Terence Higgins: I wish to support the review body's recommendations regarding Members of Parliament and Ministers, and to reject the Government's proposals.
    It is frequently said that Members of Parliament determine their own pay, but over the years it has in fact been determined by the Government of the day. Whatever the pay review body may have said, time and again Governments, for purely tactical reasons, have phased, staged and reneged on what independent bodies have proposed. The effect of that over 30 years has been that, while the incomes of people in the country on average have increased by 80 per cent., in real terms Members of Parliament have had no increase whatever, and Ministers' pay has more than halved.
    Against that background, it was entirely sensible that, in response to the overwhelming demand from early-day motion 351, we set up a review body that would be able to take a strategic view. One must congratulate the review body on its report, produced very much against the clock. It goes into great detail, and makes an overwhelming case for the recommendations to be accepted.
    Let us nevertheless be clear in our minds that what is proposed in the report will go nowhere near far enough to restore the position of 30 years ago, which itself was not very good. I took a pay cut when I entered the House, and I dare say that many other hon. Members did so. The review body therefore makes a very moderate proposal in the context of the position over time.
    There were exchanges earlier as to what evidence the Government gave. Whatever that evidence was, the review body reached its conclusion having taken into account the evidence submitted to it by the Government. It no doubt moderated what might otherwise have been the conclusions of its report in the light of the Government's evidence. In those circumstances, it would be totally wrong for the Government to reject the view expressed by the review body.
    We are told that we must exercise restraint. It is plain from the figures that I quoted that we have exercised restraint for 30 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There is very little evidence that anyone has ever followed our example. In any case, they cannot possibly have had the figures I have quoted if that were so. At all events, we now encounter the extraordinary position, once again, of the Government advancing a tactical argument, saying, "Exercise restraint—only 3 per cent."
    What the Government should do, and what Opposition Front Benchers should do, is explain to the public that we have exercised restraint, but the position has deteriorated to the point where it is no longer acceptable—and, in my view, extremely dangerous. So let us hear no more about restraint; the restraint has been exercised, and it is wrong to proceed in the way that the Government have suggested.
    We must nevertheless appreciate the point about the link. Time and again in the House we have had problems because we have to review it and vote on it annually. I accept what the Leader of the House said on that point, but we must start from the right basis, and we need to conduct a once-for-all reappraisal of the overall position.
    What is remarkable today is the extent to which the media now support that. I cannot recall a previous occasion when that has been so. True, the "Today"
    506
    programme this morning said that the review body's proposal was nine times the rate of inflation—which is ludicrous, for the reasons that I have just given—but, by and large, from The Sun to The Times, the public are gradually being told what needs to be done. It is important that the Government contribute to that process.
    There are frightening dangers regarding recruitment, and, more especially, retention. The crucial point about the House of Commons and the need to get Members of quality, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) rightly emphasised, is the fact that we need a reserve of Members who may become Ministers.
    The quality of government will deteriorate if we do not do that. Regardless of what any individual who is putting in a pay claim outside may say, our constituents will lose if we do not have a House of Commons and Ministers of sufficient integrity and quality. It is an honour to be in the House—that is absolutely true. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove pointed out, people are bound to take into account the situation outside—and it is analysed in great detail in volume 2 of the report.
    The extent to which this place holds the Government to account has been enormously improved by the development of the Select Committee system. However, to a large extent that depends on hon. Members remaining in the House after they have ceased to be Ministers, to serve as Chairmen or members of the Select Committees. Former Ministers who serve on Select Committees, either as Chairmen or members, will not remain in the House with a pay rate of £33,000 a year—it would be absolutely ludicrous to expect them to do so. Therefore, the ability of the House of Commons to hold the Government to account is undermined by the Government's proposals this evening.
    Although I shall not be here to benefit from any increase in pay in the next Parliament, I believe that, if we do not take this opportunity tonight, we will face the danger of a deterioration in the quality of government, both at ministerial and at parliamentary level. That is of great importance.
    I suspect that we will not have another chance to debate this matter, because it is not likely to come to a head in the next Parliament if we do nothing now. We have to take action now to ensure that the House and the Government who sit in it are efficient. That is what our constituents deserve, and we have to explain that to them in the context of the proposals before us this evening. I profoundly hope that this evening we will carry the package proposed by the review body.
    9.36 pm
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) in the debate. For many years, he has flown the flag for reasonable increases in pay and for a better analysis of what Members of Parliament need to do their job. He deserves credit for that, because he has put the case extremely well.
    I support the amendments that were spoken to by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I have recently joined the pension trustees of the parliamentary pension fund, and I am distraught and disconcerted by some of the actions we have to take, using our small discretionary fund, to supplement the pensions that are in payment to some former Members and their

    507
    relatives. It is our duty to do that, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe pointed out. We got legal advice that made it quite clear that, as pension trustees, we had a duty to ensure that pensioners' provisions were improved to the maximum available to us.
    The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe tabled the amendments as chairman of the trustees—and I pay tribute to the work that he does in that regard. The amendments are important, and I hope that they will be supported by hon. Members, irrespective of their views on the main question of the 3 per cent. versus the package.
    This should be a House of Commons matter. The way in which the Government have acted has not allowed hon. Members a proper and unfettered consideration this evening.
    The Leader of the House has discharged his duties reasonably well, and I do not hold him personally responsible for our difficulties. However, I think that some of his Cabinet confederates have made it impossible for us to consider the matter properly. No matter what role we play as Members of Parliament—whether party leaders, Ministers or Chairmen of Select Committees—we must make our own decisions, having consulted our consciences. We must be able to defend the decisions we take and the votes we cast this evening to our constituents: the public have that safeguard. That is the proper way to determine whether our decisions are right and proper.
    I think that the review body performed a difficult task well in a short space of time. I was surprised that the Leader of the House did not acknowledge its work. I was even more surprised that he did not make it clear whether the Government accept the pay review recommendations but are seeking pay restraint on a voluntary basis. That is my clear recollection of what occurred in 1983: the Government said, "We think that the Top Salaries Review Body report is right, but, in the special circumstances of the case, we should exercise restraint".
    The Government do not say that now; they say simply that they do not accept the report's recommendations, but they refuse to say why. I think that the Government should clarify that point. It is important to know whether they accept the report, as the question may return to haunt us in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) has described. We know that the Government are seeking voluntary pay restraint, but we must know also how they view the recommendations.
    It is quite incomprehensible that the Government should commission a report, invite the review body to produce recommendations and then treat them in a summary way without justification. I think that it is totally wrong. I am particularly worried about the sentence in the review body's report in paragraph 79:
    "We note however that unless the primary recommendations relating to these pay levels (recommendations 1 to 13) are implemented as recommended the uprating mechanism will not preserve an appropriate level."
    If that is correct, it is an extremely serious matter. The report states that the formula that the package produces is appropriate as an uprating mechanism, and will stand the test of time, only if the whole package is accepted. The Government have made it clear that they favour a 3 per cent. increase instead of the package. Therefore, according to the report, the Government would destroy the formula.
    508
    If that formula is destroyed, it is inevitable that the issue will haunt us time after time. We are being invited to try to make judgments about what we are worth in terms of remuneration—that is unedifying and undignified. I do not have the scales with which to weigh the various elements that one must balance in order to make such a judgment.
    Did the pay review body assess the questions put to it correctly and draw the right conclusions? I believe that it used the right general principles and that it considered the right factors. It measured largely the same recommendations and adopted the same approach as the 1983 review body report, as was mentioned earlier. I think that the review body made the right comparisons. It concluded that the salary should be somewhere between £38,000 and £50,000. As the right hon. Member for Worthing said earlier, I think that we can argue that the review body has taken cognisance of the need for some restraint. No one has mentioned the fact that international comparisons are appropriate.
    If the question is whether the review body's assessment and conclusions are right, I answer—for myself—in the affirmative. The second question, if the pay review body is right, is whether we are right to accept voluntary pay restraint and override the recommendations. I largely support the arguments that have already been made.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale has said, the 1983 decision was wrong. The clawback of £4,000 or £5,000 has produced this problem, and if we make the same decision this time, we will compound that mistake. We will also diminish the role of hon. Members, and we should not accept that lightly.
    I am comfortable with the SSRB's comparisons, and I do not mind my salary being related to those of general practitioners, secondary school heads and others who do responsible jobs, because Members of Parliament carry a similar amount of responsibility. If we vote for 3 per cent., we may force people like myself, who are full-time Members with no outside income, to look for second jobs to be able to educate our children and discharge our duties to our families.
    The point has also been made that we might discourage good people from standing for election in future, and I mentioned earlier the problem of folk receiving inadequate pensions after many years' service in the House.
    The relationships with the people with whom we work should also be taken into account. Public utility chief executives, civil servants, health board executives and local authority officers are all now paid more than twice—sometimes three times—as much as Members of Parliament.
    This issue relates to the status and the authority of Back-Bench Members of the House of Commons. It is essential for the well-being of the House, and therefore indirectly for the benefit of our constituents, that that status and dignity is maintained. We should vote for the package in its entirety, because otherwise we will choose the level of our remuneration, and it is neither sensible, logical nor right that we should be asked to do that. If we do not get the decision right tonight, we will have to go through the whole unedifying spectacle again in five, six or 10 years' time. That is the last thing we want
    9.46 pm
    Sir Peter Lloyd: I shall make a few short, disjointed observations. No Member of the House, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) suggested, likes the situation in which we so visibly and publicly set our salaries. That is why, from time to time, we have sought to farm the job out to a review body, and why, when that body makes its recommendations and the issue lands back on our plate for a decision, we have always, so far, balked at accepting them.
    The recommendation always seems to involve such a large leap. Invariably, we have managed to get the worst of both worlds—bad publicity for the original recommendation, and no publicity for finally setting it aside. That does not mean, however, that I have concluded that this time we should accept the recommendation, although I know that many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members take a contrary view.
    I do not believe that we should ever have handed the problem over to an outside committee. We cannot escape responsibility. It always comes back to us. We know that and the public know it, so it is no good claiming that the recommendation is from an independent committee. The question should have been put to a Committee of the House to make recommendations, after drawing on professional and expert advice as required. We should be debating the recommendations of a Committee of the House tonight.
    It is the increasing practice of the House to rely on eminent outsiders to make its inquiries for it, to instruct it and help it to do what it has not got the courage or resources to do for itself. In the long run, that is not good for Parliament or for parliamentary democracy. The way that we have dealt with this issue is an example of what is wrong. We should manage our affairs properly, on our collective judgment, and we should not plead the judgment of others, however distinguished.
    It is especially unsatisfactory to refer ourselves to a general review body on senior salaries. I make no criticism of the review body's able members, but the very act of referring the decision suggests that being an elected Member of Parliament is just another public sector job, comparable to a range of others. That is what we do when we accept a report that in management consultancy terms is sensibly argued. If I remember correctly, the comparators that found favour were head teachers of large schools, lieutenants-colonel and grade 5 civil servants. They are all excellent people with responsible jobs. In some ways, their jobs are more responsible than the work of a Back-Bench Member. His job, however, is very different and there is no meaningful comparison.
    I fear that if we accept the report we shall go much further down the road of making the job of a Member just another public sector job, when it is both much more and less. Perhaps we are inevitably moving towards membership of this place being just another middle-grade public sector professional occupation. I do not believe, however, that we should hurry further down that road until we have thought about the consequences rather more.
    Our most obvious and unique characteristic is that we are elected to serve for a whole Parliament, no more and no less. It would be more in keeping with that fact and our status if we set our salary for the whole of a new Parliament just before the dissolution of the previous one,
    510
    with no basket of public sector salaries or three-year reviews to give us increases in between. In that way former Members and new candidates could face the electorate with a known figure for remuneration until they faced the electorate again. That would be much healthier and much more suitable for elected representatives.
    I know that my suggestion will not be popular with many of my colleagues but I believe that we should start again in Committee, and quickly, to settle the matter before the next election. We should settle it ourselves and not look outside for guidance, save for advice, facts and professional information that we choose to take into account.
    9.52 pm
    Mr. Peter Shore: This is a thoroughly disagreeable subject for us all. The sooner that we can get our pay linked sensibly to an outside comparator that will automatically adjust our salaries to take into account the cost of living and other factors, the better it will be for us all.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, we are in a period when public opinion is hostile to Members and cynical about our motivations and activities. In such a climate, it is tempting to lie low and do nothing to inflame our critics. That is the course of appeasement, however, and I do not recommend it. I think that we should accept the recommendation, as the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) so clearly put it. Indeed, we should accept all the recommendations in full.
    I am seriously contemplating applying for a private Member's Bill in the next Session. My Bill would require by law all journalists who write about Members' pay to reveal at the foot of their columns the pay that they receive as journalists and what their editors pay themselves as well.
    We are, of course, embarrassed by this subject. It appears that we are in a position to decide for ourselves our own worth—a thoroughly disagreeable position to be in. But that is not what we have done. The recommendations that are before the House have not been brought before us by a Select Committee, having carefully examined all the relevant factors. The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) suggested that that would be a preferable approach. Instead, we have deliberately put the matter before not the Top Salaries Review Body but the Senior Salaries Review Body, under the chairmanship of Sir Michael Perry. It is an independent body that was set up for the precise purpose of reviewing pay and other awards for those employed, as we inevitably are, in the public sector, although we have a very distinctive position within it.
    The report and the findings of the review body were not just plucked out of the air; they were the result of a number of separate studies, as anyone who has looked at volume 2 of the report will know. First, Hay Management Consultants conducted a review to examine the various comparators that could be appropriately cited as giving some guidance to the weight of the responsibilities that we bear in this place compared with people outside. The consultants recommended that we be paid in the range of £43,000 to £47,000 a year.
    Secondly, a questionnaire was sent to Members of Parliament, asking about staffing and the hours of work that they undertook. More than 400 of our colleagues

    511
    responded and said that the average working week during a Session was 71 hours, and that during recesses it was no fewer than 51 hours.
    Thirdly, the review body asked a distinguished academic at the university of Exeter to conduct a study of the rewards received by Members of other Parliaments in western Europe and in parts of the Commonwealth. It found that, compared to countries of a similar size in Europe, we are paid less than German, Italian and French Members of Parliament. We are not paid as much as Members of Parliament in New Zealand and Australia, either. I think that it produced pretty conclusive evidence to justify the report's recommendations.
    There were a number of additional points of interest in the report, one of which has been alluded to, so I shall do no more than briefly repeat it. The review body found that, following changes in the cost of living and so on, if we had accepted the 1983 award, our salary would now be equivalent to £42,300 a year, which compares with the £43,000 that the review body recommends. The report also contained interesting information about the previous earnings of our most recent recruits to the House of Commons. The 100 or more Members of Parliament who came in at the 1992 general election subsequently supplied the information that 61 per cent. of them experienced a drop in pay. Their average pay was £57,000 a year, and their median pay was £38,000 a year. That is pretty suggestive.
    People are entitled to say that there is no lack of applicants for the job of Member of Parliament. I have no doubt whatever that if we were to halve our present pay—even abolish it altogether—there would be no problem in filling the House of Commons. The trouble is that the applicants would be people of a rather special kind—those with substantial incomes who would not need to worry about receiving any pay from their job as Member of Parliament. The question then would be: what range of abilities would they supply?
    I should have thought it self-evident that if the pay of Members of Parliament were to fall far below what could be obtained in equivalent occupations outside, and if membership of the House entailed a drop in earnings, with the inevitable effects that that would have on the families of those involved, many able people would be deterred and there would be strong pressure on Members to take on additional paid work outside Parliament.
    The work of a Member of Parliament has become, for most of us, a full-time job, and I believe that we should be paid accordingly. I do not think that the legitimate outside activities of Members of Parliament should be banned. Following the Nolan report, a Select Committee considered the matter carefully and, in particular, opposed consultancies involving paid advocacy. That is now a rule of the House. I merely suggest that legitimate outside activities should be declared, and that it should be left to a Member's constituents to judge whether, in terms of service to them and contribution to the House, that Member is performing satisfactorily.
    I cannot think of any group of public sector employees whose pay has been reviewed less frequently than ours, and I know of no group of public sector employees who have rejected a substantial pay increase recommended by an independent review body. Following our rejection of the 1983 recommendations of the Top Salaries Review
    512
    Body, it would be ridiculous for us to compound that error now by rejecting the findings of the independent Review Body on Senior Salaries.
    The Prime Minister specifically asked the review body for an early report. He has received it, and in my view we should now accept it.
    10 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My message to the House is that it should show courage and do what it believes to be right, however inconvenient that may be. As many hon. Members have said, it is ridiculous for the Government to set up a Senior Salaries Review Body, with support from hon. Members in all parts of the House—including a large number of Back Benchers—only to disregard it with gay abandon. The right hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) have done the House and the country a service by presenting such an excellent case.
    I have been in the House for a quarter of a century. Every time the Top Salaries Review Body—or its present-day equivalent, the Review Body on Senior Salaries—has reported, I have supported its recommendations religiously, believing that experts have been asked by the House to rule on what they consider to be the right level of remuneration for Members of Parliament. We would be ill advised to disregard the recommendations of such experts, as the House did—with very unfortunate results—in 1983. We have heard what the level of our salary would be today if that stupid, irresponsible decision had not been made. I believe that it was influenced by a number of people with large private incomes.
    I intend to concentrate on one issue—the car mileage allowance. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he was unaware that any statistics, such as illustrative vehicle running costs, were available from the RAC's motoring service. It may not be precisely the same formula as that relating to Members of Parliament, but I have here illustrative vehicle running costs from the RAC, copyright 29 November 1995, relating to all petrol-engine cars from 1,000 cc to 2,500 cc.
    Having looked at the two volumes of the review body's report and its surveys and studies, I believe that virtually no evidence was taken about true motoring costs and maintenance. That seems extraordinary. [Interruption.] I have studied the report, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). The recommendation that there should be one standard rate of mileage allowance whatever the car, wherever the Member lives and whatever the size of his or her constituency, discriminates against Members who represent constituencies many miles from London. My constituency is only 180 miles from London, but other hon. Members represent constituencies twice that distance, or even more, from London. In addition, Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) represent large constituencies in England, involving large constituency duty mileage.
    It is not right that the House should legislate to force people not to travel by car, which they rightly choose to do because of the distance that they have to travel.

    513
    They should be allowed to travel comfortably, to arrive rested and to travel safely on some of the country's more difficult roads and motorways. They should not be expected to subsidise their parliamentary and constituency travelling.
    Under the report's proposals, Members with smaller cars will make a huge profit. Those with vehicles under 1800 cc will make a huge profit from the scheme, but Members who need to travel in cars over, shall we say, 2000 cc will lose out. I make no apology for the fact that I travel in a Range Rover, at the top of the range. I choose to do so.
    I first bought a Range Rover when that company was threatened with takeover to show my support for what is the best four-wheel-drive vehicle in the world. Having bought it, why should I dispose of it? I am on my fourth Range Rover and I am proud of it. It enables me to travel safely. I arrive here and back in my constituency rested, and I work seven days a week for the majority of the year.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would not the hon. Gentleman be even more rested and would not it be a little environmentally better if Macclesfield had used the railway?
    Mr. Winterton: Yes. In an intervention that I have just heard—I will not say from where—an hon. Member has said that we do not have a station. We have quite a good station and I am trying to get it improved by the new authorities that run the rail service, but, unfortunately, the timing of trains does not make it possible for me to undertake the range of engagements that I wish to undertake and that my constituents wish me to undertake. It is not possible for me to travel by rail or from the excellent international airport at Manchester. I care to travel by car. I respect the hon. Gentleman greatly for his experience of the House. More often than not, another Member of Parliament happens to travel with me and the taxpayer gets damn good value for money as a result. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name her."] I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton).
    It is immoral, illogical and without justification to introduce legislation that positively discriminates against Members of Parliament who have chosen the right vehicle to travel to and from their constituencies, and to travel within their constituencies. Little or no evidence was taken for the report. I submitted an amendment that, sadly, was not selected. It proposed that the matter should be submitted to a special Select Committee of the House so that it could take proper evidence and come up with the right figure.
    I am prepared to have the current figure reduced, although the latest RAC figures, based on its statistics, show that a 2500 cc car should qualify for a mileage allowance of 79.7p per mile. I would look to a realistic figure of around 65p a mile for the first 20,000 miles and a figure slightly below that for any mileage over that, but the current figure is without justification. It is immoral, unfair and positively discriminates against constituencies a long way from London. It could put certain Members in difficulty and in danger when they travel in all weathers, throughout the 12 months. I ask that this matter be looked at again. If it is not, I shall not be able to support the motion on car mileage allowance.
    10.9 pm
    Mr. Doug Hoyle: The House would be badly advised to try to interfere in the married bliss of the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton).
    The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) made a dangerous suggestion. The House would be condemned if it continued to set hon. Members' salaries. That would be to go down the wrong path. I hope that the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister will not try to make this a party political issue because, as the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said, the matter has the strong support of hon. Members in all parties in the House. There is a strong feeling that we should put an anomaly right that has been with us for 20 years.
    It is ludicrous that the House has fudged the issue in the past. In 1975, it did not accept the recommended amount, but allowed it for pension purposes. That lasted for four years. In 1981, we thought that we had caught up, but in 1983 we again fell behind and again fudged the issue. The review body was right to say that if its 1983 recommendation had been implemented and kept up year by year, lo and behold we would now be drawing a salary of £42,300.
    After examining our pay against that of other public servants such as head teachers, police superintendents and civil servants, the review body recommends a salary of £43,000. There are 114 employees in the House who earn more than hon. Members and it is time that we put right that anomaly as well.
    There will never be a right time to raise the pay of Members of Parliament, because the media will always be against it although, as we have heard, some people in the media earn more than Members of Parliament. I agree with the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), that when journalists criticise us in their columns, they should print the salaries.
    I was surprised to note that we were criticised by Christine Hancock, the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, and by David Hart, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers. If a comparability study had been carried out among their members and an independent body had reported, I do not think that either of those two worthy people would have recommended that their members should accept less than the body's recommendation. I took the trouble to find out what they earn. I could find the salaries only up to 1994, and in that year Christine Hancock was on a salary—wait for it—of £74,262. For the same year, David Hart had a salary of £68,640. I do not think that we should be lectured by either of those two.
    The review body was right to say that 76 per cent. of office costs relate to employment. I, and I am sure other hon. Members, object to the fact that the media lump in the office costs and somehow pretend that that is the total pay of hon. Members. It is time to separate that cost and it is also time to ensure that our staff, who are our most valuable asset, are paid the correct amount. I urge the Leader of the House to accept the review body's suggestion that further work is needed on the matter and to look at office costs, particularly the employment of staff. While we retain their employment, perhaps the cost should be removed from the office costs allowance.

    515
    If we again do not have the courage to carry through the suggestion of an independent review body—I am amazed that the Government are not carrying it through, having asked for the review—we shall miss a further opportunity, and possibly the final opportunity. The opportunity to put matters right and to bring hon. Members' pay into line with that of others could be lost, not only for now but for ever.
    10.14 pm
    Sir David Mitchell: As many hon. Members have said, it is very difficult for Members of Parliament to be in the position of having to decide their own salaries. There is a genuine difficulty, in that I—like many other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate—do not know exactly what should be the right level of pay. However, I suppose that one criterion might be comparison with the status and salary of senior staff of the House. That is why I tabled a question, to which I received an answer yesterday, which revealed that 130 members of the staff of the House are paid more than hon. Members.
    I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether he thinks that the value of a Member of Parliament compares with, for example, that of the director of works. A Member of Parliament is paid less than the parliamentary director of works, less than the deputy director of works, less than the fire safety manager, less than the furnishing manager, less than the works manager, less than the quantity surveyor and even less than the executive chef.
    Last year, I had a comparison made between exactly what the purchasing power of my salary was when I was first elected as a Member of Parliament, in 1964, and what it was last year. The fact is that there was almost no difference between my salary's purchasing power when I entered the House 32 years ago and its purchasing power last year.
    Is there any other profession which has had the enormous increase in work load that hon. Members have experienced over the past 30 years and which has had no real salary increase? In what other job is that true—dustman, train driver, clerk, journalist, newspaper editor, Lobby correspondent, shop assistant or civil servant? Name any profession, but not one has had no real increase in 32 years' service of one form or another.
    We require an outside body to determine what we should be paid for our status and for our salary. We now have such a report. I suggest that it should be implemented for hon. Members and for scandalously underpaid Ministers.
    10.17 pm
    Mr. Chris Mullin: I do not suppose that my speech will do my chances in the shadow Cabinet election any good, but I have heard that that election will be abolished to spare me the embarrassment.
    I welcome the review body's recommendation to abolish higher mileage allowance rates. It has always seemed to me to be absolutely indefensible that, contrary to all the rhetoric coming out of this place, we have an allowances system that actively encourages the use of large cars—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has left the Chamber—at the expense of public transport. I hope that the House has
    516
    the courage to grasp that nettle today, because, if we do not, we shall forfeit the right to be taken seriously on transport and environmental policy.
    I welcome the recommendations on the office costs allowance, and I shall vote for the recommended increase.
    Unhappily, amendment (m), which I tabled, has not been selected. It is about linkage. We always seem to relate our pay to that of some anonymous civil servant. I favour—this should appeal to any socialists who happen to be present—linking it to the state pension, so that we irrevocably link future increases to the fortunes of the less prosperous of our constituents rather than to some anonymous civil servant.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) said that we should not fudge the issue of wages. I am not in favour of fudging it, either. I am totally opposed to any rise above the rate of inflation. The issue is not whether we are underpaid for the job that we do—there are many opinions about that—but whether our pay is so inadequate that we constitute a special case, entitled to exemption from the rules that Governments of all political persuasions seek to impose on others. I do not believe that any reasonable person could come to that conclusion. By no stretch of the imagination are we a special case.
    I do not accept any of the arguments that have been advanced by those who advocate the increase. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) argued that our remuneration has fallen below the level of the 1960s, or at least has not increased since then. That is nonsense. In the 1960s, a Member of Parliament was, quite wrongly, expected to pay for his own office costs and his or her London accommodation. Those items are now, quite rightly, covered by allowances. We are incomparably better off than we were in the 1960s, and we should not pretend otherwise.
    I do not accept that £34,000 is a low salary. We are in the top 10 per cent. of income earners. We all earn more than the overwhelming majority of our constituents. I appreciate that that will be less true of those who represent the more prosperous areas, but the fact remains that £34,000 a year is a good salary, even in the most prosperous areas.
    I have heard it said that we must raise salaries in order to attract better-quality candidates. The truth is that all parties are heavily over-subscribed with applicants for winnable seats. That is especially true of the Conservative party. If it was left up to the free market on which most Conservative Members are so keen, we would be paying ourselves less, not more.
    We all know why the crisis—if I might call it that—has arisen. It has arisen because Lord Nolan has closed off some, but by no means all, of the opportunities that many Conservative Members take for granted of supplementing their income.
    Mr. David Shaw: Stop writing the books.
    Mr. Mullin: I have not written a book since before I was elected. Many Conservative Members take for granted the fact that they can supplement their income by selling their services to outside interests. Others may have climbed on the bandwagon, but that is how it began. That is why we are in this crisis—because of Nolan.

    517
    I can never recall seeing Conservative Members as upset as on the day that Nolan reported. One said to me, within the hearing of the catering staff—he was a multi-millionaire, so I do not suppose he has to worry too much—"No Conservative can live on £34,000 a year." Believe me, I understand. By definition, Tory Members tend to represent the leafier areas of the country. They belong to a party where status is everything. They rub shoulders every day with people who earn a great deal more than they do and, to put it crudely, in the past 17 years, they have handed out a great deal of dosh to their friends and many of them want their cut.
    Some Tory Members take the view—[Interruption.] Tory Members are often seeking to put clear blue water between the two sides of the House. Speaking for myself, an ocean of clear blue water separates us on this issue.
    Some Tory Members take the view that the nation should be grateful to them for taking the time off from making money to come and govern us. I do not share that view and—I suspect—nor does the nation.
    I apologise for making a party point, but I believe that we are all being dragged into what is essentially a Tory crisis in the hope of giving respectability to a proposition that is utterly without merit.
    There is a more serious point. It is not healthy in a democracy for too wide a gap to grow up between the life styles of elected representatives and those whom they represent. I believe that as a matter of principle and that, as far as possible, Members of Parliament should share the same sunshine and the same rainfall as those whom they represent. We already earn more than 90 per cent. of our constituents, and that is enough. There is no justification for widening the gap.
    The Government are recommending that we support an increase that corresponds to the rate of inflation. That is the only credible position that any Government could take, and Opposition Members should bear that in mind. I assume that we are serious about forming a Government and that we have not just been playing for the past 17 years. It is simply incredible for members of a party that aspires to government to award themselves a 26 per cent. increase, while claiming to give priority to combating inflation and urging restraint on everyone else. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will bear that in mind when we come to vote.
    10.26 pm
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I should declare that I have more interest in the outcome of the debate than most hon. Members, as I may become a ministerial widower at some stage. Having said that, let me refer to one or two points that have been raised in the debate.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) recommended that we ought to set the pay to come into effect at the beginning of a Parliament and that it should not change during that Parliament. I support that. Sadly, it is not one of the recommendations and there is no amendment that would allow it to happen. I believe that there should not be an annual pay increase for Members.
    I also believe that we should reduce the number of Members and that during this Parliament—[Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Bottomley.
    Mr. Bottomley: During this Parliament, we should pass a resolution giving instructions to the boundary commissioners that next time there is a boundary change—in 10 or 12 years' time—the number of constituencies should be reduced to about 450. That would give every hon. Member about the same number of constituents as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) currently represents. That would demonstrate that, although there should be a pay increase, Members are willing to accept—at the next convenient moment—a greater work load. We should also recognise that many right hon. and hon. Members already represent that number with distinction. It is not easy, but it is possible.
    The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) mentioned the general secretary of the Royal. College of Nursing. She makes worthwhile comments, she clearly has administrative ability and she is the kind of person who could become a Secretary of State. Why should she have to take a pay cut of £10,000 a year, were she to be Secretary of State for Health, for example? Another example is one of the head teachers represented by David Hart. Why should the head of Holland Park comprehensive take a £25,000-a-year pay cut as the Member of Parliament for Holland park? It does not make sense.
    I received today a bit of paper about the pay of the assistant director of housing in the London borough of Greenwich, which says that it is lower than pay in 24 other London boroughs. It is not the average or median pay, but below that received in other boroughs. It is £55,000 a year. Is there anybody in the House at the moment who has served as an assistant director of housing? Such people may not be put off just by Members' pay. There may be other reasons why they are not applying to be Members of Parliament.
    Let us consider a director of social services who receives £70,000. I may not have met any Members who are former directors of social services, but that could be because the level of pay is not encouraging them. When was the last time that someone of lieutenant-colonel rank came into the House? I think that the answer is 20 years ago. When was the last time that the finance director of a medium-sized shire district council came into Parliament, let alone a grade 5 civil servant or a hospital consultant?
    Pages 6 and 7 of volume 2 of the review body report, which, as far as I can see, have not been reproduced in our national newspapers and, up to today, have not been talked about by our national broadcasters, make the point.
    When someone says, as a professor of community care did in a letter to me today,
    "I'm not sure that most M.P.s are worth the proposed salaries",
    it might be better to improve Members of Parliament rather than cut pay. Why should someone who is a professor of community care not feel attracted to Parliament?
    Let us take some of the people who comment on our affairs. I invited someone from the Press Gallery to come down to the Chamber and make his point about our pay. He said, "It would cost me a £12,000-a-year pay cut to do that." I am sure that being in the Press Gallery and commenting on our affairs is more important and deserves more pay, because those people have to listen to our speeches—at least when they are in the Gallery.

    519
    Let us consider what is facing the House today. Are we going to say that £43,000 is too much for Members of Parliament to earn? I do not think that anyone believes that. We should say to the Government—we can understand why they have to take their 3 per cent. line—that, in future, when a review body is set up or asked to report on pay or conditions, its report should be put to the House for a vote. Then, if they wanted, the Government could table an amendment to bring the proposal down to another level. That way would be more open and straightforward.
    I recognise that the amendment that I tabled to the first motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, which would have had the effect that I described, has not been selected. Nevertheless, we ought to be willing to say for ourselves, for those who will follow us and for those who will compete for selection with us, that we should set a rate of pay that is not a disincentive to parliamentary service—not one that would make anybody rich, but one that is worth while, which would encourage some of those in comparable jobs in the private and public sector to come forward.
    A fair number of other points could be made. Many hon. Members can manage on present levels of pay. It depends on the family life cycle, whether one has a spouse who is earning and all kinds of things. At one stage during my parliamentary service, I faced the choice of going broke or going out. I do not think that my service here is that important by itself, but that choice is illustrative of the pressures on hon. Members.
    Before we finish with ourselves, we should say to the pension trustees and the special fund that we ought to be encouraged to pay more in voluntarily, so that more of those who have served before, retired and may be experiencing hard times can have a better deal. We cannot put that burden on the taxpayer, but we could return to paying an extra 3 per cent. of the higher salary to a fund that can be used with discretion. That would be playing fair with those who have gone before.
    My recommendation on the main issue is that we must decide between the King's men, the levellers, the cowards and the courageous. I think that we should be courageous.
    10.33 pm
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: I start by mentioning a point that has so far not been mentioned. It is appropriate for the House to thank the Clerks of the House of Commons for the extraordinary work that they have had to do in the past 24 hours on the amendments and the selection. I will not mention their pay, but I will mention that they were here at 5.30 this morning, just as hon. Members are on some occasions.
    There are many occasions on which the Leader of the House and shadow Leader of the House can make joint recommendations to the House on matters that concern the House. I had hoped that tonight would be such an occasion. I had hoped that the Leader of the House would put forward a resolution in partnership with me, and that our joint resolution would solve many of the problems exercising people's minds this evening.
    The matters that we are discussing should be decided by individual Members of Parliament, which is why Opposition Members have a completely free vote this evening. Several issues are being discussed together: the pay of Members of Parliament; Ministers' pay; pensions;
    520
    the office costs allowance; and travel. All those issues have one thing in common: none of them should be determined by Members of Parliament. My starting point is the fact that I have never believed that I, as a Member of Parliament, should determine my own salary; nor should we do so collectively. That important principle must govern our decisions this evening.
    When the Prime Minister referred the issue of Members' pay and related matters to the SSRB, I was involved, through the usual channels, in discussions about the nature of that reference. Obviously, we do not disclose the details of such discussions, but it is no secret that the very last item on the list of what the review should cover was inserted, at my request, on behalf of colleagues. If hon. Members turn to the report and look at the letter that the Prime Minister sent to Sir Michael Perry, who heads the SSRB, they will see that the final point in that letter is that the review should cover
    "a linkage to provide the basis for annual uprating in future years without the need for Parliamentary decision."
    That point is key for me and for many colleagues on both sides of the House.
    I wish that we did not have to vote on accepting that independence. I wish that we could legislate away our right ever to make decisions on this matter again. That is not possible, but it is important that we establish for the future the principle that Members of Parliament should not determine their own pay.
    At the invitation of the SSRB, and as shadow Leader of the House, I gave evidence to the review body. Some of the points that I raised have been taken on board; others have not. But whether the SSRB accepted or rejected the points that I made should not govern my decision on how to vote this evening. We should not try to cherry-pick the recommendations before us, because if we believe that we should not make that decision, and if such a reference has been made, we should accept the package that has been put before us, with all the recommendations, regardless of whether they coincide with the evidence that we gave.
    The key section of the SSRB package and the report is not what it recommends on Members' pay, pensions, Ministers' pay, office costs or travel; it is recommendation 14, which recommends that a review mechanism be applied automatically to the salaries of Members of Parliament and Ministers. The decision to accept that this evening is the only way to get rid of the ridiculous situation of Members voting on their own salary on an annual basis.
    It is important to consider all that the SSRB says on this issue. It is no use the Leader of the House telling us later that he will put in place a similar type of review mechanism, because anyone who has read the SSRB report carefully will have read in paragraph 13 on page 2:
    "We needed to find a new automatic linkage for uprating in future years."
    The SSRB went on to identify the linkage that it recommends.
    The key line in the document for tonight's debate may be the line that says of the new linkage that it will be effective only if
    "salaries are set at the recommended level"
    now. That means that, if we do not accept the package, we will not be accepting what the SSRB has said is the only successful method of linking pay to other

    521
    mechanisms that ensures that the House will not have to deal with this in future. If we accept what the Leader of the House suggests, this issue will return to the House time after time, as the SSRB report says.
    We have heard a little tonight about the need for restraint, and I know that some Members have taken what the Prime Minister said at face value, but this is a very peculiar form of restraint. What is being suggested is a 3 per cent. increase, but it is 3 per cent. only six months after the last increase and only nine months before the next increase. I do not know if that is the message that the Government will send to public sector workers throughout the country, but I am pretty sure that that is not the message that they have sent out before.
    The most important point to bear in mind is that, if we do not accept the package as a whole, we cannot avoid being told on every occasion that this is not the appropriate time to solve the problem of Members' pay. I have looked back over many debates in the past 15 years, and in every debate Ministers have said, "This is not the appropriate time. The problem will be solved in future." Here we are, in 1996, still trying to deal with problems that have confronted the House regularly in the past 20 years.
    The Leader of the House said that the Government had put forward evidence to SSRB on affordability, and he said that that evidence was given by the Lord Privy Seal, Viscount Cranborne. I find it slightly surprising—
    Mr. Newton: I do not think I said that, but in any case I said that the Government had presented written evidence to the SSRB on affordability. Someone had said that no Minister had given evidence; the fact is that the Lord Privy Seal did. Those two points are distinct.
    Mrs. Taylor: I am glad to have the clarification from the right hon. Gentleman. He was asked from the Opposition Benches who gave the evidence, and I do not know whether he understood or heard correctly the question to which he was replying when he said the Lord Privy Seal.
    I accept that, in other ways that have not been revealed to us, the Government gave evidence to the SSRB on affordability. It is certainly the case that members of the Government gave evidence to the SSRB. I have just looked at the list of those who gave oral evidence. Six Labour Members gave oral evidence, as did 12 Conservative Members, including three Cabinet Ministers, two Whips and two junior Ministers. The SSRB had the opportunity to take on board the views of Ministers, because at least seven gave evidence to it. It then came up with the report before the House.
    I found the Leader of the House's statement on mileage costs and the rates that are available at the moment—he suggested that it might be possible to continue them—absolutely astonishing. I presume that that kind of statement leads to headlines such as the one that appeared in The Daily Telegraph today: "MPs must choose pay rise or perks". That is an offensive approach to deal with this issue. What message are Ministers trying to get across? Is it, "Take 3 per cent. and pretend that you have not had a pay increase, but go out and buy a large car and milk the mileage"? I cannot believe that the Leader of the House is comfortable with his proposal. In the post-Nolan era, this is a ridiculous message to send out to the community.
    522
    I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—whose name is also on the motion—has said that, if the Minister refuses to move the motion, he will move it and a vote will take place.
    Every year since the last election, the Leader of the House has had to stand at the Dispatch Box and recommend to Members of Parliament that they vote for a pay freeze or that they vote for an increase double the rate of inflation, and that they vote for an increase in Ministers' salaries. We cannot carry on like this. The only way to take this issue out of our hands is to vote for the package that the SSRB has recommended.
    10.47 pm
    Mr. Andrew Rowe rose—
    Hon. Members: Oh, no.
    Mr. Rowe: I understand that many hon. Members may feel that it is inappropriate for me to speak at this time. I have sat through the whole debate—and a number of hon. Members who are complaining have not. First, I repeat what I have said on many occasions when we have debated this issue: it is 30 years since I entered the grade in the civil service to which we used to have our salaries linked—30 years later, that cannot be described as the career progression of a greedy man.
    Secondly, it is worth suggesting—as I did to the Senior Salaries Review Body—that a good comparator might be a fixed proportion of the average salaries of the editors of the tabloid newspapers. One of the things that affects the public interest in our salaries is the public's perception of what this place is for and what Members of Parliament do. What we do here is arcane to most of our constituents—they have no idea what we do or whether we do it well or badly. They have to make a judgment based on comments from Members of Parliament and the media.
    I believe that we should accept the report's recommendations, but that we should also look seriously at how the House of Commons serves the nation in circumstances that have changed beyond all recognition in the past 30 or 40 years. The nature and the volume of our work and our relationships with other bodies—such as the European Union—have changed dramatically. The mechanisms for dealing with those changes are often out of date and do not function particularly effectively. It is time that we examined those issues.
    I agree entirely with those hon. Members who believe that there are too many Members of Parliament. We should look at the numbers. Perhaps we should start rationing the number of Members of Parliament who come from the same household—but that may be unkind.
    Finally, as we may find in the Lobbies tonight, I believe that the payroll vote is much too large. We have more than 150 first step agencies that are supposed to have substantially reduced the load on Ministers. In those circumstances, we do not need so many Ministers. I suggested to the review body—I stand by my comments—a perfectly satisfactory way of paying Ministers properly. I submitted that the Prime Minister could have a lump sum at his disposal from which he could pay Ministers. The more Ministers there were, the smaller their salaries would be and vice versa. That would cut the payroll vote and would work to our advantage.
    10.51 pm
    Mr. Newton: Even without being prompted, I have got the message that the House wishes to move to a vote. Therefore, I shall make only three quick points.
    First, I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to the fact that paragraph 25 of the report says specifically that the Government submitted general evidence on the affordability issue. Secondly, the hon. Lady knows that I have made every effort in the past four years to establish and to preserve an automatic linkage. I think that the basket that our proposals establish tonight—even with the 3 per cent.—is capable of preserving, and should preserve, a workable linkage with the basket of civil service salaries.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Leader of the House must acknowledge that the SSRB says specifically that the linkage will not work unless we start it at the right salary point.
    Mr. Newton: I must admit that I am puzzled about that. A linkage should work—I think that this one will work—whatever the level of pay. The level is one point and the speed with which it increases is another.
    Mr. Miller: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I have not had an opportunity to speak before now. Paragraph 25 of the report states:
    "If, for example, the Government wishes to constrain the movement of Parliamentary pay by application of the same criteria it has attached to other public sector pay reviews, it has not said so."
    Mr. Newton: That is a different point. It was suggested that no evidence was given on the question of affordability, but the report says that it was.
    Finally, I must comment on the propositions advanced by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I wholly agree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury about cherry-picking within the package as a whole by those who favour the whole package. I point out to those with amendments relating to what amounts to retrospection in pensions that the SSRB rejects that specifically in paragraph 63 of its report. It refers to the undesirability of retrospective increases and states categorically that it does not recommend backdating. Therefore, I cannot commend those amendments to the House.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 317.

    Division No. 191]

    [10.54 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Blair, Rt Hon Tony

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Boswell, Tim

    Alexander, Richard

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Amess, David

    Bowis,John

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Brazier, Julian

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Barnes, Harry

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

    Bayley, Hugh

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Bellingham, Henry

    Burns, Simon

    Benton, Joe

    Burt, Alistair

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Butler, Peter

    524

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Canavan, Dennis

    MacKay, Andrew

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Maddock, Diana

    Clappison, James

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Clelland, David

    Malone, Gerald

    Coe, Sebastian

    Marland, Paul

    Congdon, David

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Conway, Derek

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Martlew, Eric

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Merchant, Piers

    Cran, James

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Cummings, John

    Mills, Iain

    Cunningham, Roseanna

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Darling, Alistair

    Mowlam, Marjorie

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

    Mudie, George

    Denham, John

    Mullin, Chris

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Devlin, Tim

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Dewar, Donald

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Ottaway, Richard

    Dover, Den

    Page, Richard

    Elletson, Harold

    Paice, James

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Pope, Greg

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Faber, David

    Richards, Rod

    Fabricant, Michael

    Riddick, Graham

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Sackville, Tom

    French, Douglas

    Salmond, Alex

    Gallie, Phil

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Skinner, Dennis

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Soames, Nicholas

    Grocott, Bruce

    Spellar, John

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Heald, Oliver

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Spink Dr Robert

    Hendry, Charles

    Spring, Richard

    Hodge, Margaret

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Horam, John

    Sykes, John

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

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Jack, Michael

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Jones, Robert B (Wm Hertfdshr)

    Trend, Michael

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Walley, Joan

    Knapman, Roger

    Ward, John

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Wells, Bowen

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Welsh, Andrew

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Wilson, Brian

    Legg, Barry

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Lidington, David

    Lord, Michael

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Loyden, Eddie

    Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Michael Bates.

    Luff, Peter

    525

    NOES

    Ainger, Nick

    Dowd, Jim

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Allen, Graham

    Dykes, Hugh

    Alton, David

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Eastham, Ken

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Etherington, Bill

    Ashby, David

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Ashton, Joe

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Fatchett, Derek

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Faulds, Andrew

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Fisher, Mark

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Flynn, Paul

    Barron, Kevin

    Forman, Nigel

    Battle, John

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Beggs, Roy

    Foulkes, George

    Bell, Stuart

    Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fraser, John

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Fyfe, Maria

    Betts, Clive

    Galbraith, Sam

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Gale, Roger

    Blunkett David

    Galloway, George

    Boateng, Paul

    Gapes, Mike

    Body, Sir Richard

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Booth, Hartley

    Garrett, John

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    George, Bruce

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Bradley, Keith

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Gordon, Mildred

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Gorst Sir John

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Graham, Thomas

    Butcher, John

    Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Butterfill, John

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Cann, Jamie

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Gunnell, John

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hain, Peter

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hall, Mike

    Cash, William

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Chidgey, David

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Churchill, Mr

    Hannam, Sir John

    Clapham, Michael

    Hanson, David

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hardy, Peter

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Harvey, Nick

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Coffey, Ann

    Henderson, Doug

    Connarty, Michael

    Hicks, Sir Robert

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

    Corbett, Robin

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Hoey, Kate

    Cousins, Jim

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Cox, Tom

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hoon, Geoffrey

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

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Dafis, Cynog

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Davidson, Ian

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Dixon, Don

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Dobson, Frank

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    526

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Pawsey, James

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Pearson, Ian

    Hunter, Andrew

    Pendry, Tom

    Illsley, Eric

    Pickthall, Colin

    Ingram, Adam

    Pike, Peter L

    Jamieson, David

    Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

    Janner, Greville

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Jessel, Toby

    Radice, Giles

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Randall, Stuart

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Reid, Dr John

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Rendel, David

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jowell, Tessa

    Rogers, Allan

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Rooker, Jeff

    Keen, Alan

    Rooney, Terry

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

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Key, Robert

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Rowlands, Ted

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

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

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Knox, Sir David

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Leigh, Edward

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lewis, Terry

    Sheerman, Barry

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Litherland, Robert

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Sims, Sir Roger

    McAllion, John

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    McAvoy, Thomas

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

    McCartney, Ian

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    McFall, John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Smyth, The Reverend Martin

    McKelvey, William

    Soley, Clive

    McLeish, Henry

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Maclennan, Robert

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    McNamara, Kevin

    Steen, Anthony

    MacShane, Denis

    Steinberg, Gerry

    McWilliam, John

    Stevenson, George

    Madden, Max

    Stewart, Allan

    Madel, Sir David

    Stott, Roger

    Marek, Dr John

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Marlow, Tony

    Straw, Jack

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Sumberg, David

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Meacher, Michael

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Meale, Alan

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Michael, Alun

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Miller, Andrew

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Touhig, Don

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Tracey, Richard

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Tredinnick, David

    Morley, Elliot

    Trickett, Jon

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Trotter, Neville

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Murphy, Paul

    Tyler, Paul

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Vaz, Keith

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Viggers, Peter

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Walden, George

    O'Hara, Edward

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Olner, Bill

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    O'Neill, Martin

    Wallace, James

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    Parry, Robert

    Wareing, Robert N

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Whitney, Ray

    527

    Whittingdale, John

    Worthington, Tony

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Wray, Jimmy

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Wilkinson, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Wilshire, David

    Winnick, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Mr. John Home Robertson

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    and

    Wolfson, Mark

    Mr. Peter Bottomley.

    Question accordingly negatived.

    PARLIAMENTARY PAY AND ALLOWANCES
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That this House takes note of the Review Body on Senior Salaries' Report on Parliamentary pay and allowances presented to Parliament on 4th July (Command Paper 3330), and calls on the Government to take any necessary action to enable implementation of the recommendations.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
    Amendment proposed to the motion: (t), after 'Government', insert—
    'to provide that, in the case of Members of this House whose service in the House ceases after 1st July 1996, they shall be treated for pension purposes as having had a yearly rate of salary of 1:43,000 and'.—[Mr. Alfred Morris.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 123.

    Division No. 192]

    [11.08 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Butcher, John

    Ainger, Nick

    Butterfill, John

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Callaghan, Jim

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Allen, Graham

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Alton, David

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Ashby, David

    Cash, William

    Ashton, Joe

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Chidgey, David

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Church, Judith

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Churchill, Mr

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Barron, Kevin

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Beggs, Roy

    Coffey, Ann

    Bell, Stuart

    Connarty, Michael

    Bendall, Vivian

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Corbett, Robin

    Benton, Joe

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cummings, John

    Betts, Clive

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

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

    Blunkett, David

    Dafis, Cynog

    Body, Sir Richard

    Dalyell, Tam

    Booth, Hartley

    Davidson, Ian

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Bradley, Keith

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Denham, John

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Dixon, Don

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Dobson, Frank

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

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Dunn, Bob

    528

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Jamieson, David

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Janner, Greville

    Dykes, Hugh

    Jessel, Toby

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Eastham, Ken

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Etherington, Bill

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Fatchett, Derek

    Keen, Alan

    Faulds, Andrew

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

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Key, Robert

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Fisher, Mark

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

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

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Knox, Sir David

    Foulkes, George

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Leigh, Edward

    Fraser, John

    Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Lewis, Terry

    Galbraith, Sam

    liddell, Mrs Helen

    Gale, Roger

    Litherland, Robert

    Galloway, George

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Gapes, Mike

    Loyden, Eddie

    Gardiner, Sir George

    McAllion, John

    Garrett, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    George, Bruce

    McCartney, Ian

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    McFall, John

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    McKelvey, William

    Gordon, Mildred

    McLeish, Henry

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Maclennan, Robert

    Gorst, Sir John

    McNamara, Kevin

    Graham, Thomas

    MacShane, Denis

    Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

    McWilliam, John

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Madden, Max

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Madel, Sir David

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Maginnis, Ken

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Marek, Dr John

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Marland, Paul

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Marlow, Tony

    Gunnell, John

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Hain, Peter

    Martlew, Eric

    Hall, Mike

    Meacher, Michael

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Meale, Alan

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Michael, Alun

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Miller, Andrew

    Hardy, Peter

    Mills, Iain

    Harvey, Nick

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Hawksley, Warren

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Henderson, Doug

    Mortey, Elliot

    Hicks, Sir Robert

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Mudie, George

    Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

    Murphy, Paul

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Hoey, Kate

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Home Robertson, John

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Hood, Jimmy

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    O'Hara, Edward

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Hoyle, Doug

    Pendry, Tom

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Pike, Peter L

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Radice, Giles

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Randall, Stuart

    Hunter, Andrew

    Raynsford, Nick

    Illsley, Eric

    Reid, Dr John

    Ingram, Adam

    Rendel, David

    529

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Rooney, Terry

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Rowlands, Ted

    Touhig, Don

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Tracey, Richard

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Tredinnck, David

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Trotter, Neville

    Sheerman, Barry

    Tyler, Paul

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    Vaz, Keith

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Walden, George

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Sims, Sir Roger

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Wallace, James

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

    Waller, Gary

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Smyth, The Reverend Martin

    Wareing, Robert N

    Soley, Clive

    Whitney, Ray

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Whittingdale, John

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Wilkinson, John

    Steen, Anthony

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Winnick, David

    Stern, Michael

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Stevenson, George

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Stewart, Allan

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stott, Roger

    Worthington, Tony

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Straw, Jack

    Sumbeng, David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Sweeney, Walter

    Mr. Alfred Morris and

    Sykes, John

    Mr. Peter Bottomley.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Elletson, Harold

    Alexander, Richard

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Amess, David

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Faber, David

    Barnes, Harry

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bates, Michael

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Boswell, Tim

    French, Douglas

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Gallie, Phil

    Bowis, John

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Godsiff, Roger

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Burns, Simon

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Burt, Alistair

    Heald, Oliver

    Butler, Peter

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hendry, Charles

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Horam, John

    Clappison, James

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Congdon, David

    Jack, Michael

    Conway, Derek

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Knapman, Roger

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Cran, James

    Knight Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

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

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Legg, Barry

    Devlin, Tim

    Lidington, David

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Livingstone, Ken

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Luff, Peter

    Dover, Den

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    530

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    MacKay, Andrew

    Skinner, Dennis

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Maddock, Diana

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Soames, Nicholas

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Malone, Gerald

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Spring, Richard

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Merchant Piers

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Moss, Malcolm

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mullin, Chris

    Trend, Michael

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Ward, John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Waterson, Nigel

    Page, Richard

    Wells, Bowen

    Pace, James

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Yeo, Tim

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Rathbone, Tim

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Sebastian Coe.

    Sackville, Tom

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Amendment made to the motion: (u), after final 'the', insert 'other'.—[Mr. Alfred Morris.]
    Question put, That the main Question, as amended, be agreed to:—
    The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 154.

    Division No. 193]

    [11.20 pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Callaghan, Jim

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Allen, Graham

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Ashby, David

    Cash, William

    Ashton, Joe

    Chidgey, David

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Church, Judith

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Churchill, Mr

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Barron, Kevin

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Coffey, Ann

    Beggs, Roy

    Connarty, Michael

    Bell, Stuart

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Corbett, Robin

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Betts, Clive

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

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

    Blunkett, David

    Dafis, Cynog

    Boateng, Paul

    Dalyell, Tam

    Booth, Hartley

    Davidson, Ian

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Bradley, Keith

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Dixon, Don

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Dobson, Frank

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Dowd, Jim

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Butcher, John

    Durant Sir Anthony

    Butterfai, John

    Dykes, Hugh

    531

    Eagle, Ms Angela

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

    Eastham, Ken

    Key, Robert

    Etherington, Bill

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

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

    Fatchett, Derek

    Knox, Sir David

    Faulds, Andrew

    Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Lewis, Terry

    Fisher, Mark

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Forman, Nigel

    Litherland, Robert

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    McAllion, John

    Foulkes, George

    McFall, John

    Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fraser, John

    McKelvey, William

    Fry, Sir Peter

    McLeish, Henry

    Fyfe, Maria

    Maclennan, Robert

    Gale, Roger

    McNamara, Kevin

    Galloway, George

    MacShane, Denis

    Gapes, Mike

    McWilliam, John

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Madden, Max

    Garrett, John

    Madel, Sir David

    George, Bruce

    Maginnis, Ken

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Marek, Dr John

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Marlow, Tony

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Gorst, Sir John

    Meacher, Michael

    Graham, Thomas

    Meale, Alan

    Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Michael, Alun

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Gunnell, John

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hain, Peter

    Morley, Elliot

    Hall, Mike

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred

    Hamilton, Fit Hon Sir Archibald

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Murphy, Paul

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Hannam, Sir John

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hardy, Peter

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hawksley, Warren

    O'Hara, Edward

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    O'Neill, Martin

    Henderson, Doug

    Orme Rt Hon Stanley

    Hicks, Sir Robert

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Pawsey, James

    Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

    Pendry, Tom

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hoey, Kate

    Pike, Peter L

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Radice, Giles

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Randall, Stuart

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Reid, Dr John

    Hoyle, Doug

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Rooney, Terry

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Jamieson, David

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Janner, Greville

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Jessel, Toby

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn Yns Mon

    Sheerman, Barry

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Keen, Alan

    Sims, Sir Roger

    532

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Trotter, Neville

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

    Twinn, Dr. Ian

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Tyler, Paul

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Smyth, The Reverend Martin

    Vaz, Keith

    Soley, Clive

    Viggers, Peter

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Walden, George

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Steen, Anthony

    Wallace, James

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Stevenson, George

    Wareing, Robert N

    Stewart, Allan

    Whitney, Ray

    Stott, Roger

    Whittingdale, John

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Straw, Jack

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Sumberg, David

    Wilkinson, John

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Wilshire, David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Winnick, David

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wolfson, Mark

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Worthington, Tony

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Yeo, Tim

    Touhig, Don

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Tracey, Richard

    Mr. Peter Bottomley and

    Tredinnick, David

    Mr. John Home Robertson.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Elletson, Harold

    Alexander, Richard

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Alton, David

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Amess, David

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Faber, David

    Austin-Walker, John

    Fabricant, Michael

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Flynn, Paul

    Barnes, Harry

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Bates, Michael

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Bellingham, Henry

    French, Douglas

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gallie, Phil

    Boswell, Tim

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Bowis, John

    Godsiff, Roger

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Heald, Oliver

    Burns, Simon

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Burt, Alistair

    Hendry, Charles

    Butler, Peter

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Horam, John

    Canavan, Dennis

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Cann, Jamie

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

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Jack, Michael

    Clappison, James

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Congdon, David

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Khabra, Piara S

    Cran, James

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Cummings, John

    Knapman, Roger

    Cunningham, Roseanna

    Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

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

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Devlin, Tim

    Lidington, David

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Livingstone, Ken

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Dover, Den

    Lord, Michael

    533

    Loyden, Eddie

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Luff, Peter

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Rowlands, Ted

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sackville, Tom

    McCartney, Ian

    Salmond, Alex

    MacKay, Andrew

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Skinner, Dennis

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Maddock, Diana

    Soames, Nicholas

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Spellar, John

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Malone, Gerald

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Marland, Paul

    Spring, Richard

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Sykes, John

    Merchant, Piers

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Morris, Estelle (B'harn Yardley)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Moss, Malcolm

    Tipping, Paddy

    Mullin, Chris

    Trend, Michael

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Olner, Bill

    Walley, Joan

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Ward, John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Waterson, Nigel

    Page, Richard

    Wells, Bowen

    Paice, James

    Welsh, Andrew

    Pearson, Ian

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Pope, Greg

    Wood, Timothy

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Rendel, David

    Mr. Derek Conway and

    Richards, Rod

    Mr. Sebastian Coe.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House takes note of the Review Body on Senior Salaries' Report on Parliamentary pay and allowances presented to Parliament on 4th July (Command Paper 3330), and calls on the Government to provide that, in the case of Members of this House whose service in the House ceases after 1st July 1996, they shall be treated for pension purposes as having had a yearly rate of salary of £43,000, and to take any necessary action to enable implementation of the other recommendations.

    MEMBERS' SALARIES (No. 2)
    Madam Speaker: Motion 6 now falls.
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That the following provision shall be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

    (1) In respect of service in the period starting with I st July 1996 and ending with 31st March 1997 the salary of a Member shall be at a yearly rate of £43,000.

    (2) For each year starting with 1st April, from 1997 onwards, the yearly rate shall be increased by the average percentage by which the mid-points of the Senior Civil Service pay bands having effect from 1st April of that year have increased compared with the previous 1st April.

    (3) The mid-point of a Senior Civil Service pay band is the point half way between the maximum and the minimum.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

    MINISTERIAL AND OTHER SALARIES
    Madam Speaker: Motion 8 falls.
    Motion made, and Question put,
    That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1996 (No. 2), which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
    The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 49.

    Division No. 194]

    [11.33 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Eastham, Ken

    Allen, Graham

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Etherington, Bill

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Ashby, David

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Fatchett, Derek

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Faulds, Andrew

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Fisher, Mark

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Forman, Nigel

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Barron, Kevin

    Foulkes, George

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Beggs, Roy

    Fraser, John

    Bell, Stuart

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Bendall, Vivian

    Gale, Roger

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Galloway, George

    Betts, Clive

    Gapes, Mike

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    George, Bruce

    Blunkett, David

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Boateng, Paul

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Booth, Hartley

    Gorst, Sir John

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Gunnell, John

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hain, Peter

    Butcher, John

    Hall, Mike

    Butterfill, John

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hardy, Peter

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Harvey, Nick

    Carrington, Matthew

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Chidgey, David

    Hawksley, Warren

    Churchill, Mr

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Henderson, Doug

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hicks, Sir Robert

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

    Coffey, Ann

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hoey, Kate

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Hood, Jimmy

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

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Dafis, Cynog

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Dalyell, Tam

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    Davidson, Ian

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Dixon, Don

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Dobson, Frank

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Dowd, Jim

    Hunter, Andrew

    Dunn, Bob

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    535

    Jamieson, David

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Janner, Greville

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jessel, Toby

    Rooker, Jeff

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Rooney, Terry

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Keen, Alan

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Kelleft-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Sedgemore, Brian

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

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Key, Robert

    Sheerman, Barry

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

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

    Sims, Sir Roger

    Knox, Sir David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

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

    Leigh, Edward

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Soley, Clive

    Lewis, Terry

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    McFall, John

    Stern, Michael

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Stevenson, George

    McLeish, Henry

    Stewart, Allan

    Maclennan, Robert

    Stott, Roger

    Madden, Max

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Madel, Sir David

    Sumberg, David

    Maginnis, Ken

    Sweeney, Walter

    Marek, Dr John

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Meacher, Michael

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Meale, Alan

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Michael, Alun

    Touhig, Don

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Miller, Andrew

    Tracey, Richard

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Tredinnick, David

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Trotter, Neville

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Tyler, Paul

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Vaz, Keith

    Morley, Elliot

    Viggers, Peter

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Walden George

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Murphy, Paul

    Wallace, James

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Waller, Gary

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Whitney, Ray

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Whittingdale, John

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    O'Neill, Martin

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Wilkinson, John

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Pawsey, James

    Wilshire, David

    Pendry, Tom

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Wolfson, Mark

    Pike, Peter L

    Worthington, Tony

    Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Yeo, Tim

    Radice, Giles

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Randall, Stuart

    Rathbone, Tim

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Raynsford, Nick

    Mr. Peter Bottomley and

    Reid, Dr John

    Mr. John Home Robertson.

    NOES

    Alton, David

    Canavan, Dennis

    Ashton, Joe

    Carttiss, Michael

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Banks,Tony (Newham NW)

    Cunningham, Roseanna

    Barnes, Harry

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

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Flynn, Paul

    536

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Rendel, David

    Hanson, David

    Rowlands, Ted

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

    Salmond, Alex

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Spellar, John

    Khabra, Piara S

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Livingstone, Ken

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Tipping, Paddy

    McCartney, Ian

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Wareing, Robert N

    Maddock, Diana

    Welsh, Andrew

    Marlow, Tony

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and

    Mullin, Chris

    Mr. John Austin-Walker.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Madam Speaker: Motion 10 on parliamentary pensions now falls.

    CAR MILEAGE ALLOWANCE
    Motion made, and Question put,
    That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the rates of the car mileage allowance payable to Members in respect of journeys—

    (a) by Members, or

    (b) by spouses or persons in respect of whom the secretarial and research allowance is payable—

    (1) In respect of journeys commenced in the year starting with 1st April 1997, the allowance shall be payable to any Member at the higher rate up to a total of 20,000 miles and at the lower rate thereafter.
    (2) The higher rate is 47.2 pence per mile increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 1997 has increased compared with the index for March 1996.
    (3) The lower rate is 21.7 pence per mile increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 1997 has increased compared with the index for March 1996.
    (4) For each subsequent year starting with 1st April, the rates shall be increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for the previous March has increased compared with the index for the March before that.
    (5) The rates shall be calculated to the nearest tenth of a penny (with exactly one twentieth being rounded up).
    (6) Arrangements shall be made by the Fees Office for ensuring that claims are supported by appropriate particulars.
    (7) In this Resolution "the retail price index" means the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Office for National Statistics (or any index or figures published by that Office in place of that index).—[Mr. Ottaway.]
    The House divided: Ayes 376, Noes 39.

    Division No. 195]

    [11.44 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Ainger, Nick

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Alexander, Richard

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Austin-Walker, John

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Allen, Graham

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Alton, David

    Barnes, Harry

    Amess, David

    Barron, Kevin

    537

    Bates, Michael

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Bayley, Hugh

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Eastham, Ken

    Beggs, Roy

    Elletson, Harold

    Bell, Stuart

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Faber, David

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Fatchett, Derek

    Berry, Roger

    Faulds, Andrew

    Betts, Clive

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Fisher, Mark

    Boswell, Tim

    Flynn, Paul

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Forman, Nigel

    Bowden, Sr Andrew

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

    Bowis, John

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Bradley, Keith

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Fraser, John

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Fry, Sir Peter

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

    Fyfe, Maria

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Gale, Roger

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Gallie, Phil

    Burns, Simon

    Gapes, Mike

    Burt, Alistair

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Butler, Peter

    George, Bruce

    Callaghan, Jim

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Canavan, Dennis

    Gordon, Mildred

    Cann, Jamie

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Gorst Sir John

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Grant Bernie (Tottenham)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Chidgey, David

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clappison, James

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Gunnell, John

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Hain, Peter

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hall, Mike

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Coffey, Ann

    Hannam, Sir John

    Congdon, David

    Hanson, David

    Conway, Derek

    Hardy, Peter

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Harvey, Nick

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Heald, Oliver

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Henderson, Doug

    Cousins, Jim

    Hendry, Charles

    Cran, James

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Cummings, John

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hodge, Margaret

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

    Hoey, Kate

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hood, Jimmy

    Davidson, Ian

    Hoon, Geoffrey

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

    Horam, John

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Denham, John

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

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

    Devlin, Tim

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    Dewar, Donald

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Dixon, Don

    Hoyle, Doug

    Dobson, Frank

    Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Dowd, Jim

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Dunn, Bob

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    538

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Jack, Michael

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Morley, Elliot

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Jessel, Toby

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Mudie, George

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Mullin, Chris

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Murphy, Paul

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Jowell, Tessa

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Keen, Alan

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    O'Hara, Edward

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

    Olner, Bill

    Key, Robert

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Khabra, Piara S

    Orme, Rt Hon. Stanley

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Ottaway, Richard

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Page, Richard

    Knapman, Roger

    Paice, James

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Knight Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Pawsey, James

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

    Pearson, Ian

    Knox, Sir David

    Pickthall, Colin

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Pike, Peter L

    Lamont Rt Hon Norman

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Radice, Giles

    Lewis, Terry

    Randall, Stuart

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Rathbone, Tim

    Lidington, David

    Raynsford, Nick

    Litherland, Robert

    Reid, Dr John

    Livingstone, Ken

    Rendel, David

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Luff, Peter

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Rooker, Jeff

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    McCartney, Ian

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Rowlands, Ted

    McFall, John

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Sackville, Tom

    MacKay, Andrew

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    McKelvey, William

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    McLeish, Henry

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Sheerman, Barry

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    McNamara, Kevin

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Madden, Max

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Maddock, Diana

    Simpson, Alan

    Madel, Sir David

    Sims, Sir Roger

    Maginnis, Ken

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Skinner, Dennis

    Major, Rt Hon John

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

    Malone, Gerald

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Marek, Dr John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Marlow, Tony

    Soames, Nicholas

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Soley, Clive

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Martlew, Eric

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Meacher, Michael

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Meale, Alan

    Spring, Richard

    Merchant Piers

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Michael, Alun

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Miller, Andrew

    Steen, Anthony

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Stevenson, George

    539

    Stewart, Allan

    Walden, George

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Straw, Jack

    Wallace, James

    Sumberg, David

    Waller, Gary

    Sykes, John

    Walley, Joan

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Ward, John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Wells, Bowen

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Whitney, Ray

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Whittingdale, John

    Thurnham, Peter

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Timms, Stephen

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Tipping, Paddy

    Wilkinson, John

    Touhig, Don

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Wilshire, David

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Wilson, Brian

    Tracey, Richard

    Wise, Audrey

    Tredinnick, David

    Wood, Timothy

    Trend, Michael

    Worthington, Tony

    Trickett, Jon

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Trotter, Neville

    Yeo, Tim

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Tyler, Paul

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Vaz, Keith

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Viggers, Peter

    Mr. Peter Bottomley and

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Mr. John Home Robertson.

    NOES

    Ashby, David

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Ashton, Joe

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Leigh, Edward

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    McWilliam, John

    Booth, Hartley

    Marland, Paul

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Pendry, Tom

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Richards, Rod

    Cash william

    Rooney, Terry

    Clapham, Michael

    Spellar John

    Stern, Michael

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Etherington, Bill

    Wareing, Robert N

    Foulkes, George

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Galloway, George

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Hawksley, Warren

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Hunter, Andrew

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton and

    Illsley, Eric

    Mr. Neil Hamilton.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    OFFICE COSTS ALLOWANCE
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the limit on the Office Costs Allowance—
    (1) The limit for any quarter in the year starting with 1st April 1997 should be £11,591 increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 1997 has increased compared with the index for March 1996.
    (2) For any quarter in each subsequent year starting with 1st April the limit should be the limit for a quarter in the previous year increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for the previous March has increased compared with the index for the March before that.
    (3) The limit in relation to Mr. David Blunkett should be 2.57 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2).
    (4) The limit in relation to Mr. Bernie Grant should be 1.33 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (I) or (2).
    (5) The limit should be calculated to the nearest pound (with exactly 50 pence being rounded up).
    (6) In this Resolution—

    (a) "quarter" means a period of three months starting with 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January; and

    (b) "the retail prices index" means the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Office for National Statistics (or any index or figures published by that Office in place of that index).—[Mr. Bates.]

    Amendment proposed to the motion: (rr), in paragraph (1), leave out '1997' and insert '1996'.—[Mr. Ainger.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 189.

    Division No. 196]

    [11.57 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Denham, John

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Dixon, Don

    Ainger, Nick

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Dowd, Jim

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Alton, David

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Eastham, Ken

    Ashby, David

    Etherington, Bill

    Ashton, Joe

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Barnes, Harry

    Faulds, Andrew

    Barron, Kevin

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Battle, John

    Fisher, Mark

    Bayley, Hugh

    Flynn, Paul

    Beggs, Roy

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Foulkes, George

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Fraser, John

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Gallie. Phil

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Galloway, George

    Berry, Roger

    Gapes, Mike

    Betts, Clive

    Garrett, John

    Blunkett, David

    George, Bruce

    Booth, Hartley

    Gerrard, Neil

    Bradley, Keith

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Butcher, John

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Gunnell, John

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hain, Peter

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hall, Mike

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hanson, David

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Hardy, Peter

    Canavan, Dennis

    Harvey, Nick

    Cann, Jamie

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Chidgey, David

    Hoey, Kate

    Clapham, Michael

    Home Robertson, John

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clelland, David

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

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

    Coffey, Ann

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Corbett, Robin

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cummings, John

    Hunter, Andrew

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Illsley, Eric

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Cunningham, Roseanna

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Jamieson, David

    Davidson, Ian

    Janner, Greville

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

    Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    541

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Pike, Peter L

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Pope, Greg

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

    Keen, Alan

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

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

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Purchase, Ken

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Radice, Giles

    Leigh, Edward

    Randall, Stuart

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Rendel, David

    Lewis, Terry

    Rooney, Terry

    Livingstone, Ken

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    McAllion, John

    Salmond, Alex

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    McCartney, Ian

    Sheerman, Barry

    Macdonald, Calum

    Simpson, Alan

    McFall, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    McKelvey, William

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

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Soley, Clive

    McWilliam, John

    Spearing, Nigel

    Madden, Max

    Spellar, John

    Maddock, Diana

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Maginnis, Ken

    Stern, Michael

    Mahon, Alice

    Stevenson, George

    Marek, Dr John

    Stewart Allan

    Marland, Paul

    Stott, Roger

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Sutcliffe Gerry

    Meacher, Michael

    Thurnham, Peter

    Meale, Alan

    Timms, Stephen

    Michael, Alun

    Tipping, Paddy

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Touhig, Don

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Trickett, Jon

    Miller, Andrew

    Tyler, Paul

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Vaz, Keith

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Wallace, James

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Walley, Joan

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Morley, Elliot

    Wareing, Robert N

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Welsh, Andrew

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Mullin, Chris

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Murphy, Paul

    Wilson, Brian

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Wise, Audrey

    O'Hara, Edward

    Worthington, Tony

    Olner, Bill

    Wright, Dr Tony

    O'Neill, Martin

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Pearson, Ian

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Pendry, Tom

    Mrs. Maria Fyfe and Mr. John Austin-Walker.

    Pickthall, Colin

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Alexander, Richard

    Burns, Simon

    Allen, Graham

    Burt, Alistair

    Amess, David

    Butter, Peter

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Carrington, Matthew

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Churchill, Mr

    Bates, Michael

    Clappison, James

    Bellingham, Henry

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Coe, Sebastian

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Congdon, David

    Boswell, Tim

    Conway, Derek

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Bowis, John

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Cran, James

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

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

    542

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    McLeish, Henry

    Dalyell, Tam

    Maclennan, Robert

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Dobson, Frank

    Madel, Sir David

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Elletson, Harold

    Malone, Gerald

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Merchant, Piers

    Faber, David

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Forman, Nigel

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Moss, Malcolm

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Oppenheim, Philip

    French, Douglas

    Ottaway, Richard

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Page, Richard

    Gale, Roger

    Paice, James

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Pawsey, James

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Rathbone, Tim

    Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Sackville, Tom

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Hannam, Sir John

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Heald, Oliver

    Sims, Sir Roger

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Henderson, Doug

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Hendry, Charles

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Spring, Richard

    Horam John

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Steen, Anthony

    Howell Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Straw, Jack

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Sumberg, David

    Jack, Michael

    Sweeney, Walter

    Jessel, Toby

    Sykes.John

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Knapman, Roger

    Tredinnick, David

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Trend, Michael

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Trotter, Neville

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

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Knox, Sir David

    Viggers, Peter

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Walden, George

    Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Waller, Gary

    Lidington, David

    Ward, John

    Luff, Peter

    Waterson, Nigel

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Wells, Bowen

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Whitney, Ray

    MacKay, Andrew

    Whittingdale, John

    543

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Wilkinson, John

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wolfson, Mark

    Mr. Timothy Wood and

    Yeo, Tim

    Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the limit on the Office Costs Allowance—
    (1) The limit for any quarter in the year starting with 1st April 1996 should be £11,591 increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 1997 has increased compared with the index for March 1996.
    (2) For any quarter in each subsequent year starting with 1st April the limit should be the limit for a quarter in the previous year increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for the previous March has increased compared with the index for the March before that.
    (3) The limit in relation to Mr. David Blunkett should be 2.57 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2).
    (4) The limit in relation to Mr. Bernie Grant should be 1.33 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2).
    (5) The limit should be calculated to the nearest pound (with exactly 50 pence being rounded up).
    (6) In this Resolution

    (a) "quarter" means a period of three months starting with 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January; and

    (b) "the retail prices index" means the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Office for National Statistics (or any index or figures published by that Office in place of that index).

    Royal Yacht
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
    12.9 am
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Perhaps we could move into calmer waters and discuss—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Members must leave the Chamber quietly. Business remains before the House. The hon. Member who has the Adjournment debate must be heard.
    Mr. Townsend: I wish to discuss the subject of a future royal yacht. I last secured an Adjournment debate on the topic in December 1994. In 1980, I initiated a debate on the Queen's flight. I acknowledge that they are different matters, but there is a common starting point, which is that time is overtaking equipment in the royal service.
    I begin on a critical note. Like many of my hon. Friends, I am appalled that the Government seem to be unwilling or unable to make up their mind on a future royal yacht. Pass the parcel is being played in Whitehall and basic decisions are not being taken. It has reached the stage at which some of us feel that the file has been put in the too difficult category and that Whitehall will fail to make up its mind this side of the general election. That would be shameful. Surely a Conservative Government can decide whether there should or should not be a royal yacht.
    If plans for a future royal yacht have been abandoned, as has been suggested in several press reports, tonight is the time surely for the House to be so informed. To support my criticism, I remind the House that it was as long ago as 23 June 1994, 25 months ago, that the then Secretary of State for Defence made an announcement about the future of Britannia in a written answer. He promised then that a further statement would be made, but even after prompting it has still not been made.
    The House will be familiar with the basic facts. Britannia was launched on the Clyde in 1953. It has travelled well over 1 million miles, serving as a secure residence in an age of international terrorism. It has provided a splendid setting for official entertainment, promoting in great style Britain's many and various commercial interests abroad.
    During the Conservative leadership contest last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) suggested a further refit. I discussed the matter with him this evening and that is still his view. A refit, however, would cost an estimated £17 million and would prolong Britannia's life for only another five years. We are told that she would need new engines and much new machinery. Even then, she would be difficult to maintain and expensive to run. Reluctantly, I must support the decision to decommission her next year. It would be interesting to know exactly when that will take place.
    Let us take a moment to pay tribute to Britannia's past and present crews. Britannia has been an important national centre of excellence. Her crew has been composed, from the captain to the newest and most junior rating, of carefully selected, dedicated and highly professional individuals. We need to hear tonight of the

    545
    detailed plans for a fine ship's company. I like to think that all members of it have been offered new jobs within the Royal Navy.
    The Government correctly believe that after 1997 Britannia should serve a useful purpose while never again going to sea. I used my previous Adjournment debate to put forward strongly the idea that Britannia should be moored permanently off Erith in the London borough of Bexley. It would be a great attraction and would create interest and employment in an area of the borough that Bexley council is seeking to enhance.
    Since my previous debate on this subject, Bexley council has created a first-class brochure that supports my suggestion and goes into further details. I thank the council for its most welcome support. I trust that the brochure has been drawn to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. Can he confirm that the Government are giving serious consideration to my proposal, which has much local support? Better still, will he back it?
    Britannia has continued to be used for important occasions. Information can be found in paragraph 227 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996". Last month, the Prince of Wales sailed into Belfast aboard the royal yacht for a three-day visit to Northern Ireland, and the Queen Mother was on board off the south coast only a few days ago.
    In Parliament, the maritime group, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed), has taken a close and enthusiastic interest in the idea of a new royal yacht. In addition, an all-party royal yacht parliamentary group has been formed under the chairmanship of Lord Ashbourne, a former naval officer. Members of the group have called on the President of the Board of Trade, the Leader of the House of Lords and the Secretary of State for Defence. There has also been contact with a senior official in the royal household. Letters have been sent to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, and we are grateful for the encouragement of the British Exporters Association and the international maritime group in particular. In his reply, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed:
    "the issue of a replacement is still under consideration. The Government is, however, well aware of the successful role played by Britannia in export promotion activities … and of the value placed on this by industry and commerce".
    The all-party royal yacht group is promoting what I regard a good, sensible and practical idea. Far from contemplating any form of royal frippery, we suggest that a new—probably smaller—royal yacht should be designed and built without further delay for export promotion. Royal duties would, in practice, be a secondary role. The Department of Trade and Industry—I welcome the Minister from that Department—should be the lead Department. I suggest that the reply should come from a Minister from the DTI. The Royal Navy, we believe, would wish to man such a royal yacht. By chance and skill, Britannia has produced an excellent working formula on which we should build, a key part of which is the panache that is based on the centuries-old tradition of the senior service.
    The cost of a new royal yacht—it is early days to be suggesting a serious figure, but the papers have used the round sum of £80 million—should not be carried by the
    546
    defence budget, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be pleased to know, because its purpose would not be defensive. It would have no defence capability. Unlike Britannia, it would not be designed to be used as a hospital ship. Times have changed, and I am not convinced that, today, there is a requirement in the Royal Navy for a hospital ship. I would welcome my hon. Friend's observations on that point.
    It would be up to the Department of Trade and Industry to seek imaginative ways to fund the project. The private finance initiative is clearly one possibility, and we have discussed that. Private capital should and could be obtained. At least one serious industrialist has proposed a consortium of British business men, who should contribute £5 million each to funding for a new vessel. What progress has the DTI made in that direction?
    This is no pipe dream. British Invisibles, a high-level organisation representing some of the heavy players in British and international finance, has stated:
    "There is certainly evidence to show that Britannia has undoubtedly assisted in winning orders for Britain by attracting a top level audience of decision-makers who would not normally attend conferences at hotels".
    This afternoon, I received a fax from Keith Johnson, chairman of the British Exporters Association, in which he told me:
    "Companies such as Rolls Royce Power, Balfour Beatty, British Aerospace, GEC-Alstholm, Siemens-Plessey and British Telecom have benefited from the prestigious arrival of Britannia in ports around the world to act as a focus of attention and flagship for British Capital Goods and Services."
    Surely those big names would be able to make some financial contribution to a vessel that could benefit them directly for many decades. Perhaps Prince Charles could launch a high-profile fund-raising appeal to persuade British industry and commerce to invest in a new vessel.
    I appreciate the Treasury's current difficulties with public expenditure, but the financing of a new royal yacht whose primary task is export promotion should be placed in the proper context. As a nation, we must either export or face economic collapse. For UK Ltd., exporting is essential; thus, spending at least some public money to encourage exports makes good sense.
    Rear-Admiral Rob Windward, Britannia's former admiral, has been reported as saying of the yacht:
    "She more than pays for herself many times over".
    He should know. In 1994, he informed a Portsmouth audience that Britannia had helped to secure hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of business for Britain, compared with annual running costs of between £10 million and £12 million. A modern royal yacht should have considerably lower running costs.
    It is worth repeating what was said by Henry Cato, a former United States ambassador in London, who in 1976 found himself the US chief of protocol, charged with preparing for the Queen's state visit to America. He wrote to one of my hon. Friends:
    "I was literally besieged with people wanting invitations to the various functions that were to be held on board. Corporate moguls would devise outlandish reasons as to why they should be invited; society matrons would throw themselves at me. In short, that ship was a superb tool for British industry and the British nation and to let her go and not replace her would be a great pity, sending a bad message to the world."

    547
    We are told that in the bowels of Whitehall—perhaps in the basement of the Cabinet offices—there are some officials looking into the future of the royal yacht. I trust that that quotation is pinned to their wall.
    In a statement back in 1994, the Secretary of State for Defence said:
    "The Queen has made it known that in the light of changes in the pattern of royal visits since the yacht was built, she does not consider a royal yacht to be necessary in future solely for the purposes of royal travel."
    My hon. Friend may recall telling me in December 1994:
    "The world has, sadly, become a smaller place, under the assault of the jet aircraft. An increasingly demanding and hectic royal schedule inevitably dictates that more and more be packed into less and less time, with a consequent increase in emphasis on flying to overseas engagements."—[Official Report, 9 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 592]
    I have with me Britannia's programme for 1995. Royal duty days numbered only 36; it is clear that a high percentage of the time of a new royal yacht could be allocated to export promotion without causing problems to the royal household.
    Incidentally, five of those royal duty days were taken up by the Queen's superbly successful visit to Simons Town, Cape Town and Durban. I recall unforgettable television pictures of the royal yacht slowly sailing into Cape Town harbour, and the excitement of the vast waiting crowd.
    There can be no doubt that the Foreign Office appreciates and values the role of a royal yacht in projecting a favourable image of the United Kingdom abroad. It is something a little bit extra and special that Britain can still offer. One of the last major tasks to be performed by Britannia—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will take this further—will be to mark the handing over of Hong Kong to China next year.
    Many shipbuilders will be seriously interested in building a new royal yacht, once Whitehall gives the green light. I have in mind companies such as Vickers Shipbuilders and Engineering, Harland and Wolff, Vosper Thornycroft and, you will be interested to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, Devonport Management Ltd.
    The Government should opt for a vessel that would be a floating advertisement for the latest and best of British design, fashion, engineering and state-of-the-art technology. It would be a chance to remind our competitors not only of our centuries-old maritime traditions but of new, present-day shipbuilding abilities. British shipbuilding and shipping need all the support that they can get. I like to think that designing and constructing a new royal yacht would give a considerable boost to our most talented craftsmen and marine engineers. I hope that it will be a source of great pride to many people in these islands who are interested in ships, shipbuilding and life at sea.
    My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that there is considerable support on the Conservative Benches for a new royal yacht that could vigorously support Britain's vital commercial interests overseas, particularly perhaps in the far east. I hope that he and his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry will be able to accept the case that I have briefly outlined on behalf of the royal yacht parliamentary group and of many interested groups and individuals outside Parliament, who are in touch with us and who back our ideas.
    548
    Above all, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can expunge the unfortunate impression that, after 25 months of consultation and debate in Whitehall, the Government are still dithering. A decision is long overdue. I trust that the Government whom I support have the good sense and vision to make it a favourable one.
    12.25 am
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): May I start by trying to assuage any feeling that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) may have that the Government are dithering? This Government do not dither. We come forward at the appropriate time with what I hope will be the right decisions, but this is not an easy decision. It must be taken not lightly or, as the marriage ceremony says, wantonly, but with much careful thought and deliberation, and that is precisely the position.
    I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that, as I told him when he informed me that he intended to raise the matter, I have nothing much more to add to what I said when we debated it on 9 December 1994, although I wholly endorse and share his anxiety that a conclusion should be reached as soon as possible. I acknowledge that, throughout the House and the country, there is keen interest and much debate on the royal yacht's future and a keen anxiety that the matter should be settled sensibly.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, on a subject in which he has taken a keen interest. To my intense sadness and great regret, I have not yet received the proposal from Bexley borough council. I am sure that it is an admirable proposal. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, have probably seen and read it thoroughly as it would be of great interest to you, bearing in mind the fact that there may be the opportunity for a new build in Devonport. Sadly, however, my office has not been vouchsafed that great pleasure. If my hon. Friend would be kind enough to obtain from the borough council a copy of its admirable proposal, I assure him that it will receive the sort of attention that he would rightly expect from the office of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
    I feel a peculiar sense of déjà vu, as my hon. Friend and I, as I said, debated this subject on 9 December 1994. It is a pleasure to see present two keen royal yachtsmen from the Labour party—the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who is also a noted yachtsman. In Lewes, he has replaced my late and lamented friend the former Member for Eastbourne, who was known as the fisherman's friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes is known as the yachtsman's friend in that part of world.
    I am pleased to debate this subject again at such an important time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath said, since that debate, interest in the royal yacht throughout the country and in the House has not waned. It is easy to understand why that should be so.
    As my hon. Friend rightly said, Britannia has served this country with immense dignity and the highest distinction since she was launched by Her Majesty the Queen at John Brown and Company Ltd., Clydebank, over 40 years ago. In that time, she has travelled over a million miles and has undertaken hundreds of state visits, as well as visiting almost every accessible part of the

    549
    United Kingdom. She has served with great dignity and distinction as a royal residence and as a setting for official entertainment by Her Majesty.
    Britannia was seen at her best last year at the time of the VJ day celebrations. Moored by Tower bridge, she was the setting for a reception that was attended by, among others, veterans from every Commonwealth country. Britannia has long been associated with such events and with the projection of Britain's unique image abroad. But she also, of course, lends her extraordinary prestige to the promotion of British exports worldwide. However, I say respectfully to my hon. Friend that he allowed the balance between Britannia as a royal yacht and as a vehicle merely to act as a promoter of British exports to get rather out of kilter.
    Since the debate to which I referred, the royal yacht has represented this country across the globe. She has taken part in immensely successful state visits to many countries, including South Africa, Germany, the United States and Canada. As my hon. Friend said, the Prince of Wales used her on a most successful visit to Northern Ireland a couple of weeks ago, and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother may be on board her now.
    Britannia has also continued to support British exports. Since December 1994, she has hosted 18 sea days that were attended by representatives of financial and industrial institutions, all of which used her to promote the aims and interests of dozens of British companies. Tonight Britannia is in Amsterdam, where she will host another sea day. Although her programme for her final year has not yet been finalised, my hon. Friend may rest assured that it will be a phenomenally busy time for her.
    As my hon. Friend is well aware, it was with extreme reluctance that we took the decision in 1994 that Britannia should be decommissioned next year. It would not have been sensible to run her on because although she is undeniably beautiful and beautifully maintained, she is now an elderly ship, built with 1940s technology, including steam-powered engines. She takes a great deal of manpower to maintain, with a ship's complement rather larger than that of the latest generation of Royal Navy frigates. All that consequently makes her difficult and expensive to run. A refit costing £17 million would have been required next year to keep her safe and seaworthy, and even that would have prolonged her life for only another five years.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Soames: I must press on.
    Furthermore, from my viewpoint as a Defence Minister, Britannia has not had a defence role since 1992, when it was announced that we would no longer plan to use her as a hospital ship in time of war. When built, that was the purpose for which she was designed, although circumstances never allowed her to be deployed in that role. It was a symptom of her age and design that she was no longer considered suitable for the role, and there are no other defence roles that could easily be combined with a ship whose primary task is to represent Britain overseas.
    The decision to decommission Britannia also reflected the fundamental change in the pattern of royal travel. In the early 1950s, long voyages were almost invariably
    550
    made by liner and there was a real need for a royal yacht to enable Her Majesty to travel overseas. Of course, the world has changed greatly since then. In this age of jet travel, it is much more convenient and sensible for Her Majesty to travel by aeroplane to her destination and to join the yacht there. That is all the more important, given the very demanding royal schedule, which requires more and more to be packed into less and less time. Nowadays Her Majesty rarely uses the yacht as a method of transportation; it is used rather as a setting for state occasions.
    Although the final decision to decommission Britannia was of course one for Ministers, Buckingham palace was carefully consulted in the process and Her Majesty made it clear that a royal yacht for the purposes of royal travel alone is not, in her opinion, necessary.
    Bearing in mind Britannia's long and incredibly distinguished history, the Government considered very carefully the cost and manpower required to maintain her, given her lack of defence role and the changed requirements in royal travel. After careful consideration, it was decided that she should not undergo a refit in 1997, but should be decommissioned.
    I should like to pay tribute to the superb work of the officers and men who have served aboard Britannia during her lifetime, especially those of the permanent royal yacht service. They are a very special company of men. Without their professionalism, dedication and brilliant skill for more than 40 years, the yacht could never have achieved the standards of excellence that have contributed so much to her success and made her unique in the world. The diversity of skills required has always been in the best traditions of the Royal Navy, and the future of the royal yacht service is rightly one of our key concerns.
    Those men, once accepted, normally serve for the remainder of their career on board Britannia and, quite understandably, they are very attached to her. All yacht service personnel remaining in the Royal Navy in 1998 will transfer to general service and be given any necessary additional training. The yacht service will be disbanded once Britannia is decommissioned.
    Not all the ship's complement are members of the permanent royal yacht service, and many of them are officers and men of the Royal Navy serving a single tour. They will follow their normal career pattern when they leave Britannia.
    We are considering very carefully what will become of Britannia after she is decommissioned. We wish to find a way in which the yacht can continue to serve a useful purpose, even though she would no longer go to sea. Of course, that use would have to be in keeping with the dignity of her many years of service, and we are examining proposals.
    I should like to express my thanks to all those who have offered many exciting and interesting ideas for Britannia, which have been received from towns and individuals across the country. We are still considering those proposals, and it would be improper of me to speculate on the outcome. I can assure the House that, of course, the Government will consult Her Majesty on what may happen to Britannia after 1997. Whatever the outcome, the Government could not let such a distinguished ship slip away without considering the case for a replacement.

    551
    It is a finely balanced decision, because a new yacht of the style and grace that we all expect could not be procured cheaply.
    Above all, hon. Members should remember that, whatever we procure, it will not be Britannia. While a modern-design ship built with modern materials and the latest technology would doubtless be more efficient, it would still be costly to maintain, and we would have to be sure that such expense could be justified.
    Many people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath, have highlighted the export opportunities and inward investment that Britannia has brought to the United Kingdom. The Government are particularly conscious of the importance of that role, and it is a central element in our considerations about a replacement. I can say that we shall give very detailed thought to the issue of trade promotion.
    There have been many eloquent pleas for a replacement yacht to be commissioned as a means of providing work for British shipyards, as my hon. Friend said. I can assure those who make such pleas that, should it be decided to build a new yacht, clearly it would be built in a British yard. I am quite confident that it would be a splendid showcase for all that is best of our technology. That is, however, putting the cart before the horse.
    Many ideas have been suggested by members of the public on possible ways of funding, running and manning a vessel. They have included, for example, the possibility of funding the construction of the yacht with private finance. The idea of a joint royal yacht and sail training vessel has been suggested by a number of groups, most
    552
    notably the Cadland committee. I should like to take this opportunity to commend all the individuals who made suggestions for their energy and imagination. The sail training option is one of those being considered.
    I can assure my hon. Friend that since we last debated the issue, the Government have devoted a great deal of time and effort to exploring the possibilities. Ministers from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry are involved in the consideration of a possible new royal yacht. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also taken a close interest in the issue. The considerations are being supported by a Cabinet Office-led working group of officials from the relevant Departments.
    The work continues. I hope that I have explained the range and complexity of the issues that must be resolved. Without the absolute need for a royal yacht for royal travel, which existed when Britannia was first commissioned, clearly the balance of arguments is much finer than it was 40 years ago. The Government must consider carefully whether the expense of a new yacht can be justified. I can assure hon. Members that a statement will be made in the House once a decision has been made.
    Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this matter to the House's attention. I agree with him about the need to come to a conclusion as soon as we can, but it is a complex and difficult decision, and we must take our time to ensure that we get it right.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to One o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Business Rates Relief
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many village post offices and general stores he expects to benefit from business rates relief over the next 12 months. [35666]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Some properties of these kinds already benefit from discretionary rate relief on hardship grounds, but numbers are not held centrally. We estimate that up to 30,000 properties would be likely to benefit from our proposed scheme of rate relief for village shops, post offices and some other small rural businesses. The scheme would require primary legislation.

  Departmental Staff Losses
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what expenditure his Department has incurred on redundancy payments; and what future additional pension liabilities have been incurred by early retirement within his Department since 1990. [36021]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There have been no compulsory redundancies in my Department during this period. The total cost since 1990 of early retirements on voluntary terms and of severance payments to staff leaving before the age of 50 on such terms is:

  £million

  DOE and next steps agencies

  7.9

  Property Services Agency

  243.3

  These figures are net of Treasury funding—that is, 80 per cent.—of the cost of departures occurring after 1 October 1994.

  Ms Armstong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the reduction of staff in his Department since 1990; and how many staff have left as a result of(a) competitive tendering from the Department's services, (b) transfers under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to next steps agencies, (c) premature retirement and (d) redundancy. [36022]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The numbers of staff employed by my Department have been reducing since 1990. The figures are published in my Department's annual report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Included in these figures are departures from. DOE (central) and the Government offices since 1990 in the following categories:

  (a) competitive tendering from the Department's services: 24

  (b) transfers under TUPE to next steps agencies: 0

  (c) premature retirement: 436

  (d) redundancy: 0

  Council Tax
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate his Department has made of the revenue required to be raised by council tax in 1996–97 to meet local government expenditure from the 1995–96 financial year. [36036]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Each year, billing authorities estimate the surplus or deficit on council tax collection from previous years which they propose to take into account in setting their council tax for the current year. A deficit would represent income to be raised in 1996–97 to meet expenditure from a previous financial year. However, in setting the council tax for 1996–97, billing authorities in aggregate assumed a surplus from 1995–96 and earlier years of £106 million, rather than a deficit.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the Government-approved council tax increase for local government for the years 1995–96 and 1996–97 in percentage terms. [36037]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government do not set an approved level of council tax increase.

  Cheshire County Council (Budget)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each of the last five years the budget awarded by his Department to Cheshire county council. [36449]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department does not award budgets to local authorities. Each authority is responsible for setting its own budget taking into account a number of considerations, including the capping criteria announced by the Secretary of State. In each of the last five years, Cheshire county council set its budget requirements1 close to the maximum amount permitted under the capping criteria:

  £million

  1992–93

  619.800

  1993–94

  2587.400

  1994–95

  608.008

  1995–96

  3583.690

  1996–97

  613.042

  1In 1992–93, this was known as the precept, under the community charge system.

  2Responsibility for further education transferred from local authorities to the Further Education Funding Council on 1 April 1993.

  3Responsibility for police services in shire areas transferred from County Councils to free standing Shire police authorities on 1 April 1995.

  Energy Advice Centres
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of people currently employed in each of the local energy advice centres. [36549]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  This is a matter for the local energy advice centres and the Energy Saving Trust, which is responsible for the management and funding of the centres.
  169
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total budget for local energy advice centres in each year from 1993 to date; and in each year how much of that budget was provided from(a) his Department, (b) the Energy Saving Trust and (c) other bodies. [36543]

  Mr. Jones
  The total expenditure, with the proportion provided by the Department of the Environment, on the local energy advice centre pilot study in each of the relevant years is as follows:

  £ million

  Per cent.

  1993–94

  1.76

  70

  1994–95

  2.62

  64

  1995–96

  3.51

  63

  The balance of the expenditure came from other sources. The Energy Saving Trust did not directly provide any funds before April 1996.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people have received energy saving advice from local energy advice centres in each year since 1993. [36545]

  Mr. Jones
  The number—rounded to the nearest thousand—of clients who received advice from local energy advice centres in each year is as follows:

  1993–94: 26,000

  1994–95: 57,000

  1995–96: 100,000

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the work and effectiveness of local energy advice centres. [36547]

  Mr. Jones
  We monitored the efficiency and effectiveness of the local energy advice centres through regular reports from the Energy Saving Trust and reports from comprehensive market research running in parallel with the pilot study. The Energy Saving Trust has now taken over responsibility for this research programme. These reports demonstrate that the impartial and free advice provided by the pilot study centres has proved very effective, and substantial efficiency gains in its delivery have been achieved.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proposals his Department has for(a) the funding and (b) other support for local energy advice centres after September; and if he will make a statement; [36548]

  (2) what is his estimate of the amount of funding local energy advice centres will receive from (a) his Department, (b) the Energy Saving Trust and (c) other bodies, after September. [36544]

  Mr. Jones
  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 announced its plans for the local energy advice centres at the local energy advice centres' annual conference on 8 July.
  170
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is(a) the financial saving on energy bills and (b) the savings in carbon dioxide emissions (i) per customer and (ii) in total, that has resulted from energy/saving advice given by local energy advice centres, to the latest available date. [36546]

  Mr. Jones
  Estimated savings attributable to advice from local energy advice centres are as follows:

  Year

  Financial £

  Carbon Dioxide emission

  1993–94

  Per client: 38

  Per client: 458 kilograms

  Total: 1 million

  Total: 11,900 tonnes

  1994–95

  Per client: 30

  Per client: 350 kilograms

  Total: 1.7 million

  Total: 20,000 tonnes

  1995–96

  Per client: 30

  Per client: 350 kilograms

  Total: 2.4 million

  Per client: 35,000 tonnes

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons (Security Standards)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost of setting minimum security standards for all prison establishments in England and Wales. [35864]

  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 Brian Landers to Mr. George Howarth, dated 10 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the cost of setting minimum security standards for all prison establishments in England and Wales.The Prison Service has a phased programme to develop minimum security standards, but has not yet reached a decision on the appropriate standards to apply to all prison establishments in England and Wales. Until this work is complete, it is not possible to provide an estimate of the cost of setting minimum standards.

  Taxi Fares
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department spent in meeting the costs of taxi cab fares in the 1995–96 financial year. [36007]

  Mr. Howard
  Information about the values of payments on taxi cab fares is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Cheshire Police
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the last five years the total budget allocated by his Department to Cheshire police. [36531]
  171
  Mr. Maclean
  Cheshire police authority's budgeted expenditure on policing for each of the last five years is set out in the table.

  Cheshire Police Authority Budgeted expenditure on policing

  Year

  £ million

  1992–93

  74.5

  1993–94

  78.7

  1994–95

  88.3

  1995–96

  93.1

  1996–97

  198.5

  1 This figure is the total of the budget set by the police authority and the special grant for additional police officers in 1996–97.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of(a) constables and (b) special constables in the services of the Cheshire police for each of the last five years. [36532]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is in the table.

  Cheshire Constabulary

  Year

  Constable strength as at 31 March

  Special Constables strength as at 31 December

  1991

  1,424

  299

  1992

  1,413

  274

  1993

  1,447

  387

  1994

  1,453

  320

  1995

  1,487

  1321

  1996

  1,536

  1274

  1 As at 31 March.

  Prisoners (Taxis)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions during the last 12 months private taxis have been used to transport prisoners(a) to and (b) from Doncaster prison; what category were the prisoners on each occasion; and if he will make a statement. [36295]

  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 Brian Landers to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 10 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the use of taxis to escort prisoners at Doncaster prison.Taxis are used at Doncaster prison to take prisoners to and from hospital appointments at short notice.During the last 12 months, 65 prisoners were escorted from the prison using taxis. Of these, 52 were category B, five were category C and eight were category D. There is no record of the number of prisoners arriving at Doncaster by taxi.

  Cheshire Fire Service
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the number of fire stations closed in the Cheshire fire service area in each of the last five years; [36472]
  172
  (2) if he will list the number of firefighters employed by the Cheshire fire service in each of the last five years; [36471]

  (3) if he will list the number of appliances operated by the Cheshire fire service in each of the last five years. [36473]

  Mr. Sackville
  The position on 1 January in each of the last five years is as follows:

  1 January 1992

  1 January 1993

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1995

  1 January 1996

  Pumping appliances

  40

  39

  39

  47

  47

  Special appliances

  21

  21

  21

  12

  16

  Wholetime firefighters

  614

  638

  632

  624

  628

  Retained firefighters

  186

  176

  189

  201

  194

  No tire stations have been closed in the area served by Cheshire fire brigade during this period.

  Sex Offenders
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of police officers who have committed sexual offences against children from among those listed in "Sentencing and Supervision of Sex Offenders", while serving, and for which they were subsequently prosecuted, since 1972. [36514]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not kept in the form requested, or for the period requested. However, records of the numbers of serving police officers in England and Wales convicted for sexual offences are available for the years 1993 and 1994. These show that one officer in 1993 and three officers in 1994 were convicted for sexual offences. The records are not broken down by type of offence and the 1993 records do not include the Metropolitan police.

  Colchester Young Offender Institution
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the selection procedure for the new commandant in charge of the high-intensity training centre, Colchester; [36206]

  (2) what training is being given (a) to the commandant and (b) to other military staff at the young offender regime at Colchester; [36208]

  (3) on what legal basis the commandant at the high-intensity training centre, Colchester will be allowed to conduct adjudications; [36210]

  (4) how many military and Prison Service employees will be employed at the high-intensity training centre, Colchester; and what will be their duties. [36216]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  173
  Letter from Brian Landers to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 10 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about staff issues at Colchester young offenders institution.The commandant will be appointed when the Prison Service is satisfied that he is competent to discharge the responsibilities of that post. The commandant is undertaking training planned by the Prison Service College both at the college and at prisons.Training for other military staff to be appointed to the young offender institution includes a three week programme designed and provided by the Prison Service College.The commandant as governor of Colchester young offender institution will conduct adjudications under the powers in the Young Offender Institution Rules. Staff at the young offender institution, in addition to the governor, will be:

  a Prison Service governor grade 4, responsible for the day to day running of the institution;

  a unit manager and two shift supervisors appointed from the military corrective training centre;

  16 prison officers, of whom eight will be from the Prison Service and the other eight appointed from the military corrective training centre;

  a Prison Service administrative officer.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what will be the Prison Service title of the high-intensity centre, Colchester; [36207]

  (2) when he plans to open the high-intensity training centre Colchester; [36209]

  (3) what is the current estimated unit cost per place at (a) the high-intensity training centre, Colchester, (b) Thorn Cross and (c) Her Majesty's prison, Feltham; [36214]

  (4) how much (a) has been and (b) will be paid to the Ministry of Defence for the use of premises at the military corrective centre at Colchester as a high-intensity prison; [36215]

  (5) what arrangements will be made at the high-intensity training centres to ensure minimum security standards. [36220]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters 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 Brian Landers to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 10 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about the high intensity training centre at Colchester.The formal title will be Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution Colchester. It will usually be known as Colchester young offender institution, and is expected to open in the autumn.The current estimated figures for annual cost per place are £28,700 for Colchester, £27,200 for the high intensity training programme at Thorn Cross young offender institution and £17,280 for Feltham.Nothing has yet been paid to the Ministry of Defence for accommodation. The cost to the Prison Service will be £101,000 per annum, in addition to which the Service will pay the actual cost of utilities and a contribution in lieu of rates.174 Colchester Young Offender Institution and the High Intensity Training Centre at Thorn Cross Young Offender Institution will comply with Prison Service security requirements for prisoners held in open conditions.
  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what arrangements will be made for the provision of through and after care at the high-intensity training centre, Colchester; [36212]

  (2) how many hours out of cell will be provided to offenders at the high-intensity training centre, Colchester; and what will be the range of activities; [36217]

  (3) how many (a) probation, (b) education and (c) psychology posts will be made available at the high-intensity training centre, Colchester; [36218]

  (4) what the average term served at the high-intensity training centre, Colchester will be, and at what point of their sentence the offenders will be received. [36219]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters 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 Brian Landers to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 10 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent questions about facilities at Cochester young offenders institution.The staff to prisoner ratio will be higher than normal, with one personal officer to every two or three prisoners, and prisoners will benefit from the presence of a full time welfare officer in the military corrective training centre. The young offender institution will operate a sentence planning system in which a probation officer and the welfare officer will participate. The probation officer will spend one day a week at the institution.Prisoners at Colchester young offender institution will normally be out of their rooms from 7.00 am until 8.00 pm or 10.00 pm. Most of this time will be spent in purposeful activity including education, vocational training, physical education, first aid training, drill, and cleaning and tidying their kit or accommodation.Education will be provided by the military corrective training centre's two full-time education officers. The education branch of the Adjutant General's Corps at the Colchester garrison may also be used for prisoners identified with special educational needs.There will be no psychologists at Colchester but support will be available from the Prison Service area psychology unit at Highpoint prison.Prisoners will normally serve the last six months of their sentence at Colchester.

  Private Prisons
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who conducts adjudications at private prisons in England and Wales. [36211]

  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. Alex Carlile, dated 10 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about adjudications at contracted prisons.All adjudications at a contracted prison are carried out by the on-site Prison Service controller, who is a Crown servant.175

  Young Offender Institutions
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to close young offender institutions. [36213]

  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 Brian Landers to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 10 July 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about plans to close young offender institutions.Finnamore Wood young offender institution closed on 16 May 1996. No firm decision has been taken to close any other young offender institution, although the future role of open young offender institutions is under consideration following the recent review of the open estate.

  Driving Insurance (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 April,Official Report, column 523, how many (a) arrests and (b) police cautions, there have been for driving without insurance in each of the last five years; how many (i) custodial sentences, (ii) fines and (iii) suspended sentences, have been handed down following prosecutions for driving without insurance in each of the last five years; what has been the reconviction rate for driving without insurance in each of the last five years; and what action he is taking to discourage drivers from driving without insurance. [36221]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of people arrested for specific offences is not available centrally.

  The number of written warnings for the offence of driving without insurance cannot be distinguished from other insurance offences in the statistics available centrally. The following list gives the number of written warnings issued by the police in England and Wales for all vehicle insurance offences:

  Written warnings given for vehicle insurance offences in England and Wales

  1990: 22,788

  1991: 21,198

  1992: 18,285

  1993: 16,701

  1994: 15,277

  Figures for 1995 are not yet available.

  The penalties available for the offence of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks do not include custodial and suspended sentences. The following list shows the number of fines imposed following conviction for this offence:

  Fines imposed at all courts for the offence of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks in England and Wales

  1990: 161,281

  1991: 166,923

  1992: 182,019

  1993: 203,976

  1994: 199,884

  Figures for 1995 are not yet available.
  176
  Statistics of reconviction rates for this offence are not available.

  The enforcement of road traffic law, including the offence of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, is a matter for chief officers of police. As the hon. Member knows, there were 446,559 court proceedings for this offence in England and Wales during 1994.

  Mr. Raghbir Singh
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations have been received from Raghbir Singh about(a) conditions in his prison and (b) on requests for escorted leave from prison for compassionate purposes; what action has been taken in respect of (a) and how many requests made under (b) were (1) accepted and (92) refused. [36402]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 9 July 1996]: I have received one letter from Raghbir Singh which contains representations about his conditions in prison. He has made two requests for escorted leave for compassionate purposes. The details of these requests are contained in the reply given to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 1 July, Official Report, column 312.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bail applications have been made by Raghbir Singh and how many(a) have been refused and (b) are under consideration. [36403]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 9 July 1996]: Raghbir Singh has applied once to the High Court and once to the Court of Appeal for leave to apply for judicial review, and for a writ of habeas corpus. On each occasion, the court refused the application and, although the written application to the court included a request for bail, that was not pursued in court.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [35041]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 3 July 1996]: The information that the hon. Member requests is as follows:

  1994

  1994/3205: The Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (Isle of Man) (Revocation) Order 1994

  1995

  1995/267: The Public Health (Ships and Aircraft) (Isle of Man) (Revocation) Order 1995

  1995/376: The Recreation Grounds (Revocation of Parish Council Bylaws) Order 1995

  1995/1296: The Air Navigation (Isle of Man) (Revocation) Order 1995

  1995/1297: The Civil Aviation (Isle of Man) (Revocation) Order 1995

  1 January to 1 May 1996

  1996/1140: The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Jersey) (Revocation) Order 1996

  177

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Appellate Authority
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many persons detained under Immigration Act powers were released on bail by the Immigration Appellate Authority in(a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996 to date. [35600]

  Mr. Streeter
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appeals against a refusal of asylum are currently outstanding with the Immigration Appellate Authority. [35608]

  Mr. Streeter
  As at the end of June 1996, there were 16,809 appeals outstanding.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Baltic Exchange
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate English Heritage has made of the cost of rebuilding the St. Mary Axe facade of the Baltic exchange; and if she will permit the listing of the building to be withdrawn. [35898]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  English Heritage has not estimated the cost of rebuilding the St. Mary Axe frontage of the Baltic exchange. I have asked English Heritage to let me have a report on the exchange's listed status. However, it should be borne in mind that such a review can consider only evidence relating to the building's architectural or historic interest. Commercial or economic considerations would not be relevant; these are matters which can be addressed in the context of an application for listed building consent. General guidance on requests to delist buildings is given in paragraphs 6.26 and 6.27 of planning policy guidance note 15.

  Television Licence Fee
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she expects the BBC to introduce a weekly cash instalment scheme for payment of the television licence fee. [36942]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government laid a regulation yesterday that will enable the BBC to introduce an easy entry scheme for payment of the television licence fee. This scheme will enable people in receipt of at least one income-related state benefit to pay for their first licence in small weekly cash instalments over a period of six months, in arrears. The BBC intends to launch a national pilot of the scheme later this summer.

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the recent decisions which have been made concerning the funding and organisation of the national millennium exhibition. [33889]
  178
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 June 1996]: 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.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many statutory instruments her 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. [35043]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 4 July 1996]: None.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Stagecoach Holdings plc
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much(a) his Department and (b) the Monopolies and Mergers Commission have spent in total in carrying out investigations into Stagecoach Holdings plc; and how much his Department has spent defending actions taken by his Department against the company in the courts of law. [36019]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information about (i) could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In relation to (ii), information about the total costs incurred by the Department in defending court actions brought by Stagecoach could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  British Energy
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will withdraw the sale of British Energy if the sale proceeds are less than the lowest market capitalisation value as set out on page 9 of the share offer prospectus. [36557]

  Mr. Lang
  I am confident that the privatisation of British Energy will achieve value for money for the taxpayer.

  Electro-shock Equipment
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade under what export licence category electric shock weapons are classified. [36483]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Entry PL5001.d of the Export Goods (Control) Order, 1994, as amended.

  South West Industrial Development Board
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, columns 459–60, if Mr. Kenneth Holmes was chairman of his Department's South West industrial development board at the time of (a) the offer and (b) the payment of regional selective assistance to Marine Projects (Plymouth) Ltd. for (i) the first and (ii) the second project. [35264]
  179
  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: Mr. Holmes was a member of the industrial development board from January 1980 and chairman from January 1984 until January 1991. I explained in my answer of 18 June, Official Report, column 460, that he played no role in the granting of regional selective assistance to Marine Projects (Plymouth) Ltd. during that period. But to amplify that answer, Mr. Holmes—in view of potential conflict of interest—saw no departmental papers relating to the applications and absented himself from the relevant board discussions.

  Companies (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, column 463, if he will state (a) the amount that had already been paid to the eight companies by his Department, (b) the amount remaining unpaid and (c) the amount that has been recovered by (i) date of last payment and (ii) date of the receiver's appointment or the company liquidation. [35261]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: In all eight cases, the amounts paid and remaining unpaid were the same on the date of last, if any, payment and the date on which receivers or administrators were appointed.

  Amount paid £

  Amount remaining unpaid £

  Orca Aircraft Ltd.

  50,000

  150,000

  Strategic Alloys Ltd.

  400,000

  100,000

  South West Farm Processors Ltd.

  100,000

  100,000

  Crissan Marine Ltd.

  nil

  120,000

  Lobbs Clotted Cream Ltd.

  170,000

  215,000

  ROM-Data Corporation Ltd.

  750,000

  98,500

  Redruth Brewery Ltd.

  380,000

  100,000

  Porthcurno Management Co. Ltd.

  nil

  500,000

  In the case of Orca Aircraft Ltd., £42,500 has been recovered subsequent to appointment of the receivers.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, columns 461–64, what assessment he has made of the effect on the effectiveness of Mr. Roger Harris, as chairman of his Department's South West industrial development board, of the number of occasions on which he is caused to absent himself from board meetings due to a potential conflict of interest; and if he will make a statement. [35262]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 July 1996]: Since becoming chairman of the board in February 1991, Mr. Harris has absented himself from discussion of 35 cases because of potential conflicts of interest, but the board has discussed 77 other cases during that period as well as a wide range of other industrial development issues affecting the south-west and Mr. Harris has proved a very effective chairman. When he has had to absent himself, other board members have stood in for him and the board has continued to be able to provide valuable advice.
  180

DEFENCE

  Public Record Office Files
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the files with the class marks ESI/367–380 recorded at the Public Record Office concerning effluent from a pipeline to the River Thames are currently retained by his Department; and if he will release them. [36137]

  Mr. Soames
  In line with the open government initiative, arrangements are being made to review the papers listed at the Public Record Office under references ESI/367–380 to see whether release into the public domain is now possible. I will write to the hon. Member on completion of the review process.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the file with the class mark AIR 28/1317 recorded at the Public Record Office concerning RAF Wittering between January 1959 and December 1960 is currently retained by his Department; and if he will release it. [36138]

  Mr. Soames
  In line with the open government initiative, arrangements are being made to review the papers listed at the Public Record Office under reference AIR 28/1317 to see whether release into the public domain is now possible. I will write to hon. Member on completion of the review process.

  Taxi Fares
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent in meeting the costs of taxi cab fares in the 1995–96 financial year. [36009]

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many studies have been carried out by the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston since 1966 to examine the effect of an accident involving nuclear weapons; and how many of these studies have examined the dispersal of nuclear materials in the event of such an accident. [36135]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Rather than individual studies, the Atomic Weapons Establishment maintains a continual programme of research into, and assessment of, the effects of a nuclear weapons accident, including dispersal of nuclear materials. Numerous weapon accident exercises are conducted to test procedures and personnel.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the names of the exercises held since 1966 for testing the Department's arrangements for dealing with an accident involving nuclear weapons controlled by(a) Britain and (b) the United States of America; in what year each of these exercises was held; and which service was primarily in charge of each of these exercises. [36136]

  Mr. Soames
  The 1995 "Statement on the Defence Estimates" described the programme of regular nuclear accident response organisation exercises and the basis on which these are categorised. The definition of these categories has developed over the years but, from the
  181
  records which are available, the following exercises since 1986 would have been commensurate with what we currently consider to be major or medium level.

  Information on exercises before 1986 and on minor exercises is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Exercise Name

  Lead service

  Weapon controlled by:

  1986

  Bowline

  RN

  UK

  Carrick Bend

  RN

  UK

  Sharp Foil

  RN

  UK

  1987

  Bowline

  RN

  UK

  Carrick Bend

  RN

  UK

  Running Fox

  RN

  UK

  1988

  Pantograph

  RAF

  UK

  Carrick Bend

  RN

  UK

  Sharp Foil

  RN

  UK

  Running Fox

  RN

  UK

  Bowline

  RN

  UK

  1989

  Running Fox

  RN

  UK

  Proper Watch

  RAF

  USA

  Bowline

  RN

  UK

  Carrick Bend

  RN

  UK

  1990

  Running Fox

  RN

  UK

  Bowline

  RN

  UK

  Sharp Foil

  RN

  UK

  1991

  Bowline

  RN

  UK

  Running Fox

  RN

  UK

  1992

  Bowline

  RN

  UK

  Miscast

  RAF

  UK

  1993

  Running Fox

  RN

  UK

  Bowline

  RN

  UK

  3 x Standardisation Exercises (1)

  RAF

  UK

  1994

  Diver Mist

  RAF

  USA

  6 x Standardisation Exercises (1)

  RAF

  UK

  Sharp Foil

  RN

  UK

  Running Fox

  RN

  UK

  1995

  7 x Standardisation Exercises (1)

  RAF

  UK

  Sharp Foil

  RN

  UK

  Running Fox

  RN

  UK

  1996 (to date)

  Running Fox

  RN

  UK

  1 x Standardisation Exercise (1)

  RAF

  UK

  Senator

  RAF

  UK

  Note (1):

  Standardisation exercises test the RAF Immediate Force response fire teams for the transportation of nuclear weapons. These exercises were re-categorised from minor to medium level during 1993.
  182
  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how frequently the Nuclear Weapons Safety Committee produces a report on its activities; when the first such report was produced; and what are the current security classifications of each of these reports. [36490]

  Mr. Soames
  The Nuclear Weapons Safety Committee does not produce a regular series of reports. However, meetings of the committee have been minuted since it was established in 1959. The preparation of separate reports would be dependent on the nature of committee business but this is invariably sensitive. The security classification of the committee's paperwork ranges from restricted to top secret.

  Army Base Repair Organisation
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the annual cost of the Army Base Repair Organisation in each of the last 10 years. [36165]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Army Base Repair Organisation under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. R. Drew to Mr. Barry Sheerman, dated 10 July 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the cost of the Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO) in each of the last 10 years as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of ABRO.ABRO was launched as a Defence Agency on 1 April 1993; you will understand therefore that it is not possible to provide financial information prior to that date. The Agency has however published and widely distributed its Annual Report and Accounts for each financial year since launch. The figures are as follows:

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Full costs

  260.9

  263.4

  260.7

  Cash expenditure1

  156.0

  155.6

  155.7

  1As a Defence Agency ABRO is still required to repor on a cash basis.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce or expand the Army Base Repair Organisation. [36164]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Army Base Repair Organisation under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. R. Drew to Mr. Barry Sheerman, dated 10 July 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about what plans he has to reduce or expand the Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO) as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of ABRO.ABRO is a Defence Agency and operates within the framework set out in the Framework Document. The role of the Agency is defined as the provision of base repair support to the Army in peace, transition to war and war. It is tasked to conduct repair and re-manufacture work by its Army and other customers.It is my job to ensure that the Agency conducts its business in the most cost effective way and to make proposals for the strategic direction of the Agency in the ABRO Corporate Plan. You may recall that in my letter to you of 12 June 1996, I explained that in recent years ABRO has been scaling down its in-house facilities to match capacity to the reducing requirement placed on it by the new defence profile. A major facility at Old Dalby in Leicestershire will close by the end of the year, while a smaller one at Ashford in Kent

  183
  will close by the end of September. I also explained that I have been progressively exposing all the Agency's activities to commercial competition, through a vigorous Competing for Quality programme.The Agency will continue to seek to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of ABRO operations to deliver better value for the taxpayers' money. This will be achieved both through internal organisational improvements and through taut management of a very wide range (approaching 2,000 in number) of contracts placed with industry. It is demand from customers that will ultimately determine the expansion or reduction of ABRO activities.I have enclosed a copy of the ABRO Corporate Plan 1996 which explains the direction we are taking in greater detail and a copy of our Annual Report for 1995/1996. I hope that these are helpful to you.

  Former Royal Air Force Bases
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 4 June,Official Report, column 341, on environmental assessments of former RAF stations, if land quality statements are made available to local councils and members of the public if requested. [36186]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department will make available, upon request, copies of individual land quality statements to local authorities and to members of the public.

  Vehicle Maintenance
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of repairs, maintenance and servicing of Army vehicles is carried out by private sector contractors. [36166]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Army Base Repair Organisation under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from. J. R. Drew to Mr. Barry Sheerman, dated 10 July 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the percentage of repairs, maintenance and servicing of Army vehicles carried out by private sector contractors as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO).The total workload handled by ABRO for the repair, servicing and maintenance of Army vehicles amounts to more than 2 million man-hours per year (this does not include repairs carried out within the Field Army, nor the repair of major and minor vehicle assemblies such as engines and transmissions held in store). Some 35% of this work is currently carried out by commercial contractors under contracts managed by ABRO. It should be noted that the work carried out by commercial contractors amounts to some 65% of the work associated with the Army's commercial type vehicle fleets. The preponderance of work conducted in-house by the Agency is on specialist and armoured vehicles which are of strategic importance to the Army and where either facilities available within industry are limited or the army requires to maintain its own facilities to cope with operational surges or to protect strategic capability.Much of the work carried out in-house by ABRO on commercial type vehicles, is in support of units of the Field Army under the command of Land Command. This and the other equipment repair support activities carried out for Land Command are being exposed to competition with commercial sector in a market test competition. The results of the competition are due to be recommended to Ministers by the end of January 1997.184

  Trident Programme
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 July,Official Report, column 387, if he will give a breakdown of the £700 million yet to be spent on the Trident programme. [36231]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The £700 million of committed expenditure which has yet to be spent forms part of an estimated £1.61 billion of remaining expenditure on the Trident acquisition programme. A breakdown of the estimated remaining expenditure figure is:

  £ million

  Submarine

  487

  Strategic weapon system

  516

  Tactical weapon system

  70

  Buildings/works

  11

  Dockyards

  266

  Warhead/miscellaneous—unallocated contingency

  260

  Service Personnel (Cheshire)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of dwellings owned and occupied by service personnel in Cheshire. [36456]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department does not record nor does it need to hold this information.

  Married Quarters Estate
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's married housing quarters at Lulworth camp, Dorset, are to be sold as part of the MOD's housing sell-off. [36205]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  None. The quarters concerned are held by my Department on a lease which may be assigned.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the consultants providing advice to his Department relating to the sell-off of the married quarters estate. [36480]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Apart from independent advisers, the following consultants have provided advice at various stages since we began to develop the proposal to transfer the married quarters estate to the private sector announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 30 November 1995,Official Report, columns 810–11

  Financial and accountancy advice

  NatWest Markets

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Price Waterhouse

  Legal advice

  Government Property Lawyers

  Herbert Smith

  Property advice

  Savills

  Cluttons

  Knight, Frank and Rutley

  Chestertons

  DTZ Debenham Thorpe

  Public relations advice

  Brunswick

  185
  In addition, three firms specialising in Scottish law provided advice prior to the decision to exclude Scotland from the transaction.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for its married housing stock; what has been the total cost to date of payments to consultants advising on the privatisation of this stock; and what is the percentage change in rent charge for this stock between 1995–96 and 1996–97. [34965]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: The Government's policy is to improve the quality and management of service housing. The sale of the married quarters provides the right basis for real improvements in service housing which are long overdue. The total cost to date of the employment of consultants since we began to develop this proposal, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 30 November 1995, Official Report, columns 810–11, amounts to some £3.8 million, exclusive of VAT, on the basis of invoices received at 4 July 1996. The percentage increase in families' accommodation charges payable by service personnel between 1995–96 and 1996–97 was between 10 and 25 per cent., depending on the type of quarter occupied; the average increase was some 14.5 per cent. This increase was recommended by the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body which also makes recommendations on pay. All personnel received a net increase in pay despite the increases in accommodation net charges. Two examples, based on the increase between 1 April 1995 and 1 December 1996 would be a major—depending upon pay scale and type of quarter—receiving a basic pay increase of £122.40 and accommodation charge increase of £33, giving a net gain of £89.40 per month and a lance corporal receiving a basic pay increase of £60.60 and accommodation charge increase of £22.20, giving a net gain of £38.40 per month. Both the Government and the review body have made it clear that the increases in charges have no connection with the sale of the married quarters estate or the way in which charges are set.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision his Department has made for the rehousing of families of service personnel living in married quarters at RAF Finningley. [36122]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 9 July 1996]: Families were provided with alternative accommodation, as they were posted to other stations. To ensure minimum disruption, however, some families were allowed to remain at Finningley until the end of the school year before making a permanent move.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the provision of married quarters housing for members of his Department serving at RAF Cranwell. [36123]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 9 July 1996]: My Department is committed to providing married quarters to all eligible service families including those at RAF Cranwell. Works to improve the standard of living accommodation are under way, including modernisation of 230 officers' and 157 airmen's quarters. We have plans to build 34 new houses.
  186

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs are provided by the Defence Exports Services Organisation; and at what cost to public funds. [36593]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  During 1996–97, the Defence Export Services Organisation will employ 686 staff—including project staff whose costs do not come out of public funds—at an estimated cost to public funds of £12.784 million.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to public funds of the Defence Exports Services Organisation in each year since 1991. [36596]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Final outturn figures for the Defence Export Services Organisation for 1991–92 to 1995–96 are as stated.

  £ million

  Year

  Gross Exp

  Receipts

  Net DESO

  1991–92

  29.99

  18.94

  11.05

  1992–93

  31.87

  19.98

  11.89

  1993–94

  43.08

  27.06

  16.02

  1994–95

  50.26

  39.32

  10.94

  1995–96

  58.27

  41.19

  17.08

  Sting Ray Torpedo
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the contract for the development of the life extended Sting Ray torpedo will be placed. [36866]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I am pleased to announce that we have today placed a contract worth some £109 million with GEC-Marconi underwater weapons division for the development of the life extended Sting Ray.

  The Sting Ray lightweight anti-submarine torpedo has been in service with the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force since 1983 and it is planned to extend its life by replacing expired components, and by so doing to improve its performance to maintain the weapon's effectiveness in the first two decades of the next century.

WALES

  Menai Strait (Marine Nature Reserve)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will designate the Menai strait as a marine nature reserve. [36998]

  Mr. Hague
  I published the requisite notice today. Representations should be made by 23 August. If, at the end of that time, there are no objections, the order designating the area as a marine nature reserve may be made with or without modifications.

  Road Improvement Schemes
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in taking forward motorway and trunk road improvement schemes under the private finance initiative. [36997]
  187
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have decided that the A55 dualling from Llanfair PG to Holyhead—an important improvement to which my predecessors and I have consistently attached great priority—should be taken forward as a design, build, finance and operate scheme under the private finance initiative. Subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures, I expect construction of the whole of the improvement across the island of Anglesey will commence in autumn 1998, and that the scheme will be completed some three years later at around the same time as would have been the case if the construction had been undertaken by means of conventional procurement.

  Preparatory work is continuing on the A465 dualling between Abergavenny and Hirwaun, and the M4 relief road between Magor and Castleton, but it will be some time before decisions are required on the method of procurement. Nevertheless, it is my intention that these schemes should also be pursued as potential design, build, finance and operate contracts.

SCOTLAND

  Veterinary Service (Orkney)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that a resident vet is available to serve the outer north islands of Orkney; and if he will make a statement. [35870]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Under the highlands and islands veterinary services scheme, veterinary services to the outer north islands of Orkney were provided for a considerable number of years by a resident vet who was a member of a large practice based in Kirkwall. The practice subsequently withdrew the resident vet for purely commercial reasons. The practice has not, however, withdrawn its service, operating now exclusively from Kirkwall. Following the revised arrangements for this scheme introduced recently, there is now a second practice, again operating from the mainland, which provides a veterinary service to these islands. My noble Friend's responsibility in operating this scheme is not to ensure the actual physical location of veterinary practitioners, only that adequate services are made available at reasonable cost to crofters and persons of like economic status in designated areas of Scotland. In the case of the outer north islands of Orkney, I am satisfied that such a service is readily available.

  Cairngorms Funicular Railway
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research has been commissioned by(a) his office and (b) Highlands and Islands Enterprise to estimate the job retention and creation of the proposed Cairngorms funicular railway; and what alternative options for the upgrading of the skiing facilities have been evaluated. [35161]

  Mr. Kynoch
  No research into such matters has been commissioned by the Scottish Office. The research commissioned by Highlands and Islands Enterprise is an operational matter for that organisation and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.
  188

  Child Labour
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total number of children registered as working by each local authority in(a) the current year and (b) 1986. [36313]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Expenditure and Revenue Report
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to update the Government expenditure and revenue in Scotland report, last published in October 1995; and if he will make a statement. [37121]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is intended that the Government expenditure and revenue in Scotland report should become an annual publication. The next edition, covering the period 1994–95, is scheduled to be published on 21 October 1996.

  Haemophilia
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration has been given to the use of synthetic factor 8 for the treatment of haemophilia; and if he will make a statement. [37122]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Synthetic, or recombinant, factor 8 is a new treatment considered appropriate for some patients with haemophilia. The treatment is an alternative to the plasma-derived factor 8 currently in use and supplied free of charge to the NHS by the Scottish national blood transfusion service. To assist with the costs involved in the acquisition of the new product, which is available only from commercial sources, I have agreed to make available funding of £1.1 million in the current year. Future arrangements will depend on the speed and extent of the transition from plasma-derived factor 8 to recombinant. This will be kept under review.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the results of research undertaken by his Department into industrial injuries in respect of the income and resources of recent claimants. [35683]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The results were published in December 1995 by Social and Community Planning Research, which was commissioned to carry out the research on behalf of the Department. A copy of the report, "Survey of Claimants of Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit", by Nigel Tremlett and David Dundon-Smith, is in the Library.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of disregarding family credit in the calculation of(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit in the next financial year. [35682]
  189
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The estimates are £230 million and £75 million respectively.

  Notes:

  1. Based on data from the 1991–92–93 Family Expenditure Surveys, uprated to 1996–97 benefit and price levels.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Taxi Fares
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department spent in meeting the costs of taxi cab fares in the 1995–96 financial year. [36010]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available.

TRANSPORT

  M25 (Widening)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many months the widening scheme for the M25 between junctions 6 and 8 is behind schedule; [35585]

  (2) how much of the additional costs incurred on the delay in the M25 widening construction project between junctions 6 and 8 will be borne by (a) the contractors and (b) the Government; [35584]

  (3) what additional costs construction delays have added to the cost of the M25 widening scheme between junctions 6 and 8; [35583]

  (4) what is the current estimated total cost of the M25 widening scheme between junctions 6 and 8; [35582]

  (5) what are the reasons for the delay in completing the widening scheme for the M25 between junctions 6 and 8; [35581]

  (6) over what period 24-hour working has been in operation on the M25 road widening scheme between junctions 6 and 8; [35532]

  (7) what reviews his Department has carried out of the Highways Agency's management of the M25 widening scheme between junctions 6 and 8; [35531]

  (8) what is the current projected date for completion of the M25 road widening project between junctions 6 and 8; [35530]

  (9) what inadequacies in the project specification have been discovered in the M25 widening project between junctions 6 and 8 subsequent to the commencement of work; [35529]

  (10) what date his Department was first informed that the completion of the M25 widening project between junctions 6 and 8 might be delayed. [35528]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, dated 9 July 1996:
  As you know, I have been asked by the Minister for Railways and Roads to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the M25 between junctions 6–8.190 The improvements between junctions 6 and 8 are under construction and I am afraid that these roadworks are taking much longer to complete than we originally estimated. We are very conscious of the stresses caused by delays to traffic and clearly we regret any delays to our schemes. But the possibility of delay is always present when carrying out complicated major civil engineering works.The section is one of the busiest of the M25 and includes the major M25/M23 interchange at junction 7. To cope with the volume of traffic it carries, it needed to be widened from three lanes each way to four lanes. It is one of the oldest sections of the M25, having been in use for some 20 years. Major maintenance was due and, to minimise overall traffic disruption, we decided to do it at the same time as the widening. This included renewing the worn-out existing road surface, upgrading bridges and installing lighting.Work started in March 1994 and it gradually became clearer during Summer 1994 that the implementation of the project would be delayed.We discovered that the original 'capping layer', which is the lowest layer of the road construction lying about one metre deep, had deteriorated to the extent that it was too weak to support the new upper layers of the reconstructed carriageway pavement. Although some allowance was made in the Contract for replacement of deteriorated capping material, the scale of what we found was far in excess of what was foreseen. The Contractor can only replace this capping layer in a piecemeal way to fit in with traffic phasings.The other major problem we had to contend with was unexpected premature development of ruts in the wheel tracks on the new road surfacing material. The material used, hot rolled asphalt, has been developed over many years, and used throughout the country. The reasons for the problems in this case are unclear. We suspect the cause to be an exceptional combination of site specific factors, which include the high number of lorries that use this section of the M25, the temporary traffic management arrangements which concentrated the lorries into one lane and the exceptional heat of last summer, which could have affected the newly laid asphalt materials. As a precaution to reduce the risk of future rutting, we have instructed the Contractor to adopt an enhanced asphalt specification but the rutted areas of new surfacing have to be replaced.Our best estimate of the likely completion date for this project is December this year, but as with any major construction scheme, this date is subject to many variables such as the weather or other unforeseen problems.The Highways Agency was established in 1994 as an executive agency of the Department of Transport, and is responsible for managing a safe, efficient and environmentally acceptable trunk road system throughout England, on behalf of the Secretary of State. We work closely with our parent Department, the Department of Transport, but the Highways Agency is responsible for operational matters.Under the Contract, the Contractor is responsible for the size of his workforce, the amount of plant used and the hours worked. At present, the Contractor works 24 hours a day from Monday to Friday and 7.00 am to 6.00 pm on Saturdays and Sundays. Also, when changes to traffic management arrangements are required, they are often made on Saturday and Sunday nights. On weekdays nights the level of activity is less than during the day. This pattern is likely to continue until Autumn.The principal reasons for the delays in completing the widening and refurbishment of this project are the problems caused by having to replace the capping layer and the premature formation of ruts in the resurfaced carriageways as described earlier.The original tender price for the project was £46 million. The contract, which follows a standard form used in the Civil Engineering industry, contains clauses enabling the contractor to be paid for extra work and related delays. Negotiations on the amount of these extra payments are likely to continue for some while.The Highways Agency will fund the replacement of both the deteriorated capping layer materials and the rutted asphalt surfacing. It will also fund extra costs arising from adopting the enhanced

  191
  asphalt specification. This is because neither of these problems have been found to be the fault of the Contractor. The amount of the additional costs has not yet been evaluated.The original contract period for this project was 15 months, from March 1994 when work commenced, until June 1995. This 15 month period did not take into account the major difficulties which were discovered during construction and was set in an attempt to minimise the time taken on the project. The major problems we have encountered have regrettably delayed the works and the latest estimated completion date is December 1996, subject as I have already explained, to the many variables that can affect construction progress.I visited this site in early July and can assure you that I remain fully aware of the adverse effects the prolongation of the works is having on the travelling public. I apologise for the inconvenience caused but we are continuing to press for the earliest possible finish. I have every confidence that once the scheme is completed, drivers will find the widened carriageways, the improved signing and new street lighting will provide much better driving conditions.Your office has asked about the proposed scheme to widen the M25 east of the J6—8 project. The current position is that proposals to widen this stretch of M25 went to Public Exhibition in June 1994. Following the November 1995 review of the Roads Programme, this scheme has now been placed in the new longer term category. Widening is still expected to be necessary in the future but does not need to be undertaken yet. As a result, all preparation work has ceased.

  Aircraft Leasing
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 25 June,Official Report, column 80, if he will list the names of the companies involved in the wet lease applications received in 1995. [35274]

  Mr. Norris
  The following companies were involved in wet lease applications in 1995:

  UK lessee airline

  Foreign lessor airline

  Air 2000

  Canada 3000 Airlines

  Air Foyle

  Khors Air Company

  Safair

  Southern Air Transport

  Air Swift Ltd.

  Sun-Air

  Airtours International

  Avatlantic

  Centenniel Express

  SkyService Toronto

  Spanair

  All Leisure Airlines

  TransLift Airways

  Atlantic Air Transport Ltd.

  Safair

  Britannia Airways

  Air Operations of Europe

  American Trans Air

  British Airways

  Arrow Air

  Atlas Air

  Cargo Lion

  Evergreen International Airlines

  Gemini Air Cargo

  MK Airlines

  Seagreen Air Transport

  Southern Air Transport

  USAir

  Business Air

  Crossair

  Caledonian Airways

  Adria Airways

  AOM Air Company

  ChallengAir

  Sun Country Airlines

  Channel Express (Air Services)

  Farner Air Transport

  Zantop International Airlines

  Cityflyer Express

  Transwede Airways

  Dollar Helicopters

  Petroleum Air Services

  Emerald Airways Ltd.

  Heliglobe Finet

  European Aviation Air Charter

  Safair

  192

  UK lessee airline

  Foreign lessor airline

  Flightline

  Balair-CTA

  GB Airways

  Ryanair

  Heavylift Cargo Airlines

  Airstan Joint Stock AC

  Balkan Bulgarian Airlines

  Buffalo Airways

  Pelita Air Service

  Volga Dnepr Airline

  Macair Ltd.

  Sun-Air

  Maersk Air Ltd.

  Maersk Copenhagen

  Virgin Atlantic Airways

  TransLift Airways

  Sea Empress Incident
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report of the inquiry into the Sea Empress disaster. [35961]

  Mr. Norris
  The chief inspector of marine accidents intends to report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State within one year of the incident.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in the clean-up operation following the Sea Empress oil spill off the Pembrokeshire coast; and if he will make a statement. [36996]

  Mr. Norris
  The clean-up operation has made excellent progress. The majority of beaches have now been cleaned of the heavy pollution immediately following the spill. Pembrokeshire's prime resort beaches at Tenby and Saundersfoot were restored in time for the Easter break and Tenby north beach has recently been awarded the prestigious European blue flag for high standards of cleanliness and water quality. It is one of only four beaches in Wales to achieve this.

  The main efforts in the on-going clean-up operation are now concentrated on the most inaccessible areas of coastline. However, the strong winds and high waters of the Pembrokeshire coastline continue to reveal isolated patches of buried oil, tar balls from oil broken down at sea and some sheening effects as oil residues are washed out. All beaches continue to be monitored closely and "hit squads" are immediately brought into action to deal with any localised problems of this kind. Resources will continue to be deployed for as long as is necessary to complete the clean-up operation.

  Airline Partnerships
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the extent of his responsibilities in respect of partnership agreements between United Kingdom and foreign airlines. [35917]

  Mr. Norris
  Partnership agreements and other forms of alliance between UK and foreign airlines are commercial matters for the airlines concerned, subject to UK and EC rules on ownership and control. Competition aspects are matters for the UK and EC competition authorities.

  Excalibur Airways
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what investigations the Civil Aviation Authority has undertaken into allegations of unsafe operations during flights operated by Excalibur Airways. [35977]
  193
  Mr. Norris
  The CAA advises me that all but one of the complaints it received concerning flights operated by Excalibur were related to contractual and commercial arrangements between the airline and its customers. The single safety complaint concerned a faulty door. An inspection for the aircraft confirmed that, although the normal electrical method of opening one of the aircraft doors had an intermittent fault, it could still be operated both manually and pneumatically. The CAA does not consider that passenger safety was compromised.

  Air Rights
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the implications for the United Kingdom of the Council of Ministers' decision to empower the EU to negotiate with the United States of America on behalf of EU states regarding air rights. [35955]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 8 July,Official Report, columns 76–77.

  As noted in that reply, member states retain the right to conduct bilateral negotiations with the US while Community-level negotiations are under way.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to restart the Bermuda II negotiations with the United States of America. [35918]

  Mr. Norris
  Negotiations are scheduled to resume in the week beginning 15 July.

  Save Our Ships Campaign
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will receive a delegation from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, RMT, to discuss the Save Our Ships campaign. [35914]

  Mr. Norris
  Ministers and officials regularly meet representatives of shipowners and the seafaring unions to discuss issues of common interest. My hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping would be happy to consider a request from the RMT for a meeting.

  Motorways
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what provision will be made for public consultation on the cost-benefit analysis and environmental and traffic impacts of motorway widening schemes; [35829]

  (2) if he will list the motorway widening schemes currently in the national roads programme; and which of these will undergo (a) environmental assessment, (b) cost-benefit analysis and (c) a public inquiry. [35716]

  Mr. Watts
  All motorway widening schemes are subject to public consultation and statutory procedures when details of cost-benefit analysis and environmental and traffic impact assessments are available for public scrutiny and debate.

  The following motorway widening schemes are currently in the programme.
  194
  All will be subject to the preparatory processes including environmental assessment, cost-benefit analysis and, depending on the weight and nature of any objections received, a public inquiry.

  Those marked with an asterisk are in the longer-term category to be brought forward only after substantial progress has been made with the main programme.

  M1 junction 6A–10 widening

  M1 junction 10–15 widening

  M1 junction 15–19 widening*

  M1 junction 19–21 widening*

  M1 junction 21–21A widening (Phase 2)*

  M1 junction 21A–23A widening (Phase 1)

  M1 junction 21A–23A widening (Phase 2)

  M1 junction 23A–25 widening

  M1 junction 25–28A widening (Phase 2)*

  M1 junction 28–31 widening*

  M1 junction 31–32 widening

  M3 junction 2–3 widening*

  M3 junction 3–4 widening*

  M4 junction 3–4B widening

  M4 junction 4B–8/9 widening

  M4 junction 8/9–10 widening*

  M4 junction 10–12 widening*

  M4 junction 12–15 widening*

  M4 junction 18–20 widening and M5 junction 15–17 widening*

  M5 junction 17–21 widening

  M6 M1— junction 2 widening*

  M6 junction 2–4 widening*

  M6 junction 11A–16 widening

  M6 junction 16–19 widening

  M6 junction 19–20 widening*

  M11 junction 8–9 widening

  M11 junction 9–14 widening*

  M20 junction 3–5 widening*

  M23 junction 8–9 widening

  M23 junction 9–10 widening*

  M25 junction 3–5 widening*

  M25 junction 5–7 widening*

  M25 junction 12–15 widening

  M25 junction 15–16 widening

  M25 junction 16–19 widening

  M25 junction 19–23 widening*

  M25 junction 23–26 widening*

  M25 junction 26–28 widening*

  M27 junction 4–11 widening*

  M27 junction 11–12 widening*

  M40 junction 3–4 widening and junction 4 improvement*

  M42 junction 1–3A widening*

  M42 junction 3A–7 widening

  M62 junction 6–7 widening*

  M62 junction 8 and 8–9 widening

  M62 junction 12–18 widening

  M62 junction 18–21 widening*

  M62 junction 21–24 widening*

  M63 junction 6–9 widening

  195

  Maritime Strategy Paper
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is Her Majesty's Government's response to the European Commission's paper on maritime strategy; and if he will make a statement. [35951]

  Mr. Norris
  We aim to send a response to the Commission in September. We are currently consulting interested parties and shall listen carefully to views expressed by Members of the House in Committee on 10 July. I shah arrange for a copy of the response to be placed in the House Library.

  Seafarers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to ensure British seafarers are employed on the same terms and with the same incentives as are available to employers resident in other nations of the EU. [35960]

  Mr. Norris
  Terms and conditions of employment are primarily a matter of negotiation between employer and employee.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) statutory instruments and (b) guidance notes his Department issued since January relating to local authorities. [35937]

  Mr. Norris
  The statutory instruments relating to local authorities issued since January are:

  The Public Airport Companies (Capital Finance) Order (SI 604).

  The Road Traffic Act 1991 (Amendment to Schedule 3) (England and Wales) Order (SI 500).

  The Road Traffic (Special Parking Area) (London Borough of Newham) (Amendment) Order (SI 1112).

  The Road Traffic (Special Parking Area) (Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames) (Amendment) Order (SI 1110).

  The Deregulation (Parking Equipment) Order (SI 1553).

  The Local Authorities (Goods and Services) (Public Bodies) (Trunk Road) Order (SI 342).

  The guidance notes relating to local authorities are:

  The design manual for roads and bridges

  HA 78/96 Design of Outfalls for Surface Water Channels.

  BD 12/95 Design of Corrugated Steel Buried Structures with Spans not exceeding 8m (Including Circular Arches).

  HD 26/94 Pavement Design Amendment No. 2.

  HD 24/96 Traffic Assessment.

  The manual of contract documents for highway works

  SD 12/96 Geodetic Surveys.

  The trunk road maintenance manual

  Volume 1 amendment no. 6.

  Volume 1 amendment no. 7.

  Volume 2 revised.

  Routine maintenance management system

  Revised.

  Local Authority Circular 2/96—Transport Policies and Programme Submissions For 1997–98.

  TPP Submissions for 1997–98—Guidance Notes.

  TPP Submissions for 1997–98—Information Required on Individual Major Highway Schemes.

  196

  TPP Submissions for 1997–98—Information Required on Individual Major Highway Structural Maintenance Schemes.

  TPP Submissions for 1997–98—Supplementary Guidance Notes On The Package Approach.

  TPP Submissions for 1997–98—Supplementary Guidance Note: The Local Government Review.

  Circular Roads 4/96—Deregulation of Road Humps.

  Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/96—Traffic Management in Historic Areas.

  Traffic Advisory Leaflet 2/96—75mm high Road Humps.

  Traffic Advisory Leaflet 3/96—Bike and Ride.

  Traffic Advisory Leaflet 4/96—Traffic Management and Emissions.

  Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/96—Development of Advanced Stop Lines.

  Traffic Advisory Leaflet 6/96—Traffic Calming—Traffic and Vehicle Noise.

  Traffic Advisory Leaflet 7/96—Roads Humps Regulations 1996.

  Street Works Reinstatement Specification: Revised Appendix A10.

  Government Response to the Final Report of the Street Works Advisory Committee (Local Authority and Utilities Circular 1/96).

  Air Traffic Control System
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the new air traffic control system for the United Kingdom to come into operation; and if he will make a statement. [35923]

  Mr. Norris
  The Swanwick air traffic control centre, which will control aircraft flying over England and Wales, is due to come into operation in December 1997. The new Scottish air traffic control centre at Prestwick, which will control aircraft over Scotland and Northern Ireland, is expected to become operational in the winter of 2000–01.

  Light Rail Funding
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of light rail funding(a) nationally and (b) in the Greater Manchester area. [36282]

  Mr. Norris
  Bids for light rail schemes are submitted to my Department during the annual transport policies and programme round. I am prepared to consider supporting light rail schemes, including extensions to the Greater Manchester metrolink, provided it can be demonstrated that light rail is the most cost-effective solution to a particular urban transport problem. Schemes must attract significant private sector and local investment and be put forward as part of a package bid, incorporating a coherent transport strategy to achieve modal shift from the private car. However, light rail is expensive and not the only solution to urban transport problems. The difficulties and costs associated with developing schemes should not be underestimated.

  M42
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will exercise his discretionary powers to grant compensation to those dwellings in Barstow lane affected by his proposals to widen the M42. [35999]
  197
  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. lain Mills, dated 10 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about compensation for properties on Barston Lane affected by the M42 widening proposals.
  Once a new or improved road has been opened to traffic for 12 months people who consider that their home has depreciated in value as a result of the physical factors arising from the use of the new or improved road may claim compensation under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (compensation for injurious affection). The physical factors are noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke and artificial lighting and the discharge of substances onto land.
  There are no powers to grant compensation to owners of dwellings affected by a road proposal prior to it being opened to traffic for 12 months. Owners who need to move for reasons unconnected with the road but who are unable to sell privately because of the threat of road improvements may apply to have their homes purchased by the Highways Agency. The Agency will consider purchase if all the qualifying criteria are met. The enclosed guidelines explain this in more detail.

  GUIDELINES FOR DISCRETIONARY PURCHASE UNDER S246(2A) OF THE HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 OF LAND IN ADVANCE OF THE START OF WORKS

  Introduction
  The Highways Agency acts on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport to build and improve trunk roads and motorways. If your enjoyment of your home is seriously affected by a proposal to build or improve a trunk road or motorway, you may ask the Highways Agency to buy it even if it is not needed for the proposed scheme.
  Each application for discretionary purchase will be considered on its merits. These guidelines indicate the general manner in which cases will be considered.

  Considering your application
  The Agency has no obligation to buy property which is not needed for a road scheme as the relevant powers under section 246(2A) of the Highways Act 1980 are discretionary. Some applications will not be successful, but in such cases you may be entitled to compensation under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 after the road or the road improvement has been opened. Your home may also be eligible for noise insulation.
  Section 246(2A) of the Highways Act 1980 makes pre-conditions which have to be met before an application can be considered. These are described in paragraphs 1 and 2 below. If your application meets these pre-conditions we will then consider it in two stages:
  First to see if, in our opinion, your enjoyment of your property will be seriously affected and, if we think it will be,
  Second, to decide whether to offer to buy, taking account of the information in your application.
  The factors we consider in deciding on serious effect are set out in paragraph 3 and those we take into account in deciding whether to offer to buy are set out in paragraphs 4–7.

  STATUTORY PRE-CONDITIONS

  Before your application can be considered:

  1. Work on blighted land
  The proposed road scheme must include work on land which is statutorily blighted within the meaning set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This means in most instances that the Agency has safeguarded the route by notifying the local planning authority, or has announced the preferred route for the scheme, or has published or made compulsory purchase orders for the scheme. If no land qualifies as being blighted (for example, in the case of maintenance work or, in some cases, widening within the highway boundaries), or the land that is blighted is remote from your property, the Agency may not be able to buy your property.
  198
  2. Qualifying interest
  You must have a "qualifying interest" (as set out in section 149(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) in the property which will be seriously affected. This broadly means you must be an owner-occupier. In the case of a dwelling, you must either:
  be living in your property at the date on which the Agency contracts to purchase it and have owned it and lived there for at least six months before this date; or
  if the property is empty, it must not have been empty for more than twelve months and you must have lived there during the six months prior to it becoming empty. You will not have a qualifying interest if the property is let by you or if you are a tenant.
  The rules for commercial and industrial properties are similar to those for dwellings, except that in order for it to be eligible the property must have an annual value for rating purposes not exceeding £18,000.

  ASSESSMENT OF SERIOUS EFFECT

  3. Serious effect

  The Agency must be of the opinion that your enjoyment of your property will be seriously affected by either the construction or the use of the road. Serious effect may be caused by a number of factors including:—
  (a) Noise: If the predicted noise levels at your property are:
  when due to construction, well in excess of 70 dB(A) (12 hour,,) or more for a substantial period of the day over at least three months; or
  predicted to increase by 1 dB(A) to a level of at least 68 dB(A) (18 hoursL10), due to the use of the road;
  we will normally consider that your enjoyment of your property will be seriously affected by noise. In assessing the predicted or relevant noise level, the Agency will take into account the benefits of any proposed environmental mitigation measures. These may include noise fencing or earth mounds and road surfacing may also be taken into account. A Glossary of terms related to Noise Measurement may be found in Appendix 1.
  (b) Diminution in Value: If, at the time of assessment, your property is or is likely to be, in the opinion of the Agency, significantly diminished in value as a result of the road proposal, we will normally consider it seriously affected. Diminution in value is the amount that the value of your property has been reduced due to the road scheme and is normally expressed as a percentage of the assessed unaffected market value. The diminution will be assessed by our Valuer but you may submit any valuation advice you may have obtained. As a guide, diminution in value of less than 15 per cent. would not normally be considered to have seriously affected your enjoyment of your property.
  (c) Medical Conditions: If you, or a dependant living with you in the property, suffer from a medical condition (such as a respiratory condition or tinnitus, but not stress or anxiety) and, in the opinion of the Agency, this medical condition is likely to be severely aggravated by physical effects, such as dust, noise or pollution, from either the construction of the road or its use, we are likely to consider that your enjoyment of your property will be seriously affected.

  The factors listed in these guidelines are not exhaustive. Other factors or combinations of factors may cause serious effect and the Agency will take these into account when considering your application.

  DECIDING WHETHER TO OFFER TO BUY—(EXERCISE OF DISCRETION)

  Foreknowledge
  We will not normally exercise discretion to buy if you bought your property after the Preferred Route for the scheme affecting your property had been published or the route had been safeguarded (this means notified to the local planning authority) and we consider that at the date of purchase the extent of information in the public domain concerning the proposed scheme was such that a reasonable person could have foreseen the general effects that the road proposal might cause upon the enjoyment of the property.
  199
  Your efforts to sell the property
  In all cases you must have made reasonable efforts to sell the property before your application Will be considered. You should be able to produce evidence that the property has been on the market for not less than three months at what is, in the opinion of the Agency's Valuer, a realistic market price. You must also show that no offer within 15 per cent. of the unaffected market value has been received or, if one has been received, that it has been subsequently withdrawn due to the presence of the proposed scheme.

  6. Reasons for sale
  Once we have concluded that your property will be seriously affected, that it was not purchased with foreknowledge, and that you have attempted to sell it on the open market, we must be satisfied that there are pressing reasons for selling and that severe hardship will occur if you are unable to sell. The reasons for selling must be, in most cases, caused by factors unrelated to the road scheme. For example, you should be able to demonstrate at least one of the following:
  (a) a need to move to a larger or different home, such as the need to accommodate a growing family or the need to move home for employment purposes;
  (b) external financial pressures that necessitate the sale of property, such as the need to realise assets in conjunction with divorce or to release funds in connection with your business, or if you are threatened with re-possession;
  (c) you, or a dependant living with you, in the affected property, have developed a medical condition (such as a severe handicap causing inability to negotiate stairs) which necessitates selling and which is not related to the proposed scheme;
  (d) you, or a dependant living with you, in the affected property, have a medical condition which is likely to be severely aggravated by the effects of the construction work or the use of the highway and this is supported by satisfactory written medical evidence. However, as this reason is linked to the construction or use of the road, we will not normally make an offer to buy earlier than nine months in advance of the start of the construction of the road. If you make an application on medical grounds early in the life of a scheme, you may be asked to re-apply later when the scheme reaches the relevant stage.

  7. Noise and diminution in value
  We will not normally offer to buy your property unless we are of the opinion that it will be seriously affected by BOTH diminution in value AND noise arising during the construction period or during the first year following the opening of the road to traffic (see paragraph 3 above for an explanation of serious effect). An exception is when the accepted reason for moving is based upon medical grounds as set out in paragraph 6(d) above.

  APPLICATIONS AND OFFERS

  8. Agreement to purchase
  We normally expect to arrive at a decision on a properly completed application within three months of its receipt. If we offer to buy, the offer will be open for acceptance by you for one month and will be subject to agreement on price and exchange of contracts within six months of the date of the offer. If you fail to meet these timescales the offer to purchase may be withdrawn.

  9. Compensation
  We will offer to buy your property at a price, assessed at the date of the offer, which disregards the scheme proposals. You will be required to bear your surveyor's and legal fees and moving expenses except where your reason for sale is related to the proposed scheme. In cases where the reason for sale is related to the proposed scheme, such as medical conditions as described in paragraph 6(d), we will also reimburse your agents and legal fees and we may also make payments for Disturbance. We will not make Home Loss payments.

  10. How to apply
  Use the copy of Form G1 attached as Appendix 2 of these Guidelines, or contact any of the Highways Agency offices listed in appendix 3 and ask for a further copy. When you, or your agent, have completed it, send it together with all the attachments to the appropriate office set out in appendix 3.
  200
  You should note that these Guidelines may be amended or withdrawn at any time without notice. Please check with one of the Highways Agency offices to ensure that this is the current version.
  Appendix 1: Glossary of terms related to Noise Measurement and Typical Noise levels.
  Appendix 2: Form G1.
  Appendix 3: List of Relevant Highway Agency Offices addresses and telephone numbers.

  APPENDIX 1

  1. Glossary of terms related to noise measurement
  dB(A): dB or decibel is the unit used for the measurement of sound on a logarithmic scale. (A) is the weighting applied to the decibel unit to represent the frequency response of the human ear.L10(18 hour): The arithmetic mean of the hourlyL10noise levels between 0600 and 2400 hours on a normal working day, L10 is the noise level exceeded for one tenth of a period of one hour.Leq: The equivalent continuous sound level in dB(A). This is the sound level which, if maintained continuously for a stated period of time, would give the equivalent amount of noise energy as the varying levels would over the same period.
  2. Typical noise levels

  0 dB(A): Threshold of hearing

  35 dB(A): Quiet bedroom

  40 dB(A): Library

  50 dB(A): Ordinary conversation

  60 dB(A): Office environment

  62.5 dB(A): Communication starts becoming difficult

  70 dB(A): Passenger car (60 km/h at seven metres distance)

  81 dB(A): Modern twin-engined jet

  83 dB(A): Heavy diesel lorry (40 km/h at seven metres distance)

  90 dB(A): Hazard to hearing from continuous exposure

  95 dB(A): Pneumatic drill (unsilenced) at seven metres

  120 dB(A): Threshold of pain.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his proposals to widen the M42. [35998]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. lain Mills, dated 10 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about proposals to widen the M42.
  The original intention was to widen the motorway between its junctions with the M5 at Junction 1 and the M6 at Junction 7. We consulted the public about proposals for widening in June 1994. As you know, following the road programme review in 1995, it was decided that the more pressing need was to widen the section from Junction 3A (the M40 connection) north to Junction 7 and a scheme for that length was placed in the main programme. We are currently reviewing it to see whether the scheme objectives can be met in a more cost effective way. In doing so, we shall take account of the responses to the earlier proposals.
  The section from Junction 1A to 3 is now for the longer term. Work on all longer term schemes will be taken forward as the main programme is completed.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the criteria and methodology used by the Highways Agency to establish loss of value to properties affected by widening of the M42. [35997]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.
  201
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Iain Mills, dated 10 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking if he would publish the criteria and methodology used to establish the loss of value to properties affected by the M42 widening.
  The criteria and methodology used for the M42 are the same as for any other road scheme. In the case of discretionary purchase the published guidelines explain that diminution is the amount by which a property has been or will be reduced in value due to the road scheme and is normally expressed as a percentage of the assessed unaffected market value. Diminution in value of less than 15% would not normally be considered to have seriously affected enjoyment of the property. Diminution will be assessed by our valuer by applicants may submit any valuation advice they have obtained. In assessing the unaffected market price the valuer is instructed to disregard all scheme effects including the effects on a property valuation caused by the local purchase of property and its tenanting or subsequent resale by the Highways Agency. If, on the bases of the external examination, diminution is assessed at less than 15%, the valuer should consider whether an internal examination is likely to have a material effect on the valuations and, if it is considered it will, should seek to carry out and report on this basis.

  Signposts (Bolton)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the director of the Highways Agency concerning motorway signposts to Bolton at the M6–M61 junction; and if he will make a statement. [36263]

  Mr. Watts
  The Highways Agency is signing Bolton in the way explained in my letter of 2 May to my hon. Friend.

  Second Severn Crossing
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what repair work has had to be undertaken on the approach roads to the second Severn crossing as a result of defective steel work; and what has been the effect on traffic flows. [35987]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. John Spellar, dated 10 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the approach roads to the Second Severn Crossing.
  Defects in some of the welding and some lack of fit were found in steelwork to some of the bridges but I am pleased to say that all the defects have now been put right. All but a very small number of weld defects were repaired prior to the opening of the motorway to traffic. Those repairs carried out after the opening involved minor traffic management at Pilning Roundabout, which did not affect traffic flows.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the remuneration of catering personnel employed in newly privatised rail services. [36163]

  Mr. Watts
  None.
  202

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the budget allocated to Cheshire county council for insulation against transport noise in each of the last five years. [36540]

  Mr. Norris
  The resources that my Department allocates to local authorities for construction or improvement of transport infrastructure may, where appropriate, be used partly to cover the cost of insulation against traffic noise, but we do not normally keep separate records of this element of scheme costs.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the budget allocated to Cheshire county council by his Department for(a) new road building projects and (b) road maintenance for each of the last five years. [36536]

  Mr. Norris
  Allocations to Cheshire for new road building projects and principal road maintenance are as follows:

  £ million

  New roads

  Road maintenance

  1992–93

  16.169

  4.480

  1993–94

  13.995

  7.520

  1994–95

  12.325

  5.429

  1995–96

  16.728

  4.915

  1996–97

  17.82

  3.090

  My Department funds only structural maintenance of principal roads. Most central Government support for highway maintenance expenditure comes from the Department of the Environment through the local government finance system.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the budget allocated to Cheshire county council by his Department for(a) street lighting improvements and (b) traffic calming measures for each of the last five years. [36537]

  Mr. Norris
  None of the resources that my Department has allocated to Cheshire county council in the last five years has been specifically targeted on street lighting or traffic calming. It is for the council to decide the proportion of its minor works, packages and local safety scheme allocations it wishes to spend on these services.

  Allocations to Cheshire for minor works, packages and local safety schemes in the last five years are as follows:

  1992–93: £0.529 million

  1993–94: £1.017 million

  1994–95: £0.940 million

  1995–96: £1,286 million

  1996–97: £1.284 million

  Driving Theory Test Centres
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which driving theory test centres have been set up within 20 miles of another centre serving a district whose population density is between 1,250 persons per square kilometre and 100 persons per square kilometre. [36298]
  203
  Mr. Norris
  The table lists driving theory test centres located within 20 miles of a centre situated in a district with a population density between 1,250 and 100 persons per square kilometre.

  Theory test centres in districts with population density between 100–1,250 persons per sq kilometre

  Other theory lest centre within 20 miles

  Basingstoke

  Reading, Aldershot

  Chelmsford

  Harlow, Basildon, Southend

  Chester

  Runcorn, St. Helens, Liverpool, Birkenhead

  Colchester

  Ipswich

  Dunfermline

  Stirling, Edinburgh

  Durham

  Sunderland, Newcastle

  Greenock

  Clydebank

  Guildford

  Crawley, Slough, Aldershot, Kingston

  Harrogate

  Leeds, York, Bradford

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Newport, Cardiff

  Milton Keynes

  Luton, Northampton

  Motherwell

  Cleydebank, Glasgow

  Newport

  Cardiff, Merthyr Tydfil

  Preston

  Blackpool, Southport, Wigan, Bolton

  Rhyl

  Birkenhead

  Solihull

  Stratford, Coventry, Redditch, Birmingham, Sutton Coldfield, Dudley, Wolverhampton

  Stratford

  Redditch, Coventry, Solihull

  Taunton

  Yeovil

  Yeovil

  Taunton

  Windscreen Insurance Discs
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is studying the advantages of windscreen insurance discs; and what progress she has made. [36389]

  Mr. Norris
  We are awaiting the results of the insurance industry's study of the comparative benefits of various measures to tackle motor insurance evasion before reaching any conclusion.

  Sleeping Policemen
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the extent to which the increased use of sleeping policemen has affected response times of the emergency services. [36237]

  Mr. Norris
  Departmental guidance to local highway authorities has been to introduce less severe speed reduction measures along relevant routes. Speed cushions have become increasingly chosen for such routes, and the Road Hump Regulations 1996 (SI 1483), have been written to encompass their design and use. In 1994, to minimise the effect that traffic calming may have on emergency service response times, a code of practice for fire and ambulance services traffic calming was agreed. The Department of Transport, in conjunction with the Joint Committee on Fire Brigade Operations, the Department of Health's ambulance policy advisory group and the local authority associations, commends the code to its members.

  Road Traffic Casualties
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the number of road traffic casualties in(a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire for each of the last five years; [36538]

  (2) if he will list the number of road traffic casualties involving (a) buses and coaches and (b) heavy goods vehicles in (i) Crewe and Nantwich and (ii) Cheshire for each of the last five years. [36539]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is shown in the following table.

  All casualties by area and road user type: GB: 1991 to 1995

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Cheshire

  Bus and coach

  71

  73

  82

  163

  156

  HGVs

  118

  88

  102

  124

  103

  All casualties

  5,361

  5,516

  5,712

  6,349

  6,648

  Crewe and Nantwich

  Bus and coach

  3

  5

  3

  7

  9

  HGVs

  5

  6

  11

  11

  12

  All casualties

  538

  591

  615

  596

  639

  Exhaust Emissions
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport with whom he has discussed the effect of European Commission plans to cut exhaust emissions of vehicles on new car prices and costs to petrol and diesel fuel vehicle users; and if he will make a statement. [36000]

  Mr. Norris
  Regular discussions are held between this Department and other Government Departments and also motor and oil industry organisations as to the implications of new European Union proposals affecting vehicle and fuel standards.

  Taxi Fares
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department spent in meeting the costs of taxi cab fares in the 1995–96 financial year. [36016]

  Mr. Norris
  Separate records of taxi cab fares are not maintained.

  Regional Bus Monopolies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to prevent the creation of private sector regional bus monopolies. [36038]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government believe that concentration in the bus industry is properly regulated through the general competition law regime, principally merger control. Mergers are considered on their merits by the competition authorities to determine whether there are competition issues that should be addressed.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road accidents involving under-age drivers occurred(a) in the Greater Manchester area and (b) nationally during each of the past three years; and how many fatalities resulted from such accidents. [36265]
  205
  Mr. Norris
  The information is shown in the following tables.

  Accidents involving an under-aged1 car driver in the Greater Manchester area: 1993 to 1995

  Accidents

  Severity

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Fatal

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  4

  4

  6

  Slight

  23

  20

  20

  All severities

  27

  24

  26

  1 Car drivers aged 0–16 years old.

  Accidents involving an under-aged1 car driver GB: 1993 to 1995

  Accidents

  Severity

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Fatal

  7

  11

  9

  Serious

  116

  103

  119

  Slight

  394

  376

  383

  All severities

  517

  490

  511

  1 Car drivers aged 0–16 years old.

  Casualties in accidents involving an under-aged1 car driver in the Greater Manchester area: 1993 to 1995

  Casualties

  Severities

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Final

  0

  0

  0

  Serious

  6

  4

  9

  Slight

  39

  27

  44

  All severities

  45

  31

  53

  1 Car drivers aged 0–16 years old.

  Casualties in accidents involving under-aged1 car drivers GB: 1993–1995

  Casualties

  Severity

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Fatal

  8

  19

  11

  Serious

  139

  150

  173

  Slight

  684

  649

  662

  All severities

  831

  818

  846

  1 Car drivers age 0–16 years old.

  Trunk Roads
  Sir Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on the control of development adjacent to trunk roads; and if he will make a statement. [37120]

  Mr. Watts
  Good communications are vital to the economy. It is therefore important that trunk roads continue to meet their prime function of catering for long distance through traffic. We will ensure that they do so by maintaining strict control of new accesses to them. This applies particularly to motorways—where we will continue to consider new access only for motorway service areas, maintenance compounds and major transport centres such as airports—and to high standard rural trunk roads of strategic importance.
  206
  Where new or modified accesses from trunk roads to new development are allowed, or where the traffic demands on a trunk road would materially increase as a result of new development, we will also continue to ensure that those responsible for the development pay for any highway works needed to cater for the resulting extra traffic.

  I am nevertheless concerned that the additional costs imposed on developers under this policy have sometimes been excessive. In some cases, this has led to much-needed investment being lost altogether. I have therefore today issued new guidelines on the principles which the Highways Agency will adopt when considering development proposals affecting trunk roads. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Of particular importance is that developers will in future be expected to pay only for improvements necessary to ensure that conditions on the trunk road are, as far as possible, no worse than if the development had not taken place. Other changes affect the design life of developer-funded highway works; and introduce greater flexibility to take account of environmental concerns and existing constraints on the network, and the potential to increase the use of public transport, cycling and walking.

  I am confident that the new guidelines will significantly reduce burdens on intending developers and encourage sustainable development while maintaining effective protection for the most important trunk roads.

  Wheel Loss
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what occasions in the past five years his Department has issued advice intended to reduce the danger of road traffic accidents attributable to lost wheels to(a) manufacturers and (b) operators of heavy commercial vehicles. [35241]

  Mr. Norris
  At the Institute of Road Transport Engineers conference in May 1991, my Department launched a pamphlet dealing with the subject of wheel loss and giving advice to operators.

  We are in constant contact with manufacturers and operator's trade associations on this problem through my Department's representation on the British Standards Institution committee for wheels and tyres and other forums.

  Dartford-Thurrock Crossings
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the impact on the public sector borrowing requirement of the Dartford-Thurrock river crossings in each year since 1988. [35830]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, dated 10 July 1996:
  As you know, the Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the impact on the public sector borrowing requirement of the Dartford-Thurrock river crossings in each year since 1988.

  207
  The impact on the PSBR of the Dartford-Thurrock river crossings can be shown by the net expenditure incurred by the Department of Transport/Highways Agency since 1988 and is as follows.

  £000s

  1988–89

  1,105.7

  1989–90

  3,717.3

  1990–91

  22,804.5

  1991–92

  20,486.6

  1992–93

  6,327.7

  1993–94

  4,051.2

  1994–95

  4,993.8

  1995–96

  2,502.6

  1996–97

  1116.8

  Total

  66,106.2

  1 To the end of June.

  These are net totals as some expenditure incurred by the Department of Transport has been offset by contributions by Dartford River Crossing Ltd.

  The above totals not only include works costs on the three river crossings but also on related project work such as traffic control systems, toll booths and works on the approach roads.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce the regulations to apply section 20A of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, covering compensation to mobile home owners. [36326]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) on 25 April,Official Report, column 248.

  Central Railway plc
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he had received by 1 July about the Central Railway plc proposal to build a new railway; and how many were(a) in favour and (b) against. [36479]
  208
  Mr. Watts
  Some 13,650 representations have been received, of which about 200 support the proposal and 13,450 are opposed. These figures include representations which, having regard to the postal dispute or certain other considerations, have been accepted as valid although they were received after 1 July.

  Rail Franchising
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission a survey of the wages of catering staff in privatised rail franchises. [36170]

  Mr. Watts
  No.

  Merchant Navy Statistics
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), of 17 June,Official Report, column 342, what statistical information relating to Merchant Navy seafarers was discontinued; when his Department decided to discontinue the collection and publication of these statistics and for what reasons; if the decision was announced to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [36356]

  Mr. Norris
  The statistics no longer published were based on the Merchant Navy Establishment, a register, maintained by the General Council of British Shipping. The register was a list of seafarers available for employment under National Maritime Board agreements. The Merchant Navy Establishment was discontinued in September 1990, following six months' consultation between the General Council of British Shipping and the trade unions. As the statistics were a by-product of a register held outside Government for non-statistical reasons, no announcement was made to Parliament.

  Statistics of seafarers employed on vessels entered with the Chamber of Shipping continue to be available from the chamber's fleet and manpower inquiry and are published by the Department in merchant fleet statistics.
  209

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Budgets
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will list for each local education authority in England(a) the potential school budget expressed as a percentage of its standard spending assessment, (b) the potential school budget expressed as a percentage of its general schools budget and (c) the totals and averages for England for (a) and (b) for the year 1996–97; and if she will make a statement; [35851]

  1996–97

  LEA

  SSA £000

  £000

  GSB Percentage of SSA

  £000

  PSB Percentage of SSA

  Percentage of GSB

  Barking/Dagenham

  69,879

  68,065

  97.4

  61,126

  87.5

  89.8

  Barnet

  117,029

  85,792

  73.3

  75,939

  64.9

  88.5

  Barnsley

  76,867

  71,287

  92.7

  61,681

  80.2

  86.5

  Bath and North-east Somerset

  54,404

  54,735

  100.6

  48,609

  89.3

  88.8

  Bedfordshire

  220,156

  178,555

  81.1

  152,251

  69.2

  85.3

  Berkshire

  282,308

  216,108

  76.6

  195,984

  69.4

  90.7

  Bexley

  88,646

  67,803

  76.5

  60,283

  68

  88.9

  Birmingham

  448,721

  400,305

  89.2

  345,728

  77

  86.4

  Bolton

  100,891

  93,734

  92.9

  80,892

  80.2

  86.3

  Bradford

  209,868

  182,932

  87.2

  150,477

  71.7

  82.3

  Brent

  109,692

  57,755

  52.7

  47,858

  43.6

  82.9

  Bristol

  119,870

  125,740

  104.9

  111,852

  93.3

  89.0

  Bromley

  103,845

  48,238

  46.5

  44,048

  42.4

  91.3

  Buckinghamshire

  252,855

  194,681

  77.0

  174,158

  68.9

  89.5

  Bury

  61,635

  63,907

  103.7

  54,406

  88.3

  85.1

  Calderdale

  77,167

  50,060

  64.9

  42,764

  55.4

  85.4

  Cambridgeshire

  237,278

  183,953

  77.5

  159,124

  67.1

  86.5

  Camden

  78,312

  65,910

  84.2

  57,003

  72.8

  86.5

  Cheshire

  348,970

  337,431

  96.7

  301,969

  86.5

  89.5

  Cornwall

  164,930

  154,225

  93.5

  136,921

  83.0

  88.8

  Corporation of London

  759

  1,022

  134.7

  761

  100.3

  74.5

  Coventry

  119,872

  120,526

  100.5

  106,109

  88.5

  88.0

  Croydon

  118,396

  87,808

  74.2

  75,817

  64.0

  86.3

  Cumbria

  170,602

  131,817

  77.3

  113,416

  66.5

  86.0

  Derbyshire

  319,922

  265,304

  82.9

  222,302

  69.5

  83.8

  Devon

  345,862

  310,234

  89.7

  270,890

  78.3

  87.3

  Doncaster

  119,680

  116,705

  97.5

  102,611

  85.7

  87.9

  Dorset

  207,427

  163,163

  78.7

  144,951

  69.9

  88.8

  Dudley

  104,158

  90,308

  86.7

  78,438

  75.3

  86.9

  Durham

  216,644

  206,342

  95.2

  180,640

  83.4

  87.5

  Ealing

  112,151

  84,255

  75.1

  71,556

  63.8

  84.9

  East Riding

  102,954

  111,138

  107.9

  96,389

  93.6

  86.7

  East Sussex

  219,761

  213,851

  97.3

  189,364

  86.2

  88.5

  Enfield

  117,827

  93,322

  79.2

  81,133

  68.9

  86.9

  Essex

  566,981

  317,193

  55.9

  275,579

  48.6

  86.9

  Gateshead

  70,844

  71,226

  100.5

  63,294

  89.3

  88.9

  Gloucestershire

  183,797

  103,916

  56.5

  92,634

  50.4

  89.1

  Greenwich

  114,263

  104,682

  91.6

  89,798

  78.6

  85.8

  Hackney

  92,084

  84,648

  91.9

  66,319

  72

  78.3

  Hammersmith/Fulham

  56,047

  47,578

  84.9

  39,290

  70.1

  82.6

  Hampshire

  525,153

  470,732

  89.6

  424,463

  80.8

  90.2

  Haringey

  93,427

  92,970

  99.5

  77,147

  82.6

  83.0

  Harrow

  72,990

  69,836

  95.7

  64,591

  88.5

  92.5

  Hartlepool

  37,013

  34,489

  93.2

  30,587

  82.6

  88.7

  Havering

  87,183

  70,582

  81

  65,236

  74.8

  92.4

  Hereford/Worcester

  229,005

  200,258

  87.4

  182,361

  79.6

  91.1

  Hertfordshire

  387,245

  309,390

  79.9

  271,633

  70.1

  87.8

  Hillingdon

  93,797

  48,618

  51.8

  43,534

  46.4

  89.5

  Hounslow

  94,807

  84,196

  88.8

  74,553

  78.6

  88.5

  Hull

  102,701

  95,241

  92.7

  82,212

  80.1

  86.3

  Isle of Wight

  45,138

  41,447

  91.8

  37,173

  82.4

  89.7

  Isles of Scilly

  1,233

  1,095

  88.8

  902

  73.2

  82.4

  Islington

  81,095

  68,032

  83.9

  59,438

  73.3

  87.4

  Kensington/Chelsea

  34,193

  31,435

  91.9

  26,852

  78.5

  85.4

  Kent

  581,733

  379,899

  65.3

  344,908

  59.3

  90.8

  Kingston

  47,066

  35,725

  75.9

  32,964

  70.0

  92.3

  210
  (2) if she will list for each local education authority in England (a) the education standard spending assessment, (b) the general school budget, (c) the potential school budget and (d) the general school budget expressed as a percentage of its standard spending assessment for 1996–97; and if she will make a statement. [35850]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table provides the information requested. The entries for general schools budget and potential schools budget have been derived from the local management of schools budget statements produced in respect of LEA—maintained schools under section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988, and therefore excludes expenditure, recouped from LEAs, on grant-maintained schools.
  211

  1996–97

  LEA

  SSA £000

  £000

  GSB Percentage of SSA

  £000

  PSB Percentage of SSA

  Percentage of GSB

  Kirklees

  141,523

  137,697

  97.3

  116,341

  82.2

  84.5

  Knowsley

  73,138

  65,599

  89.7

  56,775

  77.6

  86.5

  Lambeth

  100,826

  64,018

  63.5

  53,359

  52.9

  83.3

  Lancashire

  510,448

  485,626

  95.1

  414,077

  81.1

  85.3

  Leeds

  252,509

  251,509

  99.6

  220,601

  87.4

  87.7

  Leicestershire

  333,840

  320,548

  96.0

  281,645

  84.4

  87.9

  Lewisham

  108,942

  93,934

  86.2

  82,202

  75.5

  87.5

  Lincolnshire

  213,026

  146,775

  68.9

  131,670

  61.8

  89.7

  Liverpool

  209,232

  176,403

  84.3

  152,041

  72.7

  86.2

  Manchester

  188,261

  170,636

  90.6

  143,067

  76.0

  83.8

  Merton

  58,096

  53,585

  92.2

  48,209

  83.0

  90.0

  Middlesbrough

  61,491

  57,234

  93.1

  50,342

  81.9

  88.0

  North-east Lincolnshire

  64,840

  64,954

  100.2

  56,063

  86.5

  86.3

  Newcastle

  99,652

  95,004

  95.3

  83,752

  84.0

  88.2

  Newham

  130,381

  106,110

  81.4

  91,614

  70.3

  86.3

  Norfolk

  243,384

  215,902

  88.7

  186,841

  76.8

  86.5

  North Lincolnshire

  56,381

  60,352

  107.0

  51,172

  90.8

  84.8

  North Somerset

  58,642

  63,083

  107.6

  56,149

  95.7

  89.0

  North Tyneside

  68,757

  67,820

  98.6

  58,734

  85.4

  86.6

  North Yorkshire

  185,854

  189,829

  102.1

  168,846

  90.8

  88.9

  Northamptonshire

  222,270

  182,454

  82.1

  163,777

  73.7

  89.8

  Northumberland

  113,513

  112,425

  99.0

  95,647

  84.3

  85.1

  Nottinghamshire

  365,135

  348,056

  95.3

  296,611

  81.2

  85.2

  Oldham

  94,759

  97,770

  103.2

  83,982

  88.6

  85.9

  Oxfordshire

  192,571

  176,720

  91.8

  154,322

  80.1

  87.3

  Redbridge

  98,258

  87,742

  89.3

  78.625

  80.0

  89.6

  Redcar and Cleveland

  59,590

  56,843

  95.4

  50,199

  84.2

  88.3

  Richmond

  45,854

  45,048

  98.2

  42,377

  92.4

  94.1

  Rochdale

  82,736

  68,263

  82.5

  57,693

  69.7

  84.5

  Rotherham

  102,425

  96,157

  93.9

  86,343

  84.3

  89.8

  Salford

  82,496

  82,924

  100.5

  71,365

  86.5

  86.1

  Sandwell

  118,096

  113,735

  96.3

  98,885

  83.7

  86.9

  Sefton

  106,847

  107,574

  100.7

  95,490

  89.4

  88.8

  Sheffield

  170,970

  157,470

  92.1

  134,029

  78.4

  85.1

  Shropshire

  145,332

  129,142

  88.9

  110,326

  75.9

  85.4

  Solihull

  73,069

  76,074

  104.1

  67,562

  92.5

  88.8

  Somerset

  150,908

  141,298

  93.6

  129,049

  85.5

  91.3

  South Gloucestershire

  78,677

  87,372

  111.1

  77,194

  98.1

  88.4

  South Tyneside

  59,030

  54,545

  92.4

  48,326

  81.9

  88.6

  Southwark

  109,297

  83,797

  76.7

  70,401

  64.4

  84.0

  St. Helens

  66,604

  68,653

  103.1

  59,467

  89.3

  86.6

  Staffordshire

  366,019

  337,494

  92.2

  293,568

  80.2

  87.0

  Stockport

  89,804

  91,538

  101.9

  81,968

  91.3

  89.5

  Stockton-on-Tees

  71,747

  71,961

  100.3

  63,165

  88.0

  87.8

  Suffolk

  217,470

  216,145

  99.4

  193,131

  88.8

  89.4

  Sunderland

  114,863

  106,741

  92.9

  95,675

  83.3

  89.6

  Surrey

  307,474

  249,116

  81.0

  215,844

  70.2

  86.6

  Sutton

  67,782

  43,154

  63.7

  37,808

  55.8

  87.6

  Tameside

  80.591

  70,527

  87.5

  60,908

  75.6

  86.4

  Tower Hamlets

  122,839

  109,375

  89.0

  86,792

  70.7

  79.4

  Trafford

  76,735

  61,402

  80.0

  53,731

  70.0

  87.5

  Wakefield

  111,605

  110,505

  99.0

  96.044

  86.1

  86.9

  Walsall

  108,588

  87,497

  80.6

  78,003

  71.8

  89.1

  Waltham Forest

  97,421

  82,337

  84.5

  69,543

  71.4

  84.5

  Wandsworth

  86,304

  63,133

  73.2

  53,758

  62.3

  85.2

  Warwickshire

  164,025

  149,999

  91.4

  129,650

  79.0

  86.4

  West Sussex

  235,410

  225,963

  96.0

  205,497

  87.3

  90.9

  Westminster

  58,134

  54,716

  94.1

  46,245

  79.5

  84.5

  Wigan

  110,133

  117,249

  106.5

  102,072

  92.7

  87.1

  Wiltshire

  197,517

  150,479

  76.2

  127,525

  64.6

  84.7

  Wirral

  132,298

  117,453

  88.8

  101,837

  77.0

  86.7

  Wolverhampton

  99,898

  93,029

  93.1

  76,544

  76.6

  82.3

  York

  52,793

  51,457

  97.5

  46,598

  88.3

  90.6

  Total average

  17,764,242

  15,382,148

  86.6

  13,433,993

  75.6

  87.3

  The GSB amount shown for each LEA excludes capital expenditure and finance charges.

  Education Awards Regulations
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many representations she has received since 1990 from(a) hon. Members, (b) local education authorities and (c) education and other
  212
  professional bodies regarding the effects of section 12(2)(a) of the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations. [36112]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has received a number of representations on this subject from various parties but does not keep information in the form requested.
  213

  Sex Offenders
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if her Department keeps a list of suspected sex offenders; [36506]

  (2) if she will list, in respect of those lists of convicted sex offenders held by her Department which may be consulted, (a) the number of names on each list currently, (b) those who have access to each list, (c) what the lists are used for, (d) how long it takes on average to check a reference with such lists, (e) under what circumstances people are placed on the lists, and (i) how the procedure described in (e) above is conveyed to local authorities. [36505]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department does not keep lists of convicted or suspected sex offenders. It does maintain a list, list 99, which contains details of people who are either barred from teaching and related employment in England and Wales or are subject to restrictions on their employment. Some of these people have been convicted of sex offences, but the list does not contain any explanation of why an individual has been barred.

  Teachers (Cheshire)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the number of teachers employed by the Cheshire education authority for each of the last five years. [36503]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The full-time equivalent numbers of teachers employed by Cheshire education authority, in the nursery, primary, secondary and special education sector, are shown as follows. Teachers in grant-maintained schools are excluded throughout.

  As at January of:

  Full-time equivalent

  19921

  8,210

  1993

  8,140

  1994

  8,040

  1995

  8,120

  1996

  8,190

  1 Teachers in sixth form colleges are included in 1992 but excluded thereafter.

  Class Sizes (Cheshire)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the average class size for schools in(a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire for each of the last five years; and what was the national average. [36501]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information is shown in the following table:

  Average class size in classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary and secondary schools

  Position in January each year

  Cheshire LEA Area

  England

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  1991

  28.1

  20.6

  26.3

  20.6

  1992

  27.6

  20.7

  26.4

  20.9

  1993

  27.6

  21.2

  26.6

  21.2

  1994

  27.4

  21.1

  26.9

  21.4

  1995

  27.3

  21.3

  27.1

  21.5

  1996

  1n/a

  1n/a

  27.3

  21.6

  1 Not available.

  214

  School Security
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects to respond to the recommendations of the working group on schools security published in May in respect of the provision of additional long-term funding specifically allocated for improving school security. [36488]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government have accepted all the recommendations of the working group on school security. New money earmarked specifically for school security will be provided under the grants for education support and training programme in 1997–98. The DFEE also contributed £2 million to this year's Home Office closed circuit television challenge scheme so that an extra 112 schools can install security cameras.

  Higher Education Entrants (Cheshire)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the number of students from Cheshire entering higher education in each of the last five years; and what was the national average. [36504]

  Mr. Forth
  Centrally held information on student numbers is not available at local education authority level. The following tables show the number of new mandatory awards and discretionary awards made to higher education students by Cheshire local education authority and by all local education authorities in England, for the years 1990–91 to 1994–95, the latest year for which data are available.

  New higher education awards made by Cheshire local education authority

  Academic years

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Mandatory awards

  3,347

  4,516

  5,692

  6,036

  6,157

  Discretionary awards

  318

  238

  88

  24

  43

  All new higher education awards

  3,665

  4,754

  5,780

  6,060

  6,200

  New higher education awards made by all English local education authorities1

  Thousands

  Academic years

  1990–91

  21991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Mandatory awards

  180.9

  215.8

  253.8

  274.0

  268.4

  Discretionary awards

  17.0

  15.1

  14.9

  8.8

  8.3

  All new higher education awards

  197.9

  230.9

  268.8

  282.8

  276.6

  1 National figures have been grossed up to compensate for partial returns.

  21991–92 does not include data in respect of the London residuary body estimated to be 8,600 mandatory awards; an accurate breakdown of these figures is not available.

  Bus Passes
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidelines her Department issues in respect of the issue of bus passes to schoolchildren who live more than three miles away from their secondary school. [36395]
  215
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department issued guidance on the provision of home to school transport to local education authorities in England in a letter of 21 January 1994, a copy of which is in the Library. This makes it clear that free transport is always necessary for pupils of compulsory school age—five to 16—who attend their nearest suitable school if it is beyond statutory walking distance. LEAs also have a discretionary power to assist pupils whose parents have chosen to send them to a school other than their nearest suitable one, even if it is beyond walking distance, by paying their reasonable travelling expenses either in whole or in part.

  School Closures (Cheshire)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the number of(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools closed in (i) Crewe and Nantwich and (ii) Cheshire for each of the last five years. [36500]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table gives the numbers of primary and secondary schools for which closure proposals were approved for implementation in Cheshire for each of the last five years. No closure proposals were approved for the Crewe and Nantwich area. In many cases, schools which are formally closed are amalgamated with other schools or are replaced by new schools.

  Primary

  Secondary

  1991

  10

  2

  1992

  18

  —

  1993

  9

  1

  1994

  12

  2

  1995

  2

  —

  1996

  5

  —

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will update all the information printed in her answers of 27 November 1995,Official Report, column 445, and 30 November 1995, Official Report, columns 854–55, regarding assisted places provision and finance in three named schools in the Manchester, Gorton constituency. [36481]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Actual expenditure on the assisted places scheme in the 1995–96 financial year was £104.76 million. Provision for 1996–97, when the expansion of the scheme begins, is £117 million.

  The figures relating to the three named schools in the Manchester, Gorton constituency remain unchanged from those given on 27 and 30 November 1995 for the current academic year 1995–96, pending receipt of the schools' final claims.

  The numbers of assisted pupils at each school in the forthcoming academic year 1996–97, and the amounts spent on them, will depend on parental demand and take-up of places. Under the expansion programme, Manchester grammar school has been allocated 10 additional entry places, Manchester high school for girls, 10 such places, and William Hulme's grammar school, 30 such places.
  216

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations. [35178]

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the negotiations in Geneva towards completion of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. [35950]

  Mr. David Davis
  The negotiations on a comprehensive test ban treaty adjourned in Geneva on 28 June, without agreement but with the chairman of the ad hoc committee, Ambassador Ramaker of the Netherlands, having tabled a full treaty text. Ambassador Ramaker has asked delegations to study this carefully with a view to reaching agreement when the conference on disarmament reconvenes on 29 July. We are now doing so and shall work for the earliest possible agreement.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next meet his counterpart in Saudi Arabia to discuss British-Saudi relations. [35181]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary had extensive discussions with the Saudi Foreign Minister during his visit to Jedda last week. Relations between the UK and Saudi Arabia are in very good shape.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to persuade the Government of Morocco to reach a settlement with Polisario in the Western Sahara. [35182]

  Mr. Hanley
  We continue to urge both Morocco and Polisario to co-operate fully with the UN and its operation in the Western Sahara, MINURSO, in reaching a settlement to the conflict.

  I stressed this point with the Moroccan Deputy Foreign Minister during his recent visit.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on UK relations with Indonesia. [35183]

  Mr. Hanley
  UK relations with Indonesia are very good.

  China
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Chinese Government about abuses of human rights in that country. [35184]
  217
  Mr. Hanley
  I raised human rights in China during my talks with Chinese leaders in Peking in January, and again with the Chinese Foreign Minister in The Hague on 20 April.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current relations between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China. [36266]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Our relationship with China is of great importance—particularly because of our shared interest in the successful transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong next year.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the conduct of recent elections held in Kashmir. [35185]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recent election procedures in Jammu and Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [35190]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the oral answer that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) earlier today.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current developments in the middle east peace process. [35186]

  Mr. Hanley
  We give full support to the continuation of the peace process and look to both Israel and the Palestinians to fulfil their undertakings under the Oslo accords.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the peace process in the Palestine—Israel dispute. [36274]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We welcome the confirmation by Prime Minister Netanyahu of his intention to proceed with the peace process.

  We look forward to full implementation of the Israel—Palestine interim agreement, and the declaration of principles. Resumption of negotiations with Syria is also important.

  Yousef Salam
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the Prime Minister's answer of 25 June,Official Report, column 151, to the hon. Members for Linlithgow and for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and his answer to the hon. Member for Southend, East of 24 June, Official Report, column 14, what discussions he has had with the German authorities about the content of the Stasi files referred to and the time scale proposed by the German authorities for a trial of Yousef Salam alias Yassir al-Shuraidi. [35187]
  218
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have had occasional contact with the German authorities about the evidence implicating Yassir al-Shuraidi in the 1986 bombing of the "La Belle" discotheque. The investigation into the bombing remains a matter for the German authorities.

  We understand from the German authorities that no date has yet been set for Yassir al-Shuraidi's trial.

  South Africa
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recent elections in South Africa. [35188]

  Mr. Hanley
  The local government elections in KwaZulu-Natal on 26 June completed the process of democratic elections in South Africa. We are pleased that these elections took place in a generally peaceful and orderly way, and we wish the newly elected local authorities every success.

  Sudan
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he(a) has made to and (b) received from, the Government of Sudan since the signing of the peace charter in Sudan. [35189]

  Mr. Hanley
  I discussed the political charter and other matters with the Sudanese ambassador on 2 July.

  We look to all sides in the Sudanese civil war to make genuine moves towards peace.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government on the incidence of female genital mutilation in the north of Sudan. [36171]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have made no formal representations to the Government of Sudan on this subject.

  At the last session of the UN Commission for Human Rights, in April 1996, the United Kingdom co-sponsored a resolution which stressed the obligations of states to enact and enforce legislation against the perpetrators of acts such as female genital mutilation.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the current criteria for the admission of new members to the Western European Union; and if he will make a statement. [35191]

  Mr. David Davis
  Article XI of the modified Brussels treaty permits the members of Western European Union, by agreement, to invite any other state to accede to the treaty on conditions to be agreed between them and the states so invited.

  Such conditions would need to take into account the facts that the mutual defence guarantee of the modified Brussels treaty implies prior membership of NATO and that at Maastricht EU members were invited to accede to WEU on conditions to be agreed in accordance with article XI of the modified Brussels treaty.
  219

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress he has made towards re-negotiating the common fisheries policy at the intergovernmental conference. [35192]

  Mr. David Davis
  The UK will shortly be tabling proposals in the IGC to address the problem of quota hopping.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current political situation in Nigeria. [35193]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew)Official Report, columns 373–74, on 3 April; we remain deeply concerned about the lack of progress towards restoring human rights and democracy in Nigeria.

  Cyprus
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the political situation in Cyprus. [35194]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Cyprus problem has gone unresolved for too long. In May, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary appointed Sir David Hannay to strengthen the Government's efforts to work with all parties concerned to bring about a solution.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what circumstances marriages at St. Andrew's Anglican church, Kyrenia, Cyprus, are recognised by United Kingdom authorities; and if he will make a statement. [36224]

  Mr. Davis
  The practice of this Department is to recognise, for its administrative purposes, the validity of church marriages conducted in northern Cyprus, provided that they are conducted in accordance with all local requirements, and are valid in the place of celebration. The legal validity of any particular marriage will depend on the facts of the individual case and would be a matter for the courts to determine.

  Iran
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations between Britain and Iran. [35195]

  Mr. Hanley
  We restored relations with Iran on 27 September 1990.

  We and our European Union partners made it clear at Edinburgh in December 1992 that improvements in Iran's behaviour, particularly on human rights, the fatwa on Mr. Rushdie and terrorism, would be important in determining the extent to which closer relations and confidence in Iran could be developed. Our approach remains unchanged.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for 220
  Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism in respect of United Kingdom personnel abroad. [35344]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We remain alert to the threat to UK interests from Iranian-sponsored terrorism both in the United Kingdom and overseas and take all appropriate precautions against that threat.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs when he last met the Chinese ambassador to discuss Hong Kong. [35196]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary last met Jiang Enzhu on 15 February. Our discussions with the Chinese authorities on Hong Kong issues take place at various levels in capitals and elsewhere.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Vietnamese boat people are currently living in camps in Hong Kong; and what is his policy on their future. [36275]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  On 1 June 1996 there were 18,125 Vietnamese living in camps in Hong Kong. This includes 1,347 refugees, for whom the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is responsible, 332 people undergoing screening to determine whether they are genuine refugees, and 16,446 non-refugees whose future lies in Vietnam. It remains our objective to complete the repatriation of non-refugees before the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.[36277]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs visited Hong Kong in January and looks forward to visiting again before too long. His travel plans are not yet firm.

  Yemen
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations with the Yemen. [35197]

  Mr. Hanley
  We enjoy good relations with Yemen. The recent successful visit of the Yemeni Foreign Minister to the United Kingdom, and mine to Yemen last year, demonstrated our mutual wish further to improve co-operation.

  Burma
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent events in Burma. [35198]

  Mr. Hanley
  We remain deeply concerned about the situation in Burma. We issued a statement on 22 May. Our ambassador in Rangoon followed this up with a demarche to the State Law and Order Restoration Council on 7 June.
  221
  Together with our EU partners, we have consistently pressed the SLORC to work with Aung San Suu Kyi and Burma's other democratic groups to achieve national reconciliation and democratic reform. We shall continue to do so.

  We make it clear to the SLORC that resumption of normal relations is conditional on progress in this and other key areas, including human rights.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest estimate as to when the current IGC will end. [35199]

  Mr. David Davis
  There is no fixed timetable for the intergovernmental conference. But Heads of Government confirmed at the Florence European Council in June that the conference should end by mid-1997 if possible.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are currently in place to enable the general public to be informed of the topics to be considered at each meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Community. [35200]

  Mr. David Davis
  Details of the topics to be discussed at forthcoming Council meetings are published in the Official Report on a monthly basis.

  English Language Teaching
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that the British Council and the private sector compete on an equal basis in respect of teaching English as a foreign language. [36141]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The British Council does not teach English in this country and is not therefore in direct competition with English language schools in the UK. We try to ensure that so far as possible the Council's network of teaching centres overseas competes on an equal footing with the private sector by insisting that it operates on a self-funding basis and is not subsidised from the grants in aid from this Department.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the involvement of his Department in the effort to reduce the illegal import of drugs from Colombia. [36278]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The United Kingdom has provided over £13 million worth of drugs-related assistance to Colombia since 1989. This has included training and equipment for various Government Departments and agencies responsible for drug control. This Department's assistance has since 1993 focused on anti-drugs training for the Colombian anti-narcotics police. In recent weeks, this Department has paid for a course in container profiling to assist the detection of drugs in sea freight at the port of Barranquila and for the production of educational videos for use in drug prevention work in Medillin.
  222
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the adequacy of current United Nations policies to combat drug abuse; and if he will make a statement. [36276]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The United Kingdom strongly supports the leading role played by the United Nations drug control programme in co-ordinating the international fight against the scourge of drugs. We particularly support its regional and sub-regional approach, based on solid work at national level, and its efforts to promote greater focus on drug control issued in all relevant parts of the UN system. The United Kingdom is currently the third largest donor to the programme, to which three Government Departments, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Overseas Development Agency and the Home Office, all contribute funds. UN drugs control projects funded by Her Majesty's Government are carefully monitored.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet his opposite numbers in the Council of Europe. [36280]

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no firm plans for a meeting with his opposite numbers in the Council of Europe. The next scheduled Council of Europe ministerial meeting is in Strasbourg on 6 and 7 November 1996.

  British Council
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the British Council's promotion of British interests overseas. [36279]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The British Council forms an integral part of the UK's overall diplomatic and aid effort overseas. Its activities are at a record level, with the Council operating 228 offices in 109 countries compared with 108 offices in 79 countries in 1980.

  Former Yugoslavia (War Criminals)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made as regards the arrest and extradition of indicted war criminals in the former Yugoslavia, with particular reference to Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. [35239]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have repeatedly called upon the parties to execute all arrest warrants issued by the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, including those issued against Dr. Karadzic and General Mladic.

  Implementation force troops will arrest anyone indicted by the tribunal whom they come across in the course of their duties, should the opportunity arise. As IFOR forces increase their presence throughout Bosnia in the run-up to the elections, indicted persons will find themselves at greater risk of arrest.
  223

  EU Directives
  Mr. Brian David Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many directives were approved by the Council of Ministers in each year since 1992. [35240]

  Mr. David Davis
  According to the latest data in the Commission's CELEX database on Community legislation, the number of directives adopted by the Council is as follows:

  1992: 93

  1993: 66

  1994: 49

  1995: 38

  1996: 6

  The CELEX database figures do not include acts of day-to-day management whose validity does not exceed a few weeks and purely informative documents of minor importance.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of China concerning the use of child labour; and if he will make a statement. [36318]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We continue to be deeply concerned about reports of the exploitation of child labour in China. We take every suitable opportunity to raise our concerns about all forms of human rights abuse in China with the Chinese authorities, both bilaterally and in conjunction with our EU partners. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs did so during his talks with Chinese leaders in Peking in January, and again with the Chinese Foreign Minister in The Hague on 20 April.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Pakistan concerning child and bonded labour; and if he will make a statement. [36320]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We regularly raise our concerns about child and bonded labour with the Government of Pakistan. Poverty clearly exacerbates the problem, but is not an excuse for abusive child labour; there is no justification for bonded labour. We welcome steps taken to improve the situation, but much remains to be done.

  Bahrain
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whom the Minister of State met to discuss human rights during his recent visit to Bahrain; and if he will make a statement. [36322]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  During his recent visit to Bahrain, the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), discussed human rights with the Amir, the Prime Minister and the Ministers of the Interior and of Foreign Affairs.

  Russia (British Visas)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the current facilities are 224
  for people who are waiting while applying for visas at (a) the British embassy in Moscow and (b) the British consulate general in St. Petersburg. [36323]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The visa section in Moscow has been completely refurbished and enlarged this year. There are eight counter positions for visa officers, seating for 108 applicants and standing room for a further 50, clear signposting and washroom facilities. Shelter is provided for those queuing outside.

  The St. Petersburg visa section moves shortly into much improved and larger premises. These will provide for three visa officer positions at the reception counter, public seating for 20 and standing for 50, and washroom facilities.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the average time taken to process a visa application at(a) the British embassy in Moscow and (b) the British consulate general in St. Petersburg in each of the last five years. [36324]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The target time laid down in best practice for processing straightforward visit visa applications at all entry clearance issuing posts, is the same day if practical or 24 hours. Bulk applications from local courier firms of travel agents are processed, by agreement, in 10 days.

  Moscow and St. Petersburg have operated according to these target times.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visa applications have been refused in each of the last five years from(a) the British embassy in Moscow and (b) the British consulate general in St. Petersburg. [36325]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The information is as follows:

  Visa refusals at Moscow:

  1991: 1,087

  1992: 1,502

  1993: 1,624

  1994: 1,894

  1995: 3,121

  Visa refusals at St. Petersburg, where the visa service started in November 1993:

  1993: 116

  1994: 622

  1995: 762

  The rates of refusal represent 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. respectively of applications received.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  World Bank (Child Labour)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the World bank in the consideration of development projects concerning child labour. [36319]

  Mr. Hanley
  No formal representations have been made to the World bank concerning child labour. The ODA played an active role in the World bank consultation
  225
  on the world development report 1995 "Workers in an Integrated World" and helped ensure that the issue of child labour was properly addressed in the document.

TREASURY

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are currently claiming unemployment benefit; and what was the figure in 1979. [35483]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  On the consistent, seasonally adjusted basis, the number of people claiming unemployment-related benefits—unemployment benefit, income support or national insurance credits—in the United Kingdom was 2,167,600 in May 1996 and 1,086,800 in May 1979.

  Fish Export Certificates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of how fish importers can verify EUR1 certificates issued by customs of exporting countries of fish or prawns; [35653]

  (2) what assessment he has made of how fish importers can verify the origins of imported fish and prawns under the present EUR1 certificate system. [35652]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Advice to importers is set out in customs notice 826. This recognises the difficulties that importers may experience in trying to establish whether a certificate is valid or whether goods shown on it are eligible for preferential tariff treatment. The notice warns of the potential further duty liability and advises importers to consider the advantages of including a clause in their contracts allowing them to recover any such duty charge from the supplier. Whether importers chose to take precautions against such business risks is, however, a matter of commercial judgment.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to claim compensation for inaccurate EUR1 certificates from the customs offices of exporting countries. [35522]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The trade agreements between the European Community and third countries do not provide for the payment of compensation.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what redress his Department(a) has taken and (b) proposes to take against customs offices of an exporting country who issue EUR1 certificates which turn out to be inaccurate. [35577]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The UK has made strong representations concerning these difficulties at EC meetings and gained considerable support from other member states. At the end of May, the Council of Ministers asked the Commission to produce proposals by 31 December 1996, taking into consideration suggestions by the UK and other member states, to tackle the problem of retrospective duty demands arising from inaccurate preference documents.
  226
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to eradicate fraud in respect of the issuing of invalid EUR1 certificates. [35521]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The customs authorities in the country of export are responsible for issuing EUR1s, verifying any certificates returned by foreign import authorities and considering sanctions against exporters who abuse the system. Customs confirms that appropriate action is taken against UK exporters who are found to have made false EUR1 declarations.

  Isle of Wight (Tax System)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Isle of Wight council to give the Isle of Wight a separate tax system. [35592]

  Mr. Jack
  I have received no representations from the Isle of Wight council about giving the Isle of Wight a separate tax system.

  EU Contributions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the United Kingdom's net contribution to the EU for each year since 1975 in 1975 prices. [35708]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The United Kingdom's net contributions to the EU for the period 1975–76 to 1994–95, in 1975–76 prices are set out in the table.

  £ million

  1975–76

  16

  1976–77

  198

  1977–78

  434

  1978–79

  535

  1979–80

  528

  1980–81

  118

  1981–82

  104

  1982–83

  317

  1983–84

  395

  1984–85

  443

  1985–86

  368

  1986–87

  439

  1987–88

  618

  1988–89

  374

  1989–90

  733

  1990–91

  605

  1991–92

  246

  1992–93

  543

  1993–94

  533

  1994–95

  392

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those constituencies(a) he and (b) members of his Department have 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. [35759]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My ministerial colleagues and I have visited various parliamentary constituencies as part of our official duties. We also expect to make further visits in the future. A detailed list of the various places
  227
  visited by five Ministers over a period of six months could be compiled only at the cost of a great deal of official time and expense to ensure complete accuracy.

  Tobacco Industry (Employment)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to protect the employment of employees in the tobacco industry; and if he will make a statement. [36045]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government's role is to create the right conditions for employment growth across the whole economy through a stable macro-economic climate and a flexible labour market. Excessive employment protection can damage employment prospects by acting as a disincentive for businesses to create jobs.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the extent of revenue losses due to cross-border shopping and tobacco smuggling is currently estimated to be; [36157]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the discrepancy between the tobacco industry and HM Customs and Excise figures in relation to revenues lost to the Exchequer from cross-border shopping and tobacco smuggling. [36041]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs' estimate of excise duty revenue lost from legitimate personal importation of duty paid tobacco products for the year ending 30 June 1995 is £120 million. Additionally, VAT receipts of £30 million are estimated to have been lost. Thus, the estimate for the total loss of tax revenues from such legitimate cross-border shopping for the year ending 30 June 1995 is £150 million.

  Customs does not currently have a reliable estimate of the extent of excise duty losses due to smuggling of tobacco products. It is working with the tobacco and alcoholic drinks industries with the aim of achieving an objective measurement of smuggling of excise goods.

  Customs is currently discussing with the tobacco and alcoholic drinks industries the most reliable basis for estimates of revenue lost from the legitimate personal importation of duty paid alcohol and tobacco products.

  Taxi Fares
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department spent in meeting the costs of taxi cab fares in the 1995–96 financial year. [36006]

  Mrs. Angela. Knight
  Expenditure on taxi cab fares is included in the published running costs.

  Building Societies
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many building societies there were in 1976; and how many there are currently. [36462]
  228
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  At the end of 1976, there were 345 authorised building societies. There are currently 79, including the National and Provincial, which is expected to be acquired by Abbey National plc later this year.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans next to meet representatives of the small firms sector. [36270]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer meets representatives of the small firms sector frequently.

  Oil and Gas Revenues
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the cumulative total for Government revenues from oil and gas production from 1979–80 to 1996–97 expressed in 1995–96 prices. [36286]

  Mr. Jack
  Total receipts of taxes and royalties from North sea oil and gas production are estimated to be about £130 billion from 1979–80 to 1996–97, at 1995–96 prices—measured by the GDP deflator. The summer economic forecast projects North sea tax and royalty receipts of £3.2 billion, and an increase in the GDP deflator of 2¼ per cent., in 1996–97.

  Privatisations
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of debt(a) nominally and (b) in 1995–96 prices written off in each of the privatisations and sale of Government assets since 1979 for each company privatised. [36284]

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on 13 March, columns 612–13. Since then, Railtrack has been successfully privatised. On that sale, £1,229 million originally allocated to Railtrack on vesting was written off and debt on commercial terms of £589 million injected—1995–96 prices. The revised total for debts written off is therefore £23.78 billion. Debts injected total £14.53 billion.

  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the cumulative total privatisation receipts from 1979–80 to 1996–97 in 1995–96 prices. [36285]

  Mr. Jack
  The cumulative total of privatisation proceeds from 1979–80 to 1995–96, in 1995–96 prices, was £81.3 billion. The Government's privatisation proceeds targets for 1996–97 is £4.5 billion.

  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the privatisation receipts since 1979–80 to date for each company privatised(a) cash and (b) at 1995–96 prices. [36283]

  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 following table sets out annual proceeds in cash terms and in 1995–96 prices. It would not be possible to give current price proceeds on a sale-by-sale basis without incurring disproportionate cost.
  229

  Privatisation proceeds

  (£ billion)

  Year

  Cash

  1995–96 prices

  1979–80

  0.4

  1.0

  1980–81

  0.2

  0.5

  1981–82

  0.5

  1.0

  1982–83

  0.5

  0.8

  1983–84

  1.1

  2.0

  1984–85

  2.1

  3.4

  1985–86

  2.7

  4.3

  1986–87

  4.5

  6.9

  1987–88

  5.1

  7.5

  1988–89

  7.1

  9.7

  1989–90

  4.2

  5.4

  1990–91

  5.3

  6.4

  1991–92

  7.9

  8.9

  1992–93

  8.2

  8.8

  1993–94

  5.4

  5.7

  1994–95

  6.4

  6.6

  1995–96

  2.4

  2.4

  Total

  64.0

  81.3

  Banks and Building Societies
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what represtations he has received about the benefits of mutual status; and if he will make a statement. [36463]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  During the recently concluded consultation on the draft Building Societies Bill, a number of societies, and others, mentioned the benefits of mutual status. We are currently considering these responses along with all the others we have received.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the difference in operating ratios between retail banks and mutual building societies. [36451]

  Mrs. Knight
  The rates offered by individual banks and building societies are publicly available, and the financial press provides regular comparisons between them.

  British Industry (Investment)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to bring investment in British industry to a level comparable with major competitors. [36271]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Since 1979, the ratio of business investment to GDP has been very similar in the UK to that in most other G7 countries. Our policies to deliver macro-economic stability and strengthen the long-term performance of the economy will continue to promote a climate in which businesses can plan ahead and invest with confidence.

  Business Investment
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the future levels of business investment. [36269]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  My right hon. and learned Friend is planning to meet the CBI on 12 September. I note that the CBI, in common with virtually all other independent forecasters, expects investment to accelerate in both 1996 and 1997.
  230

  Utility Prices
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 286, if he will express in real terms and where the year of privatisation equals 100 the utility component of the RPI including VAT in (a) 1979 and (b) the latest available period for (i) gas prices, (ii) electricity prices, (iii) electricity and gas prices, (iv) water prices and (v) gas, electric and water prices. [36378]

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Gas

  Electricity

  Electricity and gas

  Water

  Gas, electricity and water

  Year of privatisation

  1986

  1990

  1990

  1989

  1990

  1979

  77

  98

  94

  73

  91

  May 1996

  80

  100

  97

  146

  104

  The components of the retail prices index for electricity and gas, and for gas, electricity and water, assume a privatisation year of 1990—the year that electricity utilities were fully privatised. These figures have been deflated by the RPI, and include VAT for gas and electricity.

  Tobacco-related Jobs
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what change there has been in the number of tobacco-related jobs in the United Kingdom since 1 January 1993. [36558]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The latest information specific to tobacco-related jobs relates to September 1993. This is shown in the following table. Annual estimates, beginning in September 1995, will be available from September 1996.

  Employees in Great Britain: September 1993 (thousands)

  Standard industrial classification 1992

  Manufacture of tobacco products

  8.0

  Wholesale of tobacco products

  2.1

  Retail sale of tobacco products

  5.2

  Total

  15.3

  Source:ONS

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy for the collection of revenues from commercial trading at car boot sales. [35527]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 8 July 1996]: Those who trade commercially at car boot sales are expected to meet their tax obligations in the same way as any other trader. Equally, those who fail to meet these obligations are liable to investigation by the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. The tax authorities are continually on the look-out for any areas where there might be tax evasion.

  Control Totals
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in percentage terms the annual alteration in control totals of each Department for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [36254]
  231
  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 9 July 1996]: These figures can be calculated from table 2.2 of the public expenditure statistical analyses 1996–97, Cm 3201. The latest estimates for 1995–96 were published in the public expenditure outturn White Paper, Cm 3318, on 9 July.

  Pensioners (Taxation)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in receipt of a state pension pay(a) higher rate income tax, (b) basic and lower rate income tax only and (c) the lower rate of tax only. [36358]

  Mr. Jack
  The esitmated numbers of taxpayers by marginal rate in receipt of state retirement pension—men aged 65 or over and women aged 60 or over—at 1996–97 income levels are given in the table.

  Number of taxpayers (millions)

  Lower rate

  1.50

  Basic and lower rate

  1.65

  Higher rate

  0.15

  Total

  3.30

HEALTH

  GP Fundholding (Wakefield)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the savings held by general practitioner fundholder practices in the Wakefield district has been used under provision 25(2)(c)(i) and (ii) of statutory instrument No. 706 (1996); what measures were used by the local health authority to satisfy itself that such expenditure complied with paragraph 25(3)(b); and what expenditure was devoted to activities which duplicate medical provision at Pontefract general infirmary. [33854]

  Mr. Malone
  In the first four years of the scheme', 15 per cent. of fundholder savings in Wakefield health authority were used on improving practice premises for the benefit of patients.

  Regional health authorities were responsible for managing the scheme during this period, including ensuring that savings expenditure was in accordance with regulations. More detailed information is not available centrally.

  1The latest period for which audited information is available.

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list for each general practitioner fundholder practice in the Wakefield district the amount(a) of savings by financial year, (b) spent to date and (c) retained in balances; [33855]

  (2) what contracts for medical services have been let by general practitioner fundholding practices in the Wakefield district to acute or community NHS trusts lying outside the Wakefield district. [33857]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.
  232

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 July,Official Report, column 368, if he will make it his policy to collect data on the incidence of multiple sclerosis by health authority region. [35964]

  Mr. Horam
  It is for health authorities to decide how best to determine the local needs of their population and then purchase services accordingly to meet those needs within their available resources.

  Migraine
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding his Department is giving to a European randomised double blind trial of BMS-180048 compared with oral sumatriptan and to a placebo in the treatment of acute migraine attacks; and if he will make a statement. [35836]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department is not contributing funds to this trial, which is industry sponsored.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned relating to(a) attentional bias in schizophrenia and (b) severe mood disorder and mood changes over time; and if he will make a statement. [35825]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on research commissioned by the Department of Health is contained in "The Centrally Commissioned Research Programme" and "The Centrally Commissioned Research Programme: Commissions in 1994–95", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Cancer Services (Trent)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into the provision and effectiveness of services for cancer in the Trent NHS region; if he will make an assessment of progress towards "The Health of the Nation" targets; and if he will make a statement. [35837]

  Mr. Horam
  The national health service executive has funded the Trent institute of health services research to look at the provision and effectiveness of services for cancer in Trent, and the assessment of progress against "The Health of the Nation" targets. This work commenced in October 1993 and is scheduled for completion around September 1997.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to make GPs directly accountable to local health authorities; and if he will make a statement. [36178]

  Mr. Malone
  We are currently undertaking a major consultative exercise on the future development of primary health care services.

  "Primary Care: The Future", the report on the first stage, was published on 10 June 1996.

  We will decide on further action after the second stage of consultation is completed in the autumn.
  233

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will ensure that community health councils are given the right formally to inspect those services provided on general practitioner premises which were formerly provided by NHS trusts or health authorities; and if he will make a statement; [36190]

  (2) if he will confer upon community health councils the statutory duty to assist complainants through NHS complaints procedures; if he will make it a right of all patients to receive support, advice and advocacy from their local community health council with any complaint that they have about the NHS and its services; if he will ensure that all community health councils are adequately resourced and staffed specifically to undertake this statutory duty and if he will make a statement. [36158]

  Mr. Malone
  We have no plans to change the statutory rights or duties of community health councils.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if community health council members, and co-opted members are covered by NHS insurance while on CHC business; and if he will make a statement. [36118]

  Mr. Horam
  Community health council members and co-opted members are not covered by national health service insurance. The NHS executive would consider any cost or damages arising from claims against CHCs on a case-by-case basis.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that when the commercial price of medicines is less than the standard NHS prescription charge, the commercial price is charged to patients; and if he will make a statement. [36115]

  Mr. Malone
  No. The prescription charge has never been related either to the cost of medicines or to the cost to the national health service of dispensing them. It is an amount which successive Governments have seen as reasonable for those who can afford to do so to pay towards the costs of their medicines.

  Systolic Blood Pressure
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the mean systolic blood pressure in the adult population for each year since 1979, for each nation of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [36050]

  Mr. Horam
  The table shows the mean systolic blood pressure for the adult population of England in each of the years 1991 to 1994 inclusive. The fall in blood pressure between 1991 and 1994 is statistically significant. Data for England before 1991 are not available on a comparable basis. Questions relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  234

  Mean Systolic Blood Pressure of the Adult Population, 1991 to 1994

  mm Hg1

  1991

  139

  1992

  138

  1993

  137

  1994

  136

  Note:

  1Millimetres of mercury.

  Source:

  Health Survey for England, 1994.

  Sex Offenders
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of employees of his Department who have committed sexual offences against children, from among those listed in "Sentencing and Supervision of Sex Offenders" while serving, and for which they were subsequently prosecuted, since 1972. [36521]

  Mr. Bowis
  I know of none.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department keeps a list of suspected sex offenders. [36528]

  Mr. Bowis
  No. The Department's consultancy service index contains details of some ex-child care workers who have resigned, been dismissed, or moved less sensitive posts in circumstances which suggest that the welfare or safety of children has been, or may be, put at risk.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of employees or volunteers in voluntary organisations who have committed sexual offences against children, while serving and for which they were subsequently prosecuted since 1972. [36520]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not collected.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in respect of those lists of convicted sex offenders held by his Department which may be consulted(a) the number of names on each list currently, (b) those who have access to each list, (c) what the lists are used for, (d) how long it takes on average to check a reference with such lists, (e) under what circumstances people are placed on the lists and (f) how the procedure described in (e) above is conveyed to local authorities. [36527]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department operates a consultancy service, which enables local authorities and private and voluntary child care organisations in England and Wales to check on the suitability of those they propose to employ to work with children.

  Procedures for making referrals to the consultancy index are set out in circulars to local authorities and child care organisations issued jointly by my Department, the Home Department, the Department for Education and Employment and the Welsh Office.

  Employers are encouraged to notify names to the consultancy service index in circumstances where a member of their staff has put the welfare of children at risk. There is no requirement for a conviction before referring a name to the index.
  235
  The index also contains the names of child care workers, or former child care workers, notified to the Department by the police following conviction for certain offences. In addition, it incorporates the Department for Education and Employment's list 99, a register of staff barred for working in educational establishments.

  Checks against the index are normally processed within 24 hours of receipt of an inquiry. If a positive identification is made, the prospective employer is advised to seek a reference from the organisation which referred the name to the index.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of statements taken in each individual local authority inquiry into abuse of children looked after or in care since 1972. [36519]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he issues in respect of the procedure for joint investigations between local authority social services departments and police forces for investigating allegations regarding abuse against children receiving a service from social services departments. [36526]

  Mr. Bowis
  Guidelines for joint investigations of allegations of abuse against children are contained in "Working Together under the Children Act 1989", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number and names of local authority inquiries into the sexual abuse of children looked after or in care since 1972; and which of these reports were made public. [36518]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the procedure for area child protection committees dealing with internal investigations into abuse of children in receipt of services from local authority, voluntary and private organisations. [36529]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for each individual area child protection committee to devise its own procedures for investigating abuse of children. The procedures should be derived from and consistent with the guidance given in "Working Together under the Children Act 1989", copies of which are available in the Library. Internal investigations should include an independent element.

  Operations Waiting Times (Cheshire)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the waiting times for(a) non-urgent operations and (b) urgent operations for hospitals in the Cheshire health authority for each of the last five years; and what is the national average figure. [36458]

  Mr. Horam
  Such information as is available on waiting times at hospitals in Cheshire is contained in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics, England" copies of which are available in the Library. On 31 March 1996, hospitals in Cheshire reported no one waiting more than 236
  one year for admission. Nationally, the average time waited by people still on a waiting list is 3.7 months compared with 7.6 months five years ago.

  Young People (Deaths)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of young people who have previously been looked after or in care at any time after 1984 whose subsequent deaths have been recorded in coroner's reports under each of the verdicts in the Coroners Rule 1984, (SI 1984 No. 552). [36523]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Opticians
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of opticians accepting NHS patients in(a) Crewe and Nantwich and (b) Cheshire for each of the last five years. [36495]

  Mr. Malone
  Below are the number of ophthalmic opticians, OOs, and ophthalmic medical practitioners, OMPs, under contract with Cheshire family health services authority to carry out national health service sight tests as at 31 December each year. Separate figures for Crewe and Nantwich are not held centrally.

  Year

  OOs

  OMPs

  Total

  1991

  153

  17

  170

  1992

  171

  13

  184

  1993

  157

  16

  173

  1994

  174

  15

  189

  1995

  178

  20

  198

  Preventive Medicine
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that the NHS funding formula is revised to give greater weighting to community health and preventive medicine programmes; and if he will make a statement. [36388]

  Mr. Horam
  A team of independent researchers from the universities of Plymouth and Kent have been commissioned to develop a needs weighting for community health services.

  Blood Donations
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the figures for donations of blood in the area covered by the Lancaster centre(a) in each of the two years before its closure and (b) in the period since its closure. [36058]

  Mr. Horam
  Donations of blood in the area covered by the Lancaster centre in the periods covered by the question have been:

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1st quarter

  13,198

  15,401

  16,044

  2nd quarter

  13,928

  14,964

  14,004

  3rd quarter

  14,327

  16,270

  —

  4th quarter

  15,111

  15,155

  —

  Total

  56,564

  61,790

  —

  237
  The Lancaster centre remains open, both as a donor centre and as a blood bank. Only the bulk processing and testing work it previously undertook was transferred to other centres in March 1996. The figures above for the second quarter of 1996 relate to the period since that transfer took place.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (I) if he will list for each local authority in England and Wales the number of children registered as working in(a) 1986 and (b) the last year for which figures are available; [36312]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of (a) children working in the United Kingdom and (b) violations of the registration requirements. [36316]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not collected centrally. Questions relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce legislation further to restrict child labour; and if he will make a statement. [36314]

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  NHS Advertising
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS spent on advertising costs in each region in each year since 1990–91. [35342]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 2 July 1996]: The information requested is not available. It is not possible to extract information on advertising costs from expenditure on areas such as health promotion initiatives and measures to improve local accountability, including the production of annual reports and information about services.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  EC Documents
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will state for each Session since 1990–91(a) the number of motions made consequent to debates on documents of the European Community considered in European Standard Committees, (b) the number of amendments relating thereto tabled in the house, (c) the number of Divisions arising and (d) the number of motions amended. [36310]

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Motions are made in the house to take note of European Community following reports from European Standards Committees:

  Sessions:

  1990–91: 30

  1991–92: 11

  1992–93: 51

  238

  1993–94: 31

  1994–95: 37

  1995–96: 24 (up to 4 July 1996)

  (b) Amendments to such motions moved in the House (information is not available as to amendments tabled but not moved).

  Session 1990–91: 1

  (c) Divisions on such motions:

  Sessions:

  1990–91: 2 (in the case of one motion both the amendment and main question were divided on)

  1991–92: 0

  1992–93: 3

  1993–94: 5

  1994–95: 2

  1995–96: 1 (up to 4 July 1996)

  (d) No such motions have been amended.

  Members' Pay and Allowances
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list(a) for each of the last 10 years, the annual rate for (i) hon. Members' pay and (ii) each category of allowance and (b) the proportion of hon. Members who draw these amounts in full, together with the average amount paid for each category in the most recent year for which figures are available. [36202]

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is as follows:

  i. Annual salary (as at 1 January each year)

  Year

  Full salary £

  Number of members who draw the full salary

  1987

  18,500

  1—

  1988

  22,548

  1—

  1989

  24,107

  1—

  1990

  26,701

  1—

  1991

  28,970

  649

  1992

  30,854

  648

  1993

  30,854

  650

  1994

  31,687

  646

  1995

  33,189

  646

  1996

  34,085

  649

  1 This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The average amount paid for salary-related costs for 1995–96 was £33,413.

  ii. Travel allowance; motor mileage allowance rates shown are in pence per mile, as at 1 April each year. Allowances reduce where aggregate mileage exceeds 20,000 at any point during a year, 1 April to 31 March.

  Year to 31March

  Rate 1

  Rate 2

  Rate 3

  Number of members exceeding 20,000 miles

  1987

  21.3

  32.0

  46.9

  1—

  1988

  22.7

  34.1

  53.5

  1—

  1989

  23.3

  35.4

  56.0

  1—

  1990

  25.4

  39.3

  61.9

  1—

  1991

  28.8

  43.4

  68.2

  1—

  1992

  28.8

  43.4

  68.2

  1—

  1993

  28.8

  43.4

  68.2

  163

  239

  Year to 31March

  Rate 1

  Rate 2

  Rate 3

  Number of members exceeding 20,000 miles

  1994

  29.5

  44.4

  69.8

  151

  1995

  30.5

  46.0

  72.2

  187

  1996

  31.3

  47.2

  74.1

  176

  1 This information is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  The following table shows the number of Members whose spouse and employees have taken up their full journey entitlement. Information for the years 1987 to 1991 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Year to 31 December

  Full spouse entitlement

  Full employee entitlement

  1992

  62

  90

  1993

  83

  118

  1994

  67

  80

  1995

  84

  31

  The average travel allowance expenditure per Member—including spouse and employee costs in 1995–96 was £13,552.06.

  iii Office costs allowance figures as at 1 April each year

  Year to 31 March

  Allowance £

  Members' take up of full allowance

  1987

  21,302

  1—

  1988

  22,588

  1—

  1989

  24,903

  1—

  1990

  27,166

  1—

  1991

  28,986

  1—

  1992

  39,960

  1—

  1993

  40,360

  1—

  1994

  41,308

  1—

  1995

  42,754

  1—

  1996

  43,908

  1—

  1 This information is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  The average expenditure per Member for the 1995–96 financial year was £42,507.15.

  iv. Additional costs allowance figures taken as at 1 April each year

  Year to 31 March

  Allowance £

  1987

  8,674

  1988

  9,298

  1989

  9,914

  1990

  10,570

  1991

  10,786

  1992

  10,901

  1993

  10,958

  1994

  11,268

  1995

  11,661

  1996

  11,976

  Information relating to Members taking the maximum allowance could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The average expenditure per Member for the 1995–96 financial year was £10,525.13.

  v. Secretarial pensions—restricted to 10 per cent. of the office costs allowance for each Member. Figures taken at 1 April each year.
  240

  Year to 31 March

  Allowance £

  1987

  2,130

  1988

  2,258

  1989

  2,490

  1990

  2,716

  1991

  2,899

  1992

  3,996

  1993

  4,036

  1994

  4,131

  1995

  4,275

  1996

  4,391

  vi. Private Member's Bill allowance is limited to £200 per Bill, and the total expenditure for 1995–96 financial year was £600. Three Members used the full allowance.

  vii. Winding-up allowance is limited to Members who leave the House.

  Year to 31 March

  Allowance £

  1994

  13,769

  1995

  14,251

  1996

  14,636

  Average expenditure per claimant for 1995–96 financial year was £3,791.39.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Motorway Accidents
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the locations of all accidents that occurred on the motorways of Northern Ireland 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. [35305]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service under its chief executive, Mr. W. McCoubrey. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from W. J. McCoubrey to Mr. Frank Field, dated 8 July 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your question about accidents on the motorways in Northern Ireland.
  A schedule listing injury accidents which occurred on the motorways in 1995 is attached together with a map, a copy of which has been placed in the library.

  1995 Road traffic injury accidents on motorways in Northern Ireland

  Motorway number

  Location of accidents

  Accident reference numbers

  M1

  At start of motorway

  951148

  M1

  At start of motorway

  951565

  M1

  At start of motorway

  952868

  M1

  At start of motorway

  953731

  M1

  Between start and junction 2

  951233

  M1

  Between start and junction 2

  951272

  M1

  Between start and junction 2

  951564

  M1

  Between start and junction 2

  951805

  M1

  Between start and junction 2

  954312

  241

  1995 Road traffic injury accidents on motorways in Northern Ireland

  Motorway number

  Location of accidents

  Accident reference numbers

  M1

  Between start and junction 2

  954665

  M1

  Between start and junction 2

  955179

  M1

  Between start and junction 2

  955249

  M1

  Between start and junction 2

  955860

  M1

  Between start and junction 2

  956035

  M1

  Between start and junction 2

  956062

  M1

  At junction 2

  95736

  M1

  At junction 2

  954303

  M1

  Between junctions 2 and 3

  952991

  M1

  At junction 3

  952384

  M1

  At junction 3

  954783

  M1

  At junction 3

  954943

  M1

  Between junction 3 and 6

  952379

  M1

  Between junction 3 and 6

  954049

  M1

  At junction 6

  95655

  M1

  At junction 6

  954333

  M1

  At junction 6

  954367

  M1

  At junction 7

  951767

  M1

  At junction 7

  952576

  M1

  At junction 7

  952673

  M1

  At junction 7

  953054

  M1

  At junction 7

  955411

  M1

  Between junctions 9 and 10

  95461

  M1

  Between junctions 9 and 10

  95710

  M1

  Between junctions 9 and 10

  952128

  M1

  Between junctions 9 and 10

  952204

  M1

  Between junctions 9 and 10

  952507

  M1

  Between junctions 9 and 10

  953888

  M1

  Between junctions 9 and 10

  953997

  M1

  Between junctions 9 and 10

  954248

  M1

  Between junctions 9 and 10

  954770

  M1

  Between junctions 9 and 10

  954957

  M1

  Between junctions 9 and 10

  955228

  M1

  Between junctions 9 and 10

  955509

  M1

  Between junctions 9 and 10

  955578

  M1

  Between junctions 9 and 10

  955581

  M1

  Between junctions 9 and 10

  956179

  M1

  Between junctions 9 and 10

  956446

  M1

  At junction 10

  95399

  M1

  At junction 10

  954129

  M1

  At junction 10

  954380

  M1

  Between junctions 10 and 11

  954332

  M1

  Between junctions 10 and 11

  954758

  M1

  At junction 11

  953043

  M1

  Between junctions 11 and 12

  955195

  M1

  Between junctions 11 and 12

  955273

  M1

  At junction 12

  95340

  M1

  Between junctions 12 and 13

  955763

  M1

  At junction 13

  95101

  M1

  Between junctions 13 and 14

  952632

  M1

  Between junctions 14 and 15

  953063

  M1

  Between junctions 14 and 15

  954659

  M1

  Between junctions 14 and 15

  955478

  M1

  At junction 15

  951940

  M12

  On M12

  95393

  M12

  OnM12

  956779

  M2

  Between start and junction 1

  9568

  M2

  Between start and junction 1

  95237

  M2

  Between start and junction 1

  951245

  M2

  Between start and junction I

  951756

  M2

  Between start and junction 1

  953004

  M2

  Between start and junction 1

  953459

  M2

  Between start and junction 1

  955806

  M2

  Between start and junction 1

  955822

  M2

  Between start and junction 1

  955837

  M2

  Between start and junction 1

  956115

  M2

  At junction 1

  9583

  M2

  At junction 1

  953853

  M2

  At junction 1

  956002

  M2

  At junction 1

  956679

  242

  1995 Road traffic injury accidents on motom>ays in Northern Ireland

  Motorway number

  Location of accidents

  Accident reference numbers

  M2

  Between junctions 1 and 2

  95240

  M2

  Between junctions 1 and 2

  952103

  M2

  Between junctions 1 and 2

  954995

  M2

  Between junctions 1 and 2

  955196

  M2

  Between junctions 1 and 2

  955253

  M2

  Between junctions 1 and 2

  956544

  M2

  Between junctions 1 and 2

  956606

  M2

  At junction 2

  954793

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  95218

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  95384

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  95980

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  95983

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  951064

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  951561

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  951967

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  952933

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  953460

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  953640

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  954560

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  954564

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  955248

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  955250

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  955254

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  955529

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  955708

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  955823

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  956292

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  956437

  M2

  Between junctions 2 and 4

  956672

  M2

  Between junctions 4 and 5

  95174

  M2

  Between junctions 4 and 5

  95639

  M2

  Between junctions 4 and 5

  951063

  M2

  Between junctions 4 and 5

  951845

  M2

  Between junctions 4 and 5

  955164

  M2

  At junction 5

  951567

  M2

  At junction 5

  955167

  M2

  Between junctions 5 and 6

  955189

  M2

  Between junctions 6 (M2) and 1 (M22)

  952636

  M2

  At junction 10

  95125

  M2

  At junction 10

  95151

  M2

  At junction 10

  954666

  M2

  At junction 11

  95377

  M2

  At junction 11

  951375

  M2

  Between junctions 11 and 12

  951247

  M22

  At junction 1

  954939

  M22

  Between junction 2 and end of Motorway

  955951

  M3

  OnM3

  956127

  M3

  On M3

  956433

  M5

  OnM5

  952928

  A8(M)

  On A8(M)

  952915

  A8(M)

  On A8(M)

  954433

  Arson
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will setup a task force to deal with ritualized arson attacks on Protestant churches and Orange halls.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The attacks on Protestant and Orange halls are serious criminal offences and as such the responsibility for investigation rests with the RUC. I understand, however, that it is not intended, at this time, to form a special task force for this purpose, but I can assure the hon. And learned Gentleman that the RUC is fully committed to prevent such attacks and a detailed thorough investigation will always be carried out.
  243

  Heart Surgery
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the current average waiting time for heart surgery for children(a) in Northern Ireland and (b) in each of the four area health and social services boards; [35497]

  (2) how many children are currently on the waiting list for heart surgery (a) in Northern Ireland and (b) in each of the four area health and social services boards: [35517]

  (3) if he will list the changes in spending on cardiac catherisations in each of the four area health and social services boards over the last five years; [35499]

  Mr. Moss
  Information is not collected centrally on the number of children in Northern Ireland waiting for heart surgery. The information held in the Department relating to the waiting list shows only the total number of patients and the lengths of time which they have been waiting. For this reason, it is not possible to provide a "current" average waiting time for children presently on the list. However, in regard to those children—aged 14 and under—who had cardiac surgery during the period 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996 the average waiting time was as follows:

  Board of residence

  Days

  Eastern Board

  121

  Northern Board

  91

  Southern Board

  131

  Western Board

  269

  Total for NI

  1 151

  1 The information in regard to 1995–96 is still provisional.

  Information is not collected centrally on expenditure on cardiac catheterisations.

  Railways Privatisation
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to privatise Northern Ireland Railways. [36357]

  Mr. Moss
  There are no plans at present to privatise Northern Ireland Railways.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cattle Culling
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the need for national legislation to provide for the implementation of a policy of culling cattle. [25867]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Department's on-going consideration of options for the selective slaughter of cattle in relation to bovine spongiform encephalopathy cover all the relevant aspects of the options including the need for a proper legislative basis.
  244

  Beef
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consumer research he has commissioned into consumer preference for beef marked as of British origin in fast food outlets. [35709]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government do not undertake consumer research of that nature. However, I understand that the Meat and Livestock Commission, with which we are in close contact, does carry out consumer research into consumers' preferences about the origin of beef products.

  Hong Kong (Quarantine)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the Governor of Hong Kong on reform of the present quarantine system. [35764]

  Mrs. Browning
  I am of course aware of the views of the Governor of Hong Kong on this issue, as these have been well reported in the media. I can confirm, however, that he has made no direct representations on this to me, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or, to the best of my knowledge, anyone in my Ministry.

  Rabies
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that veterinary surgeons have unrestricted access to the inactivated rabies vaccines approved by his Department for use on animals under their care. [35762]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 29 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), column 710.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the percentage of the European Union budget that goes to the common agricultural policy. [35777]

  Mr. Baldry
  Currently about half the European Union budget is spent on the common agricultural policy. This compares to about two thirds in 1988.

  Agricultural Subsidies
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the European Union budget goes to providing agricultural subsidies to the 1 per cent. of landholders. [35778]

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is not available.

  New Zealand Lamb
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact on the quotas for the importation of New Zealand lamb of the worldwide ban on the export of British beef imposed by the European Commission. [31065]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]: We do not consider the EU ban on exports of British beef to have any significant effect on the New Zealand lamb quota.

  245
  Furthermore, at a recent meeting of the World Trade Organisation International Meat Council, the New Zealand delegate took a similar view.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of confirmed BSE cases in England for each of the last 36 months. [33306]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 June 1996]: The number of confirmed BSE cases by date of confirmation in England for each of the last 36 months is:

  Month/Year

  Cases

  May 1993

  2,384

  June 1993

  2,815

  July 1993

  1,876

  August 1993

  2,322

  September 1993

  2,210

  October 1993

  2,228

  November 1993

  2,762

  December 1993

  2,013

  January 1994

  1,678

  February 1994

  2,655

  March 1994

  2,754

  April 1994

  2,141

  May 1994

  1,634

  June 1994

  2,140

  July 1994

  1,223

  August 1994

  1,338

  September 1994

  1,612

  October 1994

  1,757

  November 1994

  1,642

  January 1995

  1,441

  February 1995

  1,746

  March 1995

  1,434

  April 1995

  967

  May 1995

  1,220

  June 1995

  1,098

  July 1995

  1,080

  August 1995

  894

  September 1995

  827

  October 1995

  920

  November 1995

  945

  December 1995

  655

  January 1996

  785

  February 1996

  1,000

  March 1996

  736

  April 1996

  545

  246

  Month/Year

  Cases

  May 1996

  515

  June 1996

  939

  Total

  58,023

  There is a delay of around several weeks while diagnostic tests are completed, between the slaughter of BSE suspect animals and the confirmation of the case as being BSE. Procedural changes within the veterinary investigation service significantly reduced processing capacity from March to May, and the subsequent increase in June represents clearance of the backlog. A similar backlog resulting from public holidays and Christmas was cleared in February.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest date on which a BSE confirmed bovine was born. [33034]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 June 1996]: As at 9 July, the latest date on which a confirmed BSE bovine was born was 17 June 1993.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [35034]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 2 July 1996]: In 1995, the following statutory instruments repealed one or more previous statutory instruments without replacing them with a new regulation:

  The Dairy Products (Hygiene Regulations 1995: (S.I. 1995/1086)(6.S.I.s)

  The Spreadable Fats (Marketing Standards) Regulations 1995: (S.I. 1995/3116)(4 S.I.s)

  The Miscellaneous Food Additives Regulations 1995: (S.1. 1995/3187)(2.S.I.s)

  The Food (Miscellaneous Revocations and Amendments) Regulations 1995: (S.I. 1995/3267)(8.S.I.s)

  The Ministry has not found any such instruments in respect of 1994 or 1996, up to 1 May.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Recruitment and Assessment Services: Privatisation
Lord McNally Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are now able to provide evidence that the proposed privatisation of Recruitment and Assessment Services (RAS) would result in net savings in the future cost of the recruitment of civil servants.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, indicative bids for RAS and for the fast stream contracts have now been received and are being evaluated. We are confident that we can secure value for money for customers and the taxpayer from the sale.
Lord McNally: My Lords, have Ministers any idea just how demotivated and demoralised civil servants are by the Government's constant ideological and political interference in their once proud independence? Is there not a case for Ministers to call a moratorium on such behaviour until they receive a mandate from the electorate, or a government take office which can restore pride to our Civil Service?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord would be absolutely astonished if I even thought of beginning to agree with his contention. As he well knows, the Government are wholly committed to an independent-minded Civil Service which will continue to flourish in the best traditions of the Northcote-Trevelyan settlement in the past century. He will be as aware as I am that the world changes, and that the evolution of the Civil Service—which has been endorsed by a Select Committee in another place, together with the code which it suggested and which we also endorsed—is entirely within the confines of that particular principle.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that last week the Deputy Prime Minister told the Select Committee on public service that it had been his settled intention to privatise RAS for some months regardless of what this place said or did? Does he agree that that places the government spokesman in this House—and indeed this House itself—in some difficulty? Does he further agree that the only course open to this House is to debate and decide on the merits of the Select Committee's report in the confident expectation that colleagues will shame the Deputy Prime Minister into accepting the requirements of good faith and the courtesies due to Parliament?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as regards a debate on the Select Committee's report, I stand by the assurances that I have given your Lordships' House that if the Select Committee is in a position to deliver the first part of its investigation, which concerns RAS, to the Government in time for the Government to give it rapid but due consideration—the kind of consideration that the noble Lord and I agree should be given to the recommendations of a Select Committee—the usual channels will be encouraged by myself to try to find a time before the Recess in which the first part of the Select Committee's report can be debated. I understand that initiatives have been taken in that regard. I hope they will come to a satisfactory conclusion.
I read with considerable care the answers given to the Select Committee by my right honourable friend when he appeared before it. There is no doubt at all, as he made clear, that the Government have a settled intention to privatise. I would be wise to remind the noble Lord of my replies to the House in this respect. I used what may be considered too vernacular a term, but if the Select Committee suggests what the Government clearly understand to be a showstopper as to why the settled intention should become unsettled, we shall take that showstopper into consideration. That would, of course, unsettle the settled intention which my right honourable friend mentioned.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal used an uncharacteristically large number of words in that answer. He gave a somewhat defensive impression. The central point is: is the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal saying, or is he not, that whatever the Select Committee says, and whatever is said in this House in a subsequent debate, following the first debate with its overwhelming majority, the Government will take no notice of that?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that the Government will always take careful note of what this House says. I refer him to what I said to the House on 11th June last. I said that,
"if there appeared to be by implication any suggestion which would make … a show-stopper to the project for privatisation, the Government could take note and act".—[Official Report, 11/6/96; col. 1572.]
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that at the meeting to which the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, referred between the Select Committee and the Deputy Prime Minister, the latter, as I understand it, was asked a categorical question; namely, would the deliberations of the Select Committee be taken into account when it reached its decision? As I understand it, the answer from the Deputy Prime Minister was firm. He said that the decision had already been taken and would be proceeded with anyway. That is at odds with what the noble Viscount is telling us now.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I refer to the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. It is the Government's settled intention to privatise. If the

289
Select Committee's report gives a judgment and a reason as to why we should not continue with that, the Government would, of course, be duty bound to take account of it. However, that must be within the Government's own judgment to decide. It is not a judgment that we can turn over to the Select Committee. However, it would, of course, be most unwise to ignore what the Select Committee says. It would be extremely wise for the Government to think carefully and to consider what the Select Committee says. Assuming that we can manage to arrange a debate through the usual channels before the House rises, I shall endeavour to give a reasoned reaction to the Select Committee's report during the course of that debate.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is it not the case that the agreement that the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal reached to consider the report of the Select Committee, and to consider it seriously, was an agreement reached under pressure; in other words, under the pressure of the vote in your Lordships' House earlier this year? If that is the case, surely it is not open to the Deputy Prime Minister directly to contradict—as he appears to have done—the undertaking of the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I think that if I had been sitting where the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is sitting this afternoon, I should have been tempted to make the same mildly meretricious point. The truth of the matter is perfectly clear. I said to the House, in the wake of the debate that Friday to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, refers, that we would take careful note of the views of the House. It was proposed to me through the usual channels that this would be a suitable matter for the Select Committee to look into in the first instance. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would agree with me that I did not demur for a second that this was a suitable matter for the Select Committee to investigate; in fact I welcomed it. If that is pressure, then I hope that the usual channels would negotiate rather more forcefully on our behalf. The noble Lord clearly feels that such pressure could be effective in dealing with my noble friend the Chief Whip on this side of the House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that what the Deputy Prime Minister said or did not say to the Select Committee can in no way bind irrevocably the decision of another place, any more than the closing of 16 coal mines when Parliament was not in Session bound another place?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend is so familiar with the political career of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. I stand precisely where I have always stood on the issue. I welcome very much the House's interest. The Government will take the report seriously when it appears. We shall react, I hope, with our normal courtesy, and will give reasons for our decision when the debate is held.

Gulf War: Illness Study
2.41 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as patron of the Gulf Veterans Association.
The Question was as follows:
What was the source of funding for the contract for research into Gulf War syndrome to be conducted at King's College Medical School, and who is responsible for selecting those who will conduct the research.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, the study to be undertaken by Dr. Simon Wessely at King's College Medical School is being funded by the US Department of Defense as a result of its calls for proposals on possible causes and treatment of Gulf War veterans' illness. Dr. Wessely's research project is one of 12 selected by the research working group of the US Persian Gulf Veterans Co-ordinating Board.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that a great deal of concern is being expressed by individual Gulf War veterans, solicitors representing them and the organisations who support the Gulf veterans over the choice of Dr. Simon Wessely? He has written in The Times in uncompromising terms that Gulf War syndrome is caused solely by post-traumatic stress syndrome. Does the noble Earl appreciate that Gulf veterans who are ill will be unwilling to take part in the research because they believe that Dr. Wessely approaches the matter with preconceived ideas? Why do we have to rely on American money for research into our veterans? Can the Minister say how much we are spending on research and how many projects the Medical Research Council has already approved?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is not for me to comment on the likely course of Dr. Wessely's research. His research proposal was selected by a team of US research experts asked to commission studies which were most likely to discover whether the Gulf War had any unusual or unique health effects on personnel who served in the conflict. It is a study commissioned by the US Government, not by us. We have nothing to do with the decision which the US authorities took.
The noble Countess asked about British research which is, of course, much more on my mind than the US programme. Work to commission research is proceeding under the oversight of the Medical Research Council. It will be resourced adequately by the Government for approved research projects. We are satisfied that the timetable is being adhered to. The MRC intends to make its decision on proposals to be accepted by the end of October and work will proceed thereafter.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, if, as the noble Countess stated, the doctor has expressed preconceived ideas, does that not disqualify him from independent research?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have said that this is work commissioned by the US Government. I understand that Dr. Wessely enjoys a high reputation in his particular field. I do not wish to make any further comment on that. The UK Government are not involved in the commissioning of the work.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister says that the UK Government have not been involved in commissioning the research and that it is funded entirely by the United States Department of Defense. What is the Government's view of the research? Do the Government support the project in general despite providing no funds or do they condemn it?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we have been in close touch with the US authorities on the work they have commissioned. We have no reason to doubt that the decision taken by the US authorities was not well founded. However, I cannot accept the allegation that Dr. Wessely is inherently biased towards the work he is undertaking. The article that I read concerning his approach to the subject emphasised the need for a rigorous scientific approach to research in this area, which I am sure is the only way forward.
Lord Desai: My Lords, can the Minister explain why it has taken such a long time for the MRC to commission research? It has not yet commissioned anyone. How long will it take to find the reasons for the Gulf War syndrome?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is important that the eminent scientific and medical specialists appointed by the MRC to oversee the matter have sufficient time to assess the background material to matters related to Gulf War illness and to assess the proposals submitted. It was also important to give sufficient time to potential researchers to formulate their own proposals. I do not think that we dragged our feet. I believe that the research that the United States is undertaking, and the research that we shall be commissioning, will dovetail satisfactorily.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to answer this question? Will the work undertaken by Dr. Wessely be published freely in the open literature? That seems to me a prime consideration in relation to its independence.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question. I shall write to the noble Lord with an answer. I understand that Dr. Wessely's research will focus on the prevalence of unexplained illnesses including chronic fatigue-like symptoms in members of the UK Armed Forces deployed to the Gulf.

Armenia: Issue of Visas by British Embassy
2.47 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the British Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia, will be in a position to issue visas for visitors to this country.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we hope to be able to start issuing visas in Yerevan for Armenian nationals this autumn. We are currently working on putting into place the necessary administrative arrangements.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for that helpful and constructive reply. I hope that her department has always borne in mind that to ask someone to travel over 1,000 miles to obtain a visa is not helpful to that person or to us if we intend to trade with that country.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Earl. We have had to work out how to provide this service because, as I believe the noble Earl knows, the embassy has been established for only about a year. It is a very small post. However, between perhaps 600 and 1,000 Armenian nationals may want to come to this country. I fully agree with him that it is sensible to issue that limited number of visas in Yerevan.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether there is an Armenian Embassy in London?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, yes. I am fairly certain that there is.
Baroness Cox:My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Armenia is among the most stable politically of all the countries of the former Soviet Union? It is also beginning to thrive economically despite the continuing blockades by Azerbaijan and Turkey. I hope that her answer will give some comfort to the Armenian people. They have felt immensely hurt by the inconvenience of having to travel to Moscow. They have seen it as a rather dilatory policy of initiating visas and there has been some anti-British feeling. Does she agree that her answer may give some comfort and reassurance?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I certainly hope that it will make it easier for the Armenian people who want to come to Britain to obtain those visas. That is why we are making the necessary arrangements. Perhaps I may underline that although at present commercial opportunities for British companies in Armenia are somewhat limited because of the state of the economy, there are now increases in exports to Armenia and in Armenian exports to the United Kingdom. Far more needs

293
to be done to build that up and then perhaps there will be even more visitors. However, we are making a good start.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many nationals of other former Soviet Union countries have to go to Moscow to get visas?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot be sure of the figures as I do not have them in my file. I apologise to the noble Lord and will let him know.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I hope the Minister will forgive me if my question is a little wider. Can she tell the House what steps the Government are taking, either through the European Union or with any other international agencies, to encourage new forms of co-operation in areas such as transport and communications between Armenia and its neighbours, Azerbaijan and Georgia? Does she agree that it is important to secure lasting peace in the region and that now would be a good time to start co-operation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am all for co-operation if the parties are also willing to discuss the issues in a sensible way. I hope that it will be achieved. The OSCE has been making efforts in the region and a good deal can be done. We have always regarded the Minsk group as the main forum for achieving progress towards peaceful settlements of the dispute in the area. It has created much more contact than there used to be, but everyone needs to work at it—all the countries in the region and not only members of the European Union. That includes Mother Russia.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, would my noble friend be too shocked to receive my heartfelt thanks for the answer she has given to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon? It will come as great comfort to many of us who wish to trade with Armenia and have Armenians here for training in know-how.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am absolutely overwhelmed.

The Western Sahara
2.51 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are taking any initiatives other than through the United Nations, to find a political resolution to the crisis in the Western Sahara.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we regret the suspension of the identification process. We continue to believe that the best solution remains in
294
supporting the UN Secretary General and his staff in their attempts to resolve the conflict in the Western Sahara. We urge both Polisario and Morocco to co-operate fully with MINURSO, the United Nations scheme in the area.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. But what does she think the consequences will be for the people of the area, and also for the credibility of the United Nations, following its complete and absolute failure to bring about a fair and free referendum following the withdrawal of part of MINURSO? Does the Minister agree that the only option that unfortunately seems to be available to the Saharan people is a resumption of the war? If there is such a resumption, as I fear there will be, is there not a grave risk to the stability of the whole area? And what will be the consequences for Europe?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is difficult to tell my noble friend what the consequences might be. I have already said that we have been concerned at the lack of progress in the identification process. When the Secretary General reported on 8th May, recommending the suspension of the identification process, we said that it was disappointing. My colleague, the Minister of State, the right honourable Jeremy Hanley, discussed the conflict with the Moroccan deputy foreign minister in Rabat earlier this month, in an effort to try to help the process.
What must happen is co-operation of both parties with the UN on confidence-building measures. If political prisoners are not released and if there is no exchange of prisoners of war, frustrations will further build up. The frustrations of the Polisario worry us very much because we believe that it is essential that the ceasefire be maintained. It is difficult to predict, but renewed fighting will achieve absolutely nothing. It risks drawing in the neighbours—something which the UN and the whole free world should seek to avoid.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does not the main difficulty arise from the attempts by Morocco to introduce persons on to the register who are not properly qualified? Why has the Secretary General found it so difficult to develop alternative procedures for the proper identification of voters that will satisfy both sides but will ensure that persons who are not qualified are not placed on the register?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I must be honest with the noble Lord, I do not know the answer. I too should be fascinated to find out why it has happened. I shall do my best to do so and will drop him a line.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government have discussed the question of the Western Sahara with President Mandela, given his wish to recognise it formally and also given that he has already made an

295
offer to do so to the leader of the Polisario Front? Will the Minister also say whether there is any prospect of the registration process being re-started?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in answer to the first question, not this morning, we did not have time; I shall try again tonight. The answer to the second question is that the door has been firmly closed on the current series of registrations. However, we continue to believe that it should happen and we will see what can be done. Some of us seek to follow that path, but at the moment it is not one that the United Nations seems to be willing to re-start.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many in this House appreciate and agree with the cautious attitude that she is taking to the problem? Is she further aware that many interests are involved on the periphery of the Western Sahara? They would be only too delighted to stir the pot even further with a view to provoking trouble. Does she accept that her attitude towards the problem is acceptable to those of us who wish to establish real peace in the area?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. We are right to be cautious. As he knows, we and other Security Council members not only supported Resolutions 1042 and 1056 earlier this year, but also in private we have encouraged the two parties. In the UN, we have encouraged them to consider additional ways in which new confidence might be created between the parties in order to facilitate the implementation of the settlement plan.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
2.58 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
As your Lordships will see from the report before the House, the Procedure Committee thought it right to draw attention to three matters of procedure where the conventions of the House have not always been followed in recent times.
Under Item 1, the committee reminds the House of the guidance set out in the Companion to the Standing Orders concerning supplementary questions. It draws particular attention to the guidance that supplementary questions should not be read.
Under Item 2, the committee reminds the House that it is undesirable to refer to strangers, whether in the public gallery or in any other part of the Chamber.
Finally, under Item 3, the committee points to the guidance in the Companion about the ways in which the Members of the House should be referred to in debate. They should not be addressed directly, nor should they be addressed as "you". I commend the report to the House.
Moved, That the Fourth Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 90).— (The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS TO STARRED QUESTIONS
The Committee reminds the House of the following guidance set out in the Companion to the Standing Orders (page 85) concerning supplementary questions to starred questions:
"Supplementary questions may be asked but they should be short and confined to not more than two points. If a supplementary question exceeds these guidelines, the Minister need only answer the two main points. Supplementary questions are confined to the subject of the original question, and Ministers should not answer irrelevant questions. The essential purpose of supplementaries is to elicit information, and they should not incorporate statements of opinion. They should not be read. The Lord who tabled the question has no automatic right to ask a final supplementary question."
We draw particular attention to the guidance that supplementary questions should not be read.
2. REFERENCES TO STRANGERS
The Committee draws the attention of the House to the guidance in the Companion (page 69) that it is undesirable to refer to strangers, whether in the public gallery or in any other part of the Chamber.
3. APPELLATIONS
The Committee reminds the House that guidance is set out in both the Companion (page 75) and the Brief Guide (page 3) about the ways in which Members of the House should be referred to in debate. The term "you" should not be used.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that was a most valuable contribution. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will emphasise the intention of the Government to enforce the advice that is being given by the Procedure Committee. In particular, my noble friend did not refer to the very important line in the report:
"We draw particular attention to the guidance that supplementary questions should not be read".
Will my noble friend do all he can to enforce that extremely valuable recommendation?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. In answer to his final point, I must confess that I had hoped that that was precisely what I was seeking to do just now. But just to give him the additional reassurance that he clearly seeks, I shall continue to try to do my best to encourage those of your Lordships who are not as punctilious as the noble Lord in following the rules of procedure of the House to do so.
I thank the noble Lord for his opening remarks; and I would like to say that both I and the Procedure Committee of this House are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and others who raised the point with the committee about supplementary questions being read. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, who raised the point about strangers.
So far as the remaining point is concerned, perhaps that is not a matter for me to answer. It is probably safe to say that that, too, is a matter on which those concerned would seek to do their best.
Baroness David: My Lords, who is supposed to give tuition to new Members, and indeed to Whips, on both sides of the House about how to address the House? I have noticed that people in quite senior positions in the House make mistakes in this area.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in answer to the first part of the noble Baroness's question, since in this House we have beneficially and admirably a collective form of order, the responsibility lies upon all of us. However, I know, and other noble Lords will be able to confirm, that the Clerk of the Parliaments is assiduous in briefing newcomers to this House and in particular draws to their attention the Standing Orders of the House and the Companion to the Standing Orders. After that, he cannot sit there while new Members read them. It is up to new Members to obtain copies—indeed, I believe that they are provided with them—and so far as is possible learn them, or certainly read them and try to digest them.
Others who might consider that they have a duty here as well are those who are invariably helpful; that is, the usual channels.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, ought we not to follow the example of the driving test and have an examination, including multiple choice questions?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Lord poses an impossible question for me. I do not know whether that would be a suitable way of doing things at all, bearing in mind that when I took my driving test I failed it the first time.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in order to understand in detail the full effects of the report, was my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in order or not in reading part of his supplementary question?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I must confess that I did not notice that.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, has the noble Lord observed that Members on his Front Bench, when confronted with a question from behind, tend to turn round and address the answer there instead of addressing the House?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, with respect, that is perfectly correct. It is an approach that we should certainly follow.
Perhaps I may say a word on the last question on the report from the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. In defence of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, strictly speaking the question on the report put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was not a supplementary question to a Starred Question.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 123:
Before Clause 95, insert the following new clause—
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS ETC
(".—(1) Section 27 of the Housing Act 1985 (management agreements) shall be amended as follows—
(2) In subsection (5), before "the Secretary of State" insert—"Subjection to subsection (5A)".
(3) After subsection (5) insert—
"(5A) The Secretary of State's approval shall not be given in any case where he is informed by a local authority that—

(a) following such consultation as is required under section 27A (consultation with respect to management agreements), the authority is satisfied that the majority of the tenants of the houses affected by a proposal to enter into a management agreement do not wish the proposal to proceed, or

(b) following such consultation as is required under section 27AA (management agreements and compulsory competitive tendering) in relation to bids submitted by any person to exercise any of the management functions of the authority, the authority is satisfied that the majority of tenants affected would prefer that the authority exercise those management functions themselves.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment also stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Dubs.
This matter was not raised in Committee. I accept that the drafting of my amendment is somewhat complex. Nevertheless, I hope the purpose is entirely clear. It is to reinstate what is known as the "tenants' veto" on the contracting out of housing management services. Section 27 of the Housing Act 1985 enables a local housing authority to delegate its housing management functions to a managing agent under a management agreement, subject to approval by the Secretary of State. Such delegation may take place after voluntary competitive tendering, following compulsory competitive tendering or under an arrangement whereby management is delegated to a tenant-management organisation.
In the 1993 Act, the Government introduced a rather different system. Until that Act if local authorities proposed to enter into a management agreement to consult the tenants affected, if the majority of such tenants were opposed to the proposal the Secretary of State had a right to say, "You cannot go ahead". That was known as the "tenants' veto". The tenants' veto was removed by the Act. The Government's argument for doing so was that the tenants' veto was unnecessary given the new and more extensive rights to consultation that were introduced. That said, the justification for removing the veto as it applied to voluntary competitive tendering was never spelt out.
I shall not go into the progress of CCT, as it is called, which is being introduced in three phases. A number of authorities have not been required to expose their housing management service to CCT because the value of work falling within the defined activity falls below the de minimis level agreed by the Government. The number of authorities claiming exemption on the grounds of de minimis exceeded the Government's expectations; and the Government are now consulting on a proposal to revise the de minimis exemption to bring these authorities back within the requirement of compulsory competitive tendering.
The effect since the 1993 Act has been very interesting. The overall effect is that about 40 per cent. of the housing management work which will eventually be subject to CCT was exposed to competition in the period leading up to April this year. Local authorities have been very successful in winning contracts in the first round. The private sector, on compulsory competitive tendering, won a little over 2 per cent. of the work exposed to tender.
The result can be attributed to the small number of private contractors who are interested in the business. Experience of previous rounds of competitive tendering have shown that the private sector takes time to learn the skills—how to bid and in what form. It is far too early for either the Government or contractors to conclude that local authorities have been trying to freeze out private contractors. Nevertheless, following complaints from unsuccessful private housing management contractors, the Government have now issued a consultation paper proposing, as your Lordships would expect, a number of changes to the framework for CCT, admitting openly that the results of the first round were not as they expected; that is, that private contractors would do the business. In other words, too many contracts were won in competitive tendering by local authorities and that did not satisfy the Government.
A particular feature of housing management compulsory competitive tendering, compared with CCT for other local authority services, is the requirement to consult tenants under Section 27AA of the Housing Act 1985. That is because contracts for housing management services are classified as management agreements to which Section 27 applies and that is the reason for the drafting of the amendment I am putting before the House today.
In many authorities tenants have been involved in interviewing contractors and selecting tenders. But under the present arrangements tenants are not allowed to reject a contractor outright if they are satisfied with the price and quality of the housing management services they receive.
The consultation paper recently issued by the Department of the Environment starts off by saying that Ministers have reviewed the initial implementation of CCT and find that it is not entirely satisfactory. They accept that private sector bidders have won very few contracts. They accept that the Audit Commission expressed concern about the way in which bids were handled. They also accept that, on housing management, around 100 authorities are or will shortly conclude that
300
they are de minimis and do not expose any work to competition. The paper says that that is many more than anticipated.
The review conducted by the Department of the Environment confirmed that all CCT contracts are being awarded in-house except in certain authorities. For example, 62 of the first 69 contracts were awarded to in-house teams, won by local authorities, which means eight contracts were awarded to external suppliers. It is our view—it is time that your Lordships had the opportunity of considering this problem again—that compulsory competitive tendering has not led to any improvement at all in management services to housing in local authorities. Furthermore, it is our contention that the tenants' veto—the right of the tenants to be able to say, "We do not want this"—should be reinstated. That is the object of my amendment. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, if I am allowed to say "I"—following the advice earlier this afternoon—perhaps I can say that I support the amendment. This is not an argument against compulsory competitive tendering. There are times and places for that, and I would be happy to debate the good and bad qualities of CCT—but not this afternoon. It is an argument to reinstate a right which was taken away in 1983 and not replaced. It was taken away on the grounds that it was not necessary because of the amount of tenant consultation that would be carried out as part of the competition process but without the question "What harm would its retention do?" ever being answered.
Referring back to your Lordships' debates during the passage of the 1993 Bill, we were told by the Government that they proposed that tenants should be involved in every aspect of the delegation process: from drawing up the tender specifications to involvement in the shortlisting; from interviewing of tenderers to monitoring performance and service delivery; and, if need be, advising the local authority on enforcement and penalty procedures. That is involvement in every aspect except the decision itself.
We were also told that the Government have always believed that full and effective consultation with tenants should be an integral part of the preparation for management agreements. But those consultation arrangements should fit with the times. The Government argued that the tenants' veto was introduced when competitive tendering in the housing management area was voluntary and in making it compulsory the need for a tenants' veto was met by the process.
It seems to me, looking back with the benefit of three years hindsight—always better than one's consideration at the time—that when the process was voluntary and there was no compulsion on the parties to go down a road that they resisted, there was far more likelihood that involvement of tenants would be very good involvement. When the parties are compelled to do something, their resentment may show itself in a number of forms, one of which may be in failing to involve tenants with quite as much enthusiasm, despite the

301
formal requirements, as one would like to see. I think it is timely therefore to bring this matter back and I support the proposition.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. It may be useful to the House if I try to explain some of the historical background to the situation with which we are faced in slightly different terms from those explained by my noble friend.
I shall not give an historical reprise of the whole of the past 15 years, but perhaps the House will bear with me. In the early 1980s, the subsidy that the Government provided to local housing authorities was massively cut. There were two consequences. One was that the resources available for housing management and maintenance were reduced which resulted over the years in a decline in the standards of management in many areas. But it also effectively required a massive increase in council house rents. That prompted local resistance—local housing authorities are after all elected by the local communities—with the result that finances were squeezed even more.
It has been realised that housing benefit pays for a lot of council house rents and therefore an increase in rents is effectively covered by housing benefit. That is part of the reason for the massive increase in housing benefit payments over the past few years. Local housing authorities have attempted to catch up.
The net result is that in most local authority areas the resources that have become available for housing management have increased. It is recognised that there needs to be an increase in resources to improve the standards of local authority housing management. That has effectively taken place in the vast majority of local housing authorities throughout the country.
We also have to recognise what I would describe as the almost personal relationship between housing management and tenants. Tenants get to know the local senior housing officers. A relationship develops which, as things improve, is positive, mutually beneficial and useful for the development of local authority housing. One of the difficulties is that compulsory competitive tendering creates a risk that a new housing management team will take over. That personal relationship, which can be very beneficial, is at risk of being lost. Part of the justification, and the reason for my support, for my noble friend's amendment is that it will enable tenants to hang on to something that is very beneficial to them, if they feel that way. I recognise that there may be alternative circumstances where there may be examples of bad housing management and tenants recognise that there is a need to get a new team to do a better job. In that case they would vote accordingly. This amendment effectively protects tenants and in a very real sense ensures effective local housing management. I hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, both the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have said that they will not discuss CCT in general and that they wish to keep the debate to the
302
subject of this particular amendment. I am sorry about that. If we were to discuss CCT in general we might have a chance to agree about something because I am sure that both noble Lords will agree that this is yet another successful Conservative policy which has, at last and at length, been adopted by the opposition parties, having seen the benefits that it can bring to local authorities and the amount of cash that can be freed for other activities.
From now on I shall confine myself to the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, did, eventually.
Amendment No. 123 would, in effect, allow tenants to veto any proposal by a local authority to delegate its housing management functions either voluntarily or under compulsory competitive tendering. It is important that there should be some form of balancing check to secure the best interests of tenants where local authorities choose to delegate housing management. However, we believe that the current arrangements for tenant consultation achieve this more effectively than a power of veto.
The veto is a blunt instrument which allows tenants a stark choice between saying yes or no. Tenants already have considerable scope under current arrangements directly to influence constructively and positively the ways in which their homes are managed. Tenants are actively involved in drawing up specifications, setting standards of service, evaluating tenders and selecting contractors. Local authorities also have to involve them in monitoring the performance of the manager, whether this is an external contractor or the local authority's in-house team under compulsory competitive tendering.
Many authorities already have extensive consultation arrangements in place and are able to follow guidance that was issued two years ago. This guidance was issued following consultation with, among others, the local authority associations, local authorities, private sector contractors, the Chartered Institute of Housing and tenant advice agencies. It aims to set out the principles we would expect authorities to follow in setting up their own local consultation arrangements and we are keeping this guidance under review. We have existing powers to make regulations imposing consultation requirements on local authorities but do not consider it necessary to make any regulations at present because local authorities have been following this guidance, and in many cases going beyond what we expected.
We have included a provision in paragraph 3 of Schedule 16 to the Bill to correct a defect in the existing powers to make regulations under Sections 27A and 27AA of the Housing Act 1985 governing the consultation arrangements of local authorities with their tenants. This provision covers the same ground as the existing Sections 27A and 27AA but also allows regulations to be made for the case where the local authority continues to carry out the management itself following a compulsory competitive tendering exercise.
Tenant consultation is central to compulsory competitive tendering of housing management and has been a key factor in improving management standards. The CCT process is carried out in accordance with a

303
strict statutory framework. It is open and transparent. If the local authority in-house team do not come up with the most competitive bid the authority has to delegate its housing management to another contractor. The authority cannot ignore the process.
Where local authorities decide to delegate their management voluntarily, the Secretary of State's consent will not be forthcoming unless the authority has consulted their tenants in accordance with the Department of the Environment's guidance and complied with certain competitive tendering arrangements. We firmly believe that the benefits of competition and tenant consultation on specifications, and the subsequent monitoring of the manager's performance under the specification, fully safeguards the interests of tenants.
Delegation of housing management does not take away any of the existing rights of tenants. The properties remain in council ownership. As I have explained, tenants are now directly influencing the delivery of housing services through current consultation requirements. To impose an additional burden on authorities—in effect requiring them to ballot their tenants before any future contract is let—would be onerous and inappropriate. It would certainly cut across the arrangements put in place by those authorities which have already delegated housing management functions.
We are delighted by the way local authorities are responding in this area and are venturing into compulsory competitive tendering for their housing activities. We see no reason to interfere with the arrangements that have been put into place, which seem to us to be working very well, and to revert to a system which we left behind, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, suggested, some while ago and which to us seems no longer appropriate.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that he would be glad to have a general debate on CCT. I, too, would be glad to have such a debate because, despite the party political broadcast which the noble Lord started with, we have some ammunition on our side.
But I shall confine myself to the amendment. It would not remove any of the existing rights of tenants to involvement or consultation in CCT. All it would do is to act as a final backstop where tenants feel that they really have to resist the operation of Conservative dogma, as the noble Lord would probably have put it. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was right in saying that the more involvement and agreement that there is with tenants, the more they will feel happy and satisfied with their housing management. By introducing this measure as a final backstop—in other words, to go back to where we were before the 1993 Act—is a sensible move. My noble friend Lord Monkswell said quite rightly that this amendment would help to protect tenants further than they are protected at the moment.
Again, we come back to the same point. There is a serious political difference between ourselves and the Government. We do not believe that this
304
amendment would spoil any of those lovely Conservative ideas that the Government have imposed on local authorities; it would simply give tenants a backstop right to prevent their houses being managed by someone they did not want. There is a serious disagreement and the only way to resolve it is to ask for the opinion of the House.
3.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 123) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 152.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Kennet, L.

Addington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Kintore, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lockwood, B.

Barnett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McNair, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNally, L.

Blease, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Borrie, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Meston, L.

Carlisle, E.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Morris of Castle Morris, L

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Rea, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rochester, L.

Donoughue, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Seear, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Dubs, L.

Simon, V.

Elis-Thomas L

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Ezra, L.

Stallard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Fitt, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gallacher, L.

Taverne, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Geraint, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Thurso, V.

Hampton, L.

Tope, L.

Hamwee, B.

Tordoff, L.

Haskel, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whaddon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Blatch, B.

Addison, V.

Blyth, L.

Ailsa, M.

Boardman, L.

Aldington, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Alport, L.

Bradford, E.

Arran, E.

Brentford, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Bumham, L.

Balfour, E.

Butterworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Caldecote, V.

Beloff, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Berners, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Blake, L.

Carew, L.

Blaker, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

305

Carnock, L.

Lucas, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carrington, L.

Lyell, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

McConnell, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Chelmsford, V.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Coleridge, L.

Mersey, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Middleton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Courtown, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cox, B.

Mountevans, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Munster, E.

Cross, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cuckney, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Orkney, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V.

Oxfuird, V.

De Freyne, L.

Palmer, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denham, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pender, L.

Derwent, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dundonald, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elles, B.

Pym, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Quinton, L.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Erne, E.

Rawlings, B.

Erroll, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renton, L.

Flather, B.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Gainford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Geddes, L.

Sharples, B.

Gisborough, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Goschen, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Somerset, D.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strafford, E.

Headfort, M.

Strange, B.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L [Teller.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Suffield, L.

Howe, E.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swinfen, L.

Ilchester, E.

Swinton, E.

Inchcape, E.

Terrington, L.

Inglewood, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Ironside, L.

Trumpington, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Vivian, L.

Kimball, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Waterford, M.

Lauderdale, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Wolfson, L.

Leigh, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Lindsay, E.

Wynford, L.

Long, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 124:
Before Clause 95, insert the following new clause—

TERMINATION OF SECURE TENANCY ON DEATH OF TENANT
(" In Section 89 of the Housing Act 1985 (succession to periodic tenancy), for subsection (3) there shall be substituted—
"(3) Where there is no person qualified to succeed the tenant, the tenancy ceases to be a secure tenancy when—

(a) it is vested or otherwise disposed of in the course of the administration of the tenant's estate unless the vesting or other disposal is in pursuance of an order made under section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (property adjustment orders in connection with matrimonial proceedings), or

(b) it is known that when it is so vested or disposed of it will not be a secure tenancy.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dubs. These amendments are, I accept, rather complex and address issues which we have not discussed before. They should therefore be seen in the nature of probing amendments to elicit a response from the Government.
Amendment No. 124 has as its purpose to remove an anomaly in the present drafting of Section 89 of the Housing Act 1985 which allows that when a secure tenant dies, the tenancy may remain secure for a period after his death even though it is known that there is no successor. Section 89 applies where a secure tenant dies and the tenancy is a periodic tenancy. Subsection (3) provides that:
"Where there is no person qualified to succeed the tenant and the tenancy is vested or otherwise disposed of in the course of the administration of the tenant's estate, the tenancy ceases to be a secure tenancy unless the vesting or other disposal is in pursuance of an order made under Section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973".
The wording of the subsection implies that the tenancy remains secure after the death of a secure tenant until the tenancy is vested in the manner described. That seems to us to have certain defects. We contrast it with Section 90 of the 1985 Act which deals with fixed-term tenancies and in which rather different rules govern what happens when a tenant dies without a successor. My amendment would import a similar wording into Section 89. The effect, without any significant diminution in the rights of secure tenants, will be to ease the task of the local authorities in gaining possession of dwellings left vacant by the death of secure tenants without affecting any rights. In our view, that would allow more effective use of the housing stock and would reduce the number of empty local authority homes.
Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 seek to protect those who were living with the tenant when the tenant died. As it stands, the Bill would prevent an obvious successor to the person who has died from taking up succession if the person who had died was himself a successor. The amendments attempt to tackle that anomaly. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is aware, these provisions were discussed in another place and I hope for some sympathetic response from the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, secure tenants enjoy the right of succession. This means that their spouse, or a close relative who has been living in the home for the previous 12 months, may succeed to the tenancy on their death. There can only be one succession under the law as it stands.

307
Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 would have the effect of granting succession in perpetuity by allowing more than one succession. I do not believe that that is necessary; indeed, I would go as far as to say that it would be undesirable.
There has been considerable discussion of succession rights both in this House and in another place. Examples were cited of unfortunate cases where the close companion—or indeed the adult child—of the tenant would not have the automatic right to inherit a tenancy. As a result my right honourable friend David Curry gave an undertaking to issue unequivocal advice to local authorities on how they should deal with such cases. The guidance was issued on 14th May. Circular 7/96, Local Authority Joint Tenancies, addresses the same problem as the amendments—the case where a member of the household dies and there is another member of the household who does not have the right to succeed, but in the context of local authorities' general role in ensuring effective use and fair allocation of their stock. Local authorities' first priority in assessing need is the provision of housing for families with children, and vulnerable individuals, who are trying to cope with wholly unsuitable accommodation. In our view, it would not be right to hamper the difficult decisions that have to be made by local authorities by tying up properties for generations.
The circular advises that where a member of the household dies and there is another member of the household who does not have the right to succeed, the local authority should, if certain conditions apply, normally grant a tenancy to the remaining person in the same home or in suitable alternative accommodation. The circumstances must be that the remaining person has been living with the tenant in the year before the tenant's death, or had been looking after the tenant, or had accepted responsibility for the tenant's dependants.
We therefore believe there is no need to extend statutory succession rights in the way the amendment suggests because of the substantive advice offered by the circular which has been well received by local authorities. A person left in a home after the death of a tenant who has no right of succession will be quite clear as to what he might expect the local authority policy to be and will be in a position to draw the Department of the Environment's advice to the authority's attention.
I think that that is quite enough of a disagreement to have with the noble Lord, so I am happy to be of a brighter mind when it comes to Amendment No. 124. We sympathise with the concerns expressed by the noble Lord on the subject but, as he has no doubt observed, this is an intricate piece of legislation and we should like to consider the matter further. If it should prove necessary to have an amendment to achieve what the noble Lord has in mind, we shall bring one forward on Third Reading. I hope that that gives the noble Lord sufficient comfort to enable him to withdraw his amendment at this stage.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, with the leave of the House, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can clarify something he said. I thought I heard him say in the earlier part of his remarks that someone would have security of tenure if their mother or father died and if they had been living in their home for 12 months. The noble Lord said later that there would be some security of tenure and that the local authority could allow continued tenure if that person had been living in the house within those 12 months. There seems to be a clash there. On the one hand the Government appear to be saying that you need to have been living in the house for at least 12 months; on the other hand they are referring to "within a period of 12 months".
While the Minister is looking for the answer, perhaps I may give an example that I have come across of a son of a tenant who had grown up in a house, left home and gone to live elsewhere but the circumstances of his living elsewhere broke down and he went back to live with his mother who then died within 12 months. In practice, the local authority allowed him to assume the tenancy and within a few years he had moved on and the house had become available for re-letting. I wonder whether the discretion that local authorities enjoyed a few years ago is still available. Obviously, such a discretion would be useful in such human circumstances, as I am sure the Minister appreciates.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, one of the many virtues of guidance is that it allows local authorities to exercise some common sense in such situations. The circular refers to a person who has been living with a tenant for a year before the tenant's death, or who has been looking after the tenant, or who has accepted responsibility for the tenant's dependants. Clearly, if that period lasted for 11 months and 20 days there is nothing in the guidance to impose a strict cut-off and the local authority would be able to treat that period as if it had been a year. The guidance is merely there to give guidance, not to set strict rules which would result in silly decisions.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful, as always, to the Minister for responding to the amendments. On Amendments Nos. 125 and 126, I fully accept the fact that there is guidance, but if the Government accept the principle of further successions in the circumstances described in the circular I fail to see why that should not be written into statute. The principle seems quite clear as explained by the noble Lord. So if it is included in a circular, why not in statute? I cannot see any impediment to that.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the assurance that he will look again at Amendment No. 124 to see whether it is necessary to produce a government amendment on Third Reading in order to clarify what is at the moment a rather obscure situation. In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 126A:
Before Clause 95, insert the following new clause—

EXTENSION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS TO TENANTS OF REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORDS
(".—In Chapter I of Part I of Housing Act 1988 (assured tenancies) after section 19 (restriction on levy of distress for rent) there shall be inserted—
Extension of certain rights of tenants of registered social landlords.
19A.—(1) Unless otherwise stated, references in this section to a section or a Schedule are references to a section of or a Schedule to the Housing Act 1985.
(2) The provisions of sections 87 to 90 (succession on death of tenant) shall apply on the death of an assured tenant of a registered social landlord as if he were a secure tenant and section 17 of the Housing Act 1988 (succession to assured periodic tenancy by spouse) shall not apply in such cases.
(3) The provisions of sections 91 to 94 (assignment, lodgers and subletting) shall apply to an assured tenant of a registered social landlord as if he were a secure tenant and section 15 of the Housing Act 1988 (limited prohibition on assignment etc. without consent) shall not apply in such cases.
(4) Sections 96 to 101 (which deal with tenant's improvements) and section 105 (consultation on matters of housing management) shall apply to an assured tenant of a registered social landlords as if he were a secure tenant.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this new clause would extend certain rights, including certain rights of succession, which are enjoyed by law by secure tenants of registered social landlords to those same landlords' assured tenants. At present, that right is not a matter of law, but is enjoyed under the tenant's guarantee.
I moved a similar amendment in Committee (late at night or possibly even early in the morning) and the Minister said then that he thought that he could fully support the spirit behind it. I was grateful for that acknowledgement at least. He went on to say that the use of the tenants guarantee was adequate for the individuals in question and worked well. I do not believe that it is working well.
Having considered the matter further, I believe it is worth raising two points in response to the Minister. First, a contract is overridden by statute. Conversely, to put it in statute will override contract and ensure that the rights are properly in place.
The second point is related to privity of contract; in other words, someone who is not a party to a contract cannot take action to enforce the provisions of that contract. Other parties can do so for the benefit of that individual, but if those potential parties are dead—often that may be the situation, at least in relation to one of the provisions in question—it will be a matter for the individual's personal representatives. In that event, one may be entering the area of family disputes, which is better avoided. For example, if the contract states that the tenancy shall pass to the children and, if there are no children, to the grandchildren, it will have no effect. When the tenant dies the tenancy will go to the executors or administrators as part of the estate.
The Minister said that the current position was working reasonably well. I am advised that there are a significant number of cases of disputed succession in secure tenancies and court proceedings will follow. Many of your Lordships will feel that if proceedings can
310
reasonably be avoided by putting into statute something that is now a bit shaky, that is a good thing not only for those directly involved but for the workings of the court. I do not know what the Government will lose by giving rights by statute and I do not see the drawbacks. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has said, this issue was considered in Committee. I explained then that, while we fully accepted that housing association assured tenants should be treated no less favourably than secure tenants, it was not necessary to make this a statutory requirement. Housing association assured tenants enjoy these rights by virtue of the tenants guarantee. Those rights go further than the statutory rights given to other assured tenants in the private sector. The noble Baroness has explained that, having considered this further, she feels that this mechanism does not provide the degree of protection enjoyed by secure tenants.
We have looked closely at the concerns of the noble Baroness and we do not believe that they are warranted. The tenants guarantee requires associations to give a right of succession for assured tenants but this need not be contractual. If there is a dispute about the facts of any particular case, there can be recourse to the independent housing ombudsman who under the Bill will have power to determine such matters and require them to be put right. I hope that that deals with the question of privity of contract. If an ombudsman is working well he can be a very powerful friend in such disputes.
In certain cases the tenants guarantee requires contractual arrangements. Disputes may arise, but the Housing Corporation has informed us that there is no evidence that the current arrangements do not work satisfactorily. If the noble Baroness has evidence to the contrary, I hope that she will let us in on it so that we may look at both sides of the question. There are sound reasons why the statutory route is not appropriate for registered social landlords. They are independent non-public bodies. While it is right that they should, as a matter of good practice and as a condition of registration with the corporation, undertake to give their assured tenants rights along the same lines as those enjoyed by secure tenants, they operate in a different environment from local authorities. We have always taken the view that to impose inflexible statutory requirements on the detailed management of their business can have significant implications for the development of registered social landlords. We do not believe that that is desirable.
For that reason, the Bill proposes that the corporation should continue to have power to issue guidance on such detailed matters with which landlords will be expected to comply. If they do not, the corporation can take the necessary measures to ensure compliance. That is the mechanism by which we prefer to deliver the benefits that we all agree housing association assured tenants should have. Although we may agree with the noble Baroness in spirit, when it comes to the method by which this is to be done we must agree to differ.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I certainly agree that we differ. The Minister has made an interesting

311
comment. He spoke about the freedom of registered social landlords to develop. I believe that he was referring to the freedom of housing associations, not necessarily other registered social landlords, particularly local housing authorities.
I am not terribly happy with the response. I believe that to bring in the ombudsman is to introduce yet another layer of regulation, or at least monitoring. It confuses the issue and certainly does not give the tenant an assurance that the rights are in place. It is dependent upon the judgment of yet another body which will need to look at whether there has been maladministration leading to injustice. That is a substantial hurdle to overcome. I agree that we differ. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I regret to say that there is a printing error in the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 127 should not appear under the heading "Clause 95" but under the heading "Before Clause 95".
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 127:
Before Clause 95, insert the following new clause—

RETALIATORY EVICTION: EXTENSION OF NOTICE
(". After Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 there shall be inserted—
"Extensions of notice period for notice of proceedings for possession.
21A.—(1) If after an assured shorthold tenancy has been referred to the Rent Assessment Committee under section 22 of this Act, a notice of proceedings for possession of the dwelling under section 21(1) of this Act, to which the assured shorthold tenancy relates, is served by the lessor on the lessee at any time before the decision of the Rent Assessment Committee is given or within the period of 1 year thereafter, then the notice shall not take effect before the expiry of 1 year.
(2) If after an assured shorthold tenant has complained to the local housing authority or the authority has initiated or proposed to initiate enforcement action, a notice of proceedings for possession of the dwelling, under section 21(1) of this Act, to which the assured shorthold tenancy relates is served by the lessor on the lessee at any time before the local authority exercises its enforcement powers or within the period of 1 year thereafter, then the notice shall not take effect before the expiry of 1 year.
(3) If after an assured shorthold tenant has initiated or proposed to initiate legal proceedings or some other action to secure or enforce his rights as a tenant, a notice of proceedings for possession of the dwelling, under section 21(1) of this Act, to which the assured shorthold tenancy relates, is served by the lessor on the lessee at any time before the local authority exercises its enforcement powers or within the period of 1 year thereafter, then the notice shall not take effect before the expiry of 1 year.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 127 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Dubs. This amendment deals with the difficult problem of retaliatory eviction. The effect of the amendment is to extend the notice period in such cases. The purpose is to stop landlords retaliating against tenants who try to exercise their legal rights. The Minister will be aware that this matter has given rise to considerable concern. There have been some very unfortunate incidents where landlords have abused the present system. These illustrate the need for measures to stop or delay retaliatory convictions.
I could go through a list of matters that I have before me but I do not want to weary the House with it. Retaliatory evictions, apart from being very distressing to those who are evicted as a result of something they may have done inadvertently, can seriously hamper a local authority's attempts to tackle poor housing conditions. There is little point in strengthening local authority disrepair powers when tenants whose fixed term tenancies have expired may be lawfully evicted so that the landlord can avoid the work. For example, the environmental health department of the London Borough of Camden has begun a programme of improvement works on HMOs in the area of Swiss Cottage.
Many landlords have evicted shorthold tenants to avoid doing essential improvement work to make these properties safe and fit for human habitation. It is believed that this has led to a 15 per cent. loss of accommodation. Figures from the environmental health department of Bristol City Council show that 10 to 13 per cent. of private rented accommodation is lost because of retaliatory evictions after notices have been served. Leicester City Council reports that it has come across examples of lawful retaliatory eviction on a very regular basis. It believes that that is a serious dilemma for enforcement officers. The City of Nottingham also faces the same dilemma.
What is retaliatory eviction? For instance, in a case in Kingston-upon-Hull, two sales representatives rented a flat. They discovered that the heating did not work, the toilet leaked, the cooker was dangerously faulty and there were cockroaches. They complained and the landlord started eviction proceedings. That is retaliatory eviction. The amendment is designed to deal with the problem and to extend the notice period in such cases. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it would be appropriate to declare that I have a personal interest in some parts of the Bill that we are discussing. I own a lease and also a share of the freehold of a flat in London. I also have some responsibility for the care of some houses in the country, some of which are let. Having got that off my chest to the relief of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, perhaps I may reply to his amendment.
He has explained that the purpose of this new clause is to deal with an eviction which a landlord seeks when the tenant has complained, which is commonly known as a retaliatory eviction. The noble Lord put forward the view that where tenants have little security of tenure it is difficult for them to use any of their legal rights because if they do take action against the landlord they risk losing their homes. It is proposed to extend the period of notice that a landlord must give a shorthold tenant before he can seek possession of his property from two months to a year in cases where the tenant has complained or has exercised some legal right.
I have difficulty with what the noble Lord is proposing. It could prevent a landlord from regaining possession of his property for more than a year after the end of the initial six-month period or after the end of a

313
pre-agreed fixed term—even if he had agreed with the tenant at the outset that the tenancy would be terminated at the end of six months or the fixed term. If the amendment were accepted it would mean that although the tenant had agreed a six-month term with the landlord, that could be exceeded by another 12 months. The tenant would simply have to apply to the rent assessment committee for a rent determination or to complain to the local authority and then he would get his tenancy extended.
If the local authority has served an enforcement notice on the landlord, the landlord may need to get the tenant out before he can do the required work because of the nature of that work. Or the landlord may not be able to afford to do the repairs and he may decide to sell the property instead.
In those circumstances, the landlord would need to be able to regain possession quickly. It would not be practical to require the landlord to give the tenant a year's notice of possession proceedings. Even after the notice of possession had expired, the landlord would still have to go to court to get possession and that would take at least another month. Even if the court decided in the landlord's favour, it could be several weeks before the landlord regained possession.
I can assure the noble Lord that I have considerable sympathy with the minority of tenants who have difficulty getting their landlords to carry out repairs or to meet some other obligation in the tenancy agreement. However, I do not believe that the noble Lord's amendment would in general help tenants. It would create so much uncertainty that many landlords would be deterred from letting their property. The fear of the cost of gaining possession when it is required is one of the major reasons why people with empty properties are reluctant to let. At present those fears are largely unjustified. This new clause would give a real cause for concern.
The whole objective of the deregulatory measures which we introduced in the Housing Act 1988 and the small measures which we have included in this Bill is to make letting easier so that more people would let spare property. That has worked and it would be a great pity to put it in jeopardy. Since 1989, the sector has increased by over 300,000 households. Many of the new lettings would not have come on to the market if the owner had not been confident that he could regain possession when he needed it. Increasing competition in the lettings market is good for tenants and tenants have benefited by it. By bringing more property on to the market we will be giving tenants greater flexibility and choice of accommodation.
Those landlords who provide sub-standard accommodation at unreasonably high rents will find that there is no demand for what they are providing. It will drive them out of the market or it will force them to provide decent accommodation at reasonable rents in order to let their property.
314
It is for those reasons that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will consider that his amendment, although it is intended to help tenants, will prove to be to the long-term detriment of the tenanted sector.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Although I recognise that there may be deficiencies in the amendment, it is designed to ensure that we have a decent and well-ordered private rented sector. If we are to have that it is necessary that tenants can complain without fear of losing their home. That is not always the case at the moment.
I believe that the Minister and I are at one in believing that there are some rogue landlords who use the law to evade responsibilities for repair. While what I am insisting would have only a marginal impact on security of tenure, the small measure to stop retaliatory eviction would be supported by responsible landlords, of whom I am sure the Minister is one.
During the progression of the Bill through another place and this House, I understand that the Minister's department has shown interest in the idea of measures to prevent retaliatory evictions and has requested information on overseas legislation. It is difficult for me to say how far that has gone but perhaps the noble Earl, with the leave of the House, might wish to say a little more about that. We would welcome any proposals from the department which the Government may wish to put forward at Third Reading.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, there is not a great deal between the noble Lord and myself on the basic principle that there are a few rogue landlords who do not do their job properly and who ought to be dealt with. The difficulty is whether to set up a bureaucratic structure and a rigidity of tenure over the whole of the private rented sector just in order to catch those few people. By doing so one would then be in difficulty with the rest of that sector because landlords will not wish to let their houses and therefore the tenants will suffer. Those are the difficulties that we face.
The noble Lord asked how we were getting on with other countries. We told the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux that if it knew of overseas systems which worked, as it claimed, we would certainly consider those. That is as much as I can tell the noble Lord. There may well be systems used in overseas legislation which could be applicable here. We would like to know if that is so, but at the moment what we have to do—and I hope the noble Lord will agree with this—is not to prejudice the whole of the tenancy sector which is working well in order to catch just the few people who are behaving wrongly.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. As he says, there is nothing between us on the principle and I certainly will not press the amendment. However, I do believe that if there is evidence in other countries that sensible legislation or sensible guidance can be introduced it will be worthwhile for the Government to look at it. I am sure

315
that the voluntary organisations which are involved in this sector will be studying the noble Earl's words with great care and will be making their submissions as and where appropriate. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I am sorry to say that there is a mistake in the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 148 has been wrongly marshalled, as it refers to Schedule 7. This is the right point at which the House should consider Amendment No. 148.
Schedule 7 [Assured tenancies: schedule inserted after Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 157, line 37, at end insert—
("Tenancies excluded by absence of written tenancy agreement
. An assured tenancy for which there is no written tenancy agreement.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am a little disconcerted, because I was prepared to deal with Amendment No. 129. I beg to move Amendment No. 148, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. It is concerned with short tenancies for which there is no written tenancy agreement. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that such a tenancy will automatically become a fully assured tenancy. The amendment seeks to create a new exemption from tenancies which are by default shorthold tenancies and would only allow a shorthold tenancy to be a full tenancy when there was a written tenancy agreement.
Currently, to create a shorthold tenancy which gives only limited security, a landlord has to give the tenant notice of this prior to the start of the tenancy. The benefits seem to me to be as follows. If the landlord is concerned that a tenancy would change, it is only proper that there should be written agreements. It seems to me not to be putting too much pressure on a landlord that he should have such a written agreement prepared, rather than let the matter go by default. After all, landlords are in the business of letting property and are therefore more aware of the legal position than are tenants who are in a rather vulnerable position in that they may not know the full impact of the changes. When there is a change in legislation it often takes some time before it becomes known to tenants, especially as some may become tenants only after the change has been made and the Bill enacted. They are faced with a situation of which they had little foreknowledge.
The amendment would change the balance a bit and give tenants more knowledge so that they would be in a better position to cope. The onus would be on the landlord to ensure that a written tenancy agreement was prepared, in the absence of which the tenancy would be a fully assured tenancy. I beg to move.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I support this amendment, to which I have attached my name. As my noble friend said, without a written tenancy agreement tenants will not
316
know their rights and their landlord's responsibilities. It is frequently the worst landlords who fail to tell tenants their rights and who seek to end the tenancy when the tenant complains that there is something wrong with the accommodation. By making tenancies automatically insecure, such tenants will have little chance of making their homes safe. Our amendment would require a landlord to issue a written tenancy agreement to create a shorthold tenancy and would allow tenants without such an agreement a fully assured tenancy, thus encouraging responsible renting and providing tenants with protection against irresponsible and incompetent landlords and indeed against landlords who are often both.
The Government maintain that if landlords and tenants wish to enter into a full assured tenancy they can do so. There is much talk about the free market, and so on, but the Government fail to acknowledge the weak bargaining power of tenants. Affordable accommodation is scarce—I repeat, scarce—and there is not a free market at all in many areas. If a tenant does not accept an offer of accommodation he may end up being unable to get any accommodation at all and having to sleep rough on the streets. Therefore, I hope the Government will look favourably on the amendment and consider realistically what happens in the real world, which is very different from the one they pretend to believe in.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I find the amendment rather worrying. I again declare that I have, and do, let property on shorthold tenancies. What worries me about the proposal is that there are a lot of informal agreements. For example, people may let a student into a property, and so on. As I understand it, if that was done without a formal written agreement, the student, or any living soul you allow into your property, under the provisions of the amendment, might become a secure tenant. That would be a deterrent and would catch many simple, innocent people who were acting out of goodwill. There are such things as verbal contracts in this country; I am worried about the position.
Australia has a very simple solution. Everyone renting a property in New South Wales uses a particular form. I suppose you could have a more elaborate document drawn up by your solicitor, but no one does. They go to the local paper shop and buy this text, which complies with New South Wales law. Everyone understands it and it seems to work very well. I know that you can get forms here from the Solicitors' Law Stationery Society, and similar places, and I do not know why more of them are not used. Perhaps it is because the legal profession rather likes the fees for drawing up something more elaborate. Even agencies who let properties often charge quite a high amount both to landlords and tenants for supplying a very simple type of agreement for an assured shorthold tenancy.
The amendment is worrying. I ask my noble friend, when he replies, to say whether it could be interpreted to mean that anyone you let into your property becomes a

317
secure tenant. If that were to be the case, I think it would terrify people and they would not let anyone inside the door.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, leaving aside the interesting point raised by the noble Baroness and based on the earlier part of the discussion, it seems to me that there is a good deal of merit in the amendment. I hope that my noble friend will deal with it very fully.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the poor unfortunate noble Lord, Lord Dubs, found himself disconcerted in moving the amendment because, as he said, he was prepared to deal with Amendment No. 128. All of a sudden he found himself having to deal with Amendment No. 148. I find it rather disconcerting too; it is what is called keeping us all on our toes. If I may say so, the noble Lord acquitted himself remarkably well considering that he was not immediately prepared for the amendment.
The noble Lord said that the purpose of the amendment was to try to change the balance a bit. Frankly, that is what frightens us somewhat; I shall tell your Lordships why. The amendment seeks to exclude tenancies from being assured shorthold tenancies where there is no written agreement. A prudent landlord would of course want to have a written agreement, as indeed would the prudent tenant too. After all, it provides a perfectly clear statement to everyone as to who is responsible for what. It would also put the landlord in a much stronger position if anything should go wrong or if he needs to seek possession. A landlord can only recover his property, using the accelerated possession procedure, if he has a written agreement with the tenant. I was interested to hear the experience of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes in New South Wales where, she said, you can purchase a document which is used throughout the country. I do not have too much personal experience of that, I must confess, but it would be interesting to discover more about it.
But I have difficulty with the noble Lord's amendment. It would create exactly the procedural trap for landlords that Clause 95 proposes to remove. It is much better for tenants and landlords to have written agreements and it is rather imprudent not to do so. But there is no reason why a landlord should face the disproportionate penalty of having a shorthold tenancy suddenly converted into a fully assured tenancy simply because the landlord has not provided a written tenancy agreement.
We believe, however, that tenants with oral agreements with their landlords should have a right to evidence of the main terms of the tenancy in writing if they want it. It is for this reason that we listened to concerns which were raised in another place and introduced Clause 96, which places a duty on the landlord to provide the tenant, on request, with written details about the important terms of the tenancy relating to rent and security of tenure.
318
This will provide a safeguard against the minority of landlords who might seek to exploit the rights of their tenants. Where a landlord fails to comply with his tenant's request within a period of 28 days and there is no reasonable excuse for his failure, he will be liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to £2,500. That should slow up those people who are trying to pull a fast one on their tenants.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes was concerned that this would have a tremendous effect on everyone. I agree with her about the risk of letting, for example, a student into a flat only to find that you are stuck with the person. If that were to happen, that would be a very bad position in which to be. We do not wish to risk that happening.
Your Lordships may remember that some years ago people were concerned with precisely that, because if you let in a student, so the theory went, who was at, for example, Oxford, Cambridge or another university, he would have security of tenure. Therefore, so the argument went, everyone went rushing around trying to find Chinese or Greek students because they went home when they had finished their course and did not get security of tenure.
There is a standard tenancy: law stationers sell standard forms and most letting agents have a standard form. Therefore, they do exist; they can be useful; but they do not have the universality of the forms which are available in New South Wales.
Where the tenant does not agree with any of the terms in the statement, it is important that he should be able to pursue this with the landlord. Subsection (5) of Clause 96 therefore makes it clear that there is no presumption that the landlord's statement provides conclusive evidence of the terms agreed. A court would not be obliged to regard the written statement as a binding document but would take into account all the facts of the case, including the views of the tenant on the nature and terms of the tenancy.
In view of the new right which we have introduced for tenants to obtain written details, on request, on the main terms of the tenancy, which the landlord will be bound to provide, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will feel that that satisfies the majority of his concerns. It is odd that people are happy to have oral agreements, but the provisions which we have introduced to overcome the difficulties of that solve the problem which the noble Lord has drawn to our attention.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I do not think that I am convinced by the Minister's arguments. I have a feeling that the Minister's heart was not totally in the argument that he was putting forward. I may be doing him an injustice. However, it seems to me that there is a weakness in the Government's argument.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am mortified that the noble Lord thought that my heart was not in the argument. Of course it was. It was right there and he knows that perfectly well.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, in which case I can only suggest that the Minister's heart is not quite in the right place!

319
The proposition is very simple, now that I have had time to think in more detail about the points which the Minister raised. We are dealing with something which, for the tenant, is one of the most important aspects of his life; namely, his home. In a variety of legislation, we find measures to protect consumers in all sorts of ways to prevent misunderstandings. I use hire purchase agreements as an example of that. In that case, there is legislation to protect people and to make sure that everything is written down. That is a matter which may be important but it is not as important as an individual's home.
There is a whole raft of other legislation which seeks to protect individuals when they enter into arrangements. And yet here we have a situation where, if the landlord does nothing, he puts the tenant in a more vulnerable position than he would otherwise be. Landlords are not stupid. Tenants are often not as well informed as landlords. And yet the suggestion is made that somehow it is too onerous for landlords to produce a written agreement to clarify the position, and that undermines Clause 95. That is stretching credulity a little too far.
The Minister said that Clause 96 provides a safeguard. It does of sorts, provided that the tenant knows what are his rights. But my contention is that tenants do not know what are their rights. They may be in a position in which they are ignorant and the landlord is almost invariably better informed. The tenant, through not knowing his rights, loses out.
But even if the tenant does exercise his rights under Clause 96, it can still take 28 days for any response to be forthcoming from the landlord. What about the housing benefit situation? The tenant may need to apply immediately for housing benefit, and yet for 28 days he may not have any statement from the landlord clarifying the terms of the tenancy. It seems to me that that leaves scope for a certain amount of fraud, because the arrangement is not sufficiently clear and the basis for giving housing benefit may also therefore not be clear. I understand that in a number of London boroughs fraud officers are very concerned that the arrangements which the Minister described open the door to the possibility of housing benefit fraud—something about which I know the Government are very concerned in a general sense.
But the basic proposition is that it is not a large burden on a landlord to produce an agreement. Even if the Minister's heart is totally in support of opposing the amendment, I fear that logic is not on his side. Very reluctantly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for causing him confusion. I did not know that he had not been informed about the correction in the Marshalled List. We now return to Amendment No. 128.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 128:
After Clause 97, insert the following new clause—

RECOVERY OF POSSESSION
(".—(1) Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4) after "subsection (1) above" there shall be inserted "of the landlord under an assured shorthold tenancy to recover possession of the dwelling-house let on the tenancy in accordance with Chapter I above".
(3) In subsection (4)(a) after "the date the notice was given" there shall be inserted "and not earlier than six months from the commencement of the tenancy".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very technical amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it as such. The purpose of the amendment is to avoid a problem which was caused by a judicial decision in the Shoreditch County Court in 1995 where the judge seemed to take the view that there was an ambiguity between subsections (1) and (4) of Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.
The object of the amendment is to remove the ambiguity whereby Section 21(1) and (4) may be interpreted as alternatives and to prevent landlords from serving two months' notice seeking possession which ends before the end of the first six months of the tenancy.
I am sure that the Government are aware of the ambiguity caused by that judicial decision and I hope that they will accept the amendment in order to clarify the position. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it seems that it is now the turn of the Opposition to keep us on our toes. Amendment No. 128 was tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, yet the noble Lord, Lord Williams, speaks to it. That surprised me; but, nevertheless, it was a delightful experience to witness it.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in that case, will the Minister give a different answer?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness will have to wait and see. Then she will have to work out whether the answer I give would have been the same as the one that I might have given to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Needless to say, I always tailor my answers to the individual noble Lord who addresses the subject, but the substance is usually the same. However, if I may say so, that is enough of the frivolity stimulated by the noble Baroness.
Clause 98 amends Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 which sets out the procedures for a landlord to recover possession when a shorthold tenancy expires at the end of the initial fixed term. At present, the initial fixed term must be for a period of at least six months. An amendment is required because Clause 95 of the Bill will remove the requirement for a new shorthold tenancy to have an initial fixed term. Clause 98 will prevent a court from making an order for possession of a new shorthold tenancy until six months after the beginning of the original tenancy.

321
The amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and interpreted by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel—again, I have no doubt that the substance is the same; indeed, the noble Lord need not look so worried—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it is all very well to say that the substance is the same, but the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has been moving amendment after amendment tabled in the name of the Minister throughout the whole proceedings on the Bill; indeed, he did so while the noble Earl was in hospital. I do not mind but, once tabled, an amendment is the property of the House.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly right. I was just waiting for him to give such an elementary response. I knew that he would not be able to resist doing so.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that the amendment refers to a judgment concerning Shoreditch County Court. In fact, no one has raised the matter with my department and, indeed, we are not aware of any ambiguity. However, I shall certainly look into the matter. If the noble Lord, Lord Williams, says that there is a genuine problem, I shall of course look at it.
I had prepared myself for the fact that the purpose of the noble Lord's amendment was something other than that which he outlined. I believe that the noble Lord would prefer it if I were to consider the substance of the amendment as he put it. As he said, it is a technical matter and one to which I cannot give him an answer straightaway.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. The decision in question is on Ujima Housing Association v. Richardson (1995) CLW 46/95, Shoreditch County Court. Perhaps the noble Earl would be good enough to look at that judicial decision to see whether the amendment is well founded. If it is—and we think that it is—I hope that the Government will clear up the matter on Third Reading. As I said, it is a very small technical point.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for giving us details of the judgment. I am bound to say that I do not have the answer on the tip of my tongue at present, but I shall consider the matter and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am always happy to receive letters from the noble Earl, but I would prefer to have the matter resolved by way of an amendment on Third Reading. Of course, I realise that the noble Earl does not pay unique and particular attention to every judicial decision, especially in the Shoreditch County Court; indeed, I would not expect him to do so. But, nevertheless, there is an anomaly here which I am advised is present in existing law. I very
322
much hope that the Minister and whoever advises him will come forward with something on Third Reading, rather than just sending me a letter.
However, if I and my advisers are wrong and there is no ambiguity involved, I shall be delighted to receive a letter from the noble Earl explaining why I am wrong. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 99 [Applications for determination of rent: time limit]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I must advise the House that if the following amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 130.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 70, line 38, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
("(2) In subsection (1) after "may" insert "at any time during the original tenancy or any replacement tenancy until such time as the landlord serves a notice under section 13(2)".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the above amendment also stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. While moving it, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 130. The amendment's purpose is to give shorthold tenants a longer period during which they may apply to a rent assessment committee for a determination of rent. At present, they are constrained as regards the period during which they may apply. There may be many good reasons why they have not been able to apply as quickly as the Bill as drafted suggests they should—indeed, good reasons why a longer period would be better and more appropriate for a shorthold tenant to apply to a rent assessment committee.
If the situation as suggested by the amendment were to be the case, there would be a number of advantages. Some landlords charge rents which are significantly higher than market rents. Clearly it is right and proper that their tenants should be able to go to a rent assessment committee and have that rectified. Indeed, the existence of such a provision as outlined in the amendment would, I hope, encourage landlords to negotiate rent reductions with their tenants where appropriate.
The provision would provide a link between rents charged and accommodation standards, thereby providing an incentive for landlords to improve the quality of their lettings. It would discourage the distortion of the market by excessive rents being charged to housing benefit claimants and, therefore, reduce public expenditure on housing benefit. It would also reduce the number of cases where there is a gap between the rent being charged and the housing benefit paid; and, indeed, would reduce the number of possessions for rent arrears.
It has been estimated, based on current levels of rent restrictions, that there would be a saving in housing benefit of some £20 million if shorthold tenants were encouraged to apply to a rent assessment committee. Anything which prevents them from easy access to such a committee does, I suggest, lead to higher levels of

323
housing benefit being paid. Therefore, there would be some compensating savings if such a provision were introduced.
Perhaps I may just reinforce that point by giving the House a few examples of situations where a six-month limit—that is the intended period under the Bill's provisions—is simply not enough. There may, for example, be a tenant who has a reasonable income and who is perhaps not aware—or, indeed, not too worried—that his rent may be excessive. However, that tenant subsequently becomes unemployed and needs to claim housing benefit. However, at that point it may be too late for him to appeal against the level of the rent.
Tenants whose housing benefit has been restricted will appeal to a housing benefit review board. Only if their appeal is not upheld will they then apply to a rent assessment committee. An HBRB frequently takes more than six months to arrive at a decision. Therefore, during that period the tenant has lost the opportunity of going to a rent assessment committee.
Further, tenants may move to an area previously unknown to them—perhaps in the process of looking for a job—with no knowledge of local rent levels. When one has moved into a new area, it can take some time to discover just what the local rent level might be. Clearly, for a newcomer to an area, six months is an unreasonably short time within which to discover local rent levels. Indeed, I put it to the Minister, it is very hard even in parts of London to discover the going rent. Such rents vary. Of course, one can consult various publications and magazines which advertise lettings and visit estate agents but it is quite difficult to find out what rent levels apply, especially if one moves to a different part of the country. As I said, it can take some time for a person to ascertain that information.
The amendment would bring another advantage; namely, that rent assessment committees can look into such matters in a wider sense than a rent officer, who would in the first instance deal with such applications. In the vast majority of cases, my understanding is that the rent officer has little scope to look into the quality of individual lettings. He works on the basis of local reference rents, rather than on a detailed assessment of the quality of any particular accommodation. Consequently, poor quality, sub-standard or even dangerous accommodation attracts as much rent as better quality lettings, and there is no incentive for landlords to bring their properties up to an acceptable standard. By contrast, rent assessment committees will, when asked to look into these matters, invite detailed submissions by landlords and tenants about the merits of particular properties and they may carry out their own inspections before determining the rent.
Landlords providing sub-standard lettings would therefore be penalised through the informed decision of a rent assessment committee. There would be advantages in that. This is an important point. It was raised at the Committee stage and the Government made a number of points to rebut the thrust of the arguments that were then put. Of course the Government want a healthy private rented sector. I do not believe that the amendment would damage that concept. It would not
324
prevent landlords continuing to earn a reasonable return by charging a reasonable market rent. The amendment would only help tenants to curb those landlords who obtain unreasonably high returns by charging a rent which is significantly higher than a reasonable rent for a particular property.
At the Committee stage the Government said that referral to a rent assessment committee is a little used practice for determining rents. I believe they referred to a figure of under 1 per cent. of assured tenancies. However, given that rent assessment committees can play a valuable role, it surely is not an argument to make referral to them more difficult. Surely we should make it easier. In some inner city areas housing benefit claimants represent over 80 per cent. of all assured tenants. Without the independent rent assessment committee determinations, by which the rent officer may still be guided, the rent officer becomes to all intents and purposes a setter of the market as all comparable rents he may consider may be his own assessments for housing benefit purposes. That could lead to higher rents than would be seen in a true market.
The Government said they thought it unlikely that a landlord would be able to obtain a rent above the market rent from a new tenant. I suggest that that does not follow. How is it that rents charged to new tenants who claim housing benefit are restricted in over 40 per cent. of all cases? That seems to me to suggest that landlords sometimes try to obtain higher rents than are appropriate, even where there are safeguards in place. At the Committee stage the Government further stated that tenants would have an opportunity to negotiate with a landlord as to the level of rent for any replacement tenancy. The fact is that a tenant has little bargaining power when he has no security. I do not think it is proper, and it does not make sense, to restrict the time period during which a tenant can approach a rent assessment committee.
I wish to speak briefly to Amendment No. 130. That would give an additional six months' security when an initial tenancy is continued. Essentially, when a six-month tenancy expires, if the tenancy continues, a new six-month shorthold will in effect be created. I suspect I know what the Government will say to that. However, I rest my case mostly on the arguments that were made to Amendment No. 129. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Dubs said. Obviously, the fewer lettings at rents significantly higher than market levels the fewer tenants there will be who accrue rent arrears, either through housing benefit restriction or other reasons. That will surely reduce the number of possession actions on rent arrears with a consequent reduction in homelessness.
Despite all the rule changes for the assessment of housing benefit, and the role of the rent officer in the process, in the vast majority of cases there is no scope for the quality of individual lettings to be taken into account, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said. Decisions on local reference rents—what is reasonable and what

325
is suitable—are all based on generalities. They are rarely based on any detailed consideration of quality. Consequently, poor quality, sub-standard and even dangerous accommodation attracts as much rent as better quality lettings and there is no incentive for landlords to bring their properties up to an acceptable standard. The Government have often said they wish to sustain a healthy private rented sector. They believe that deregulation has allowed landlords to earn a reasonable return on their investment. The amendment does not prevent landlords continuing to earn a reasonable return by charging a reasonable market rent. It seeks only to curb those landlords who obtain unreasonably high returns by charging a rent which is significantly higher than a reasonable rent.
The Government claim that the rent assessment committees are little used for the determination of market rents. According to some survey—I do not know how valid it is—the figure is less than 1 per cent of assured tenancies. But, given the valuable role the RAC can play, that is surely an argument for making referral easier and not more difficult. The Government believe that tenants have the opportunity to negotiate with a landlord the new rent for any replacement tenancy. What bargaining power does the tenant with no security of tenure have if he or she wishes to remain in his or her home? This is the real world. It is naive, I think, to suggest that they are equal partners. That is not so at all. I support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, several points have been raised which I feel I must respond to. One is the suggestion that rent assessment panels do not really assess quality. My husband sits regularly on a housing benefit committee. The information that is submitted to that committee by rent assessment personnel is amazingly detailed. Charts are drawn up. If there is any doubt about the quality of accommodation, the members of the committee go to view it. For example, there is a range of assessments from A to D for a studio flat. The committee will determine a fair and appropriate rent for a property within a particular area. Obviously, rents vary according to the area in which a property is located, as well as being affected by other factors. The other point—
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I may have misled the noble Baroness. I drew a distinction between the power and the practice of rent officers, and of rent assessment committees. I said that rent officers do not have the opportunity of looking into the quality of accommodation, but rent assessment committees do.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those comments. I thought it was the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who made the point that quality was not assessed. I was responding to that point. My other point is that I cannot accept that a tenant has no negotiating position. As regards this amendment, some people overlook the fact that the greatest desire of a landlord is to retain a good tenant. Therefore, such a tenant has a strong negotiating position. We have
326
discussed this matter at previous stages of the Bill. I believe that any way of trying to extend or secure longer tenancies for tenants as secure tenants would be damaging in terms of the availability of rented properties. I believe it is dangerous to suggest such a course.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, one of the major factors in the revival of the private rented sector—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will agree that there has been a considerable revival since 1988—was the removal of rent control and the introduction of market rents. There is always a danger that people will think that if market rents are introduced, rents will fly up. But, of course, if one does not introduce market rents, houses do not come on to the market. One always has to strike a balance here.
Under the existing legislation, shorthold tenants have a right to refer their rent to a rent assessment committee for a rent to be set during the initial fixed term of the tenancy. The two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would extend the period during which a tenant could apply to the committee for a rent to be set. The difficulty is that it would impose new rent controls on landlords. I suggest to your Lordships that that would be a retrograde step and would undermine the progress that we have made since 1988. It would work against the provisions in the Bill which are designed to give further encouragement to property owners to let out accommodation that would otherwise remain empty.
Under Clause 99 a tenant would still have the right to refer a significantly high rent to a committee within a six-month period. Six months provides a reasonable opportunity for the tenant to make an application while giving the landlord the certainty that an appeal cannot be made after the deadline has passed. If the noble Lord's amendments were accepted, the landlord, having had a tenant for six months, during which time the tenant appeared to be happy with the rent, would continue to face the risk that the tenant might suddenly refer the rent to the committee and have it reduced. If the tenant has not challenged the rent in the first six-month period and is reasonably content with it, not having challenged it, it is reasonable to assume that he is happy that the rent is a fair one.
If the noble Lord's amendment were to be accepted, one could have this position. A person had a flat or a house for six months. He was content with it. He had three children. He had a job. Suddenly he is out of a job. He might find it difficult to meet that rent. I do not think that that would be an excuse for taking the rent to the committee saying, "After all, I'm now out of a job and I cannot pay that which I paid when I was in a job." That is the responsibility and liability, unpleasant though it may be, of the tenant and should not be passed on to the landlord.
The point was made in Committee that very few tenants use the existing right of referral. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi that only 1 per cent. do so. The figures show that in 1990 there were 140,000 assured tenancy and 400 referrals. That is less than 1 per cent. The position now is that there are

327
800,000 assured tenancies and about 1,600 referrals a year. That is about the same percentage. There is no reason to believe that a longer referral period would lead to a significant increase in referrals.
Because tenancies are already at market rents, there is little scope for the landlord to hike up the rent at the end of the original tenancy. This is particularly unlikely with the current low level of inflation. The average weekly shorthold rent increased by £1 between 1993–94 and 1994–95. If a landlord tries to charge an excessive rent he is likely to find that he has no market for his property. Nor is a landlord likely to go to the trouble of replacing a good tenant with a new tenant simply to increase his rental income by a few pounds.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, queried whether the tenant had any bargaining power. I think that he has. The bargaining power is that the landlord will not be able to find someone else to pay the increased rent if it were above the market level. If the landlord can find someone else to pay it, it is presumably a market rent. These are always difficulties. When people leave a house, the rent often goes up. But one cannot have the rent moving up the whole time during the passage of a tenancy. That is why one comes to an agreement beforehand.
The tenant will have the opportunity to negotiate with the landlord the new rent for any replacement tenancy. He will be able to negotiate on the basis of any determination by the committee during the original tenancy. If the original tenancy lapses into a periodic tenancy and the landlord serves notice of a rent increase, the tenant will have another opportunity under Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 to apply to the committee for a determination. Any such determination will have effect for at least a year. If the landlord serves a further notice after a year, the tenant can apply to the committee again. I believe that those safeguards should satisfy the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made much of housing benefit. If I may say so, I thought that the noble Lord's argument was not particularly good. The rent officer already checks whether it is reasonable for the benefit system to meet the rent which is requested. He will take into account the rent level and, for example, the size of the family. On the other hand, if the tenant willingly paid the rent out of his own earnings, that makes it a market rent.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that the rent officer does not look at individual people and houses. But I understand that rent officers do exactly that. They look at the characteristics of individual properties. As my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said, they often visit the properties, in particular if they feel that the rent is high.
There are those safeguards. To include the amendment suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would curtail not just those safeguards but the whole operation of the rented sector. A rise from 140,000 to 800,000 assured tenancies indicates that the system is working, and working well.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, there are two factors which he and the
328
Government never seem to take into account when they are considering the equal bargaining power between landlord and tenant. First, due to government legislation over the last 15 or so years there is now hardly any security of tenure. Secondly, there is a great scarcity, in particular at the poorer end of the market. Those two factors put the bargaining power almost entirely into the hands of the landlord. The Government never seem to take those factors into account, if I may say so.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we always try to take these matters into account. One of the difficulties is that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, seems incapable of taking account of the other side of the argument: that by having a free rented sector with certain restraints more houses are available. It is all very well to say that one or two people can obtain houses at conveniently low rents. The fact is that other people do not have the houses that are now available to them because it is not in the landlord's interest so to let them. The difference is that there has been a great increase and many people have benefited from the change.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, says that the Government will not understand the basic fact that there is no equal bargaining power. It is difficult to know what "equal" means. There is bargaining power on both sides. On the one side one has the landlord unable to let houses if he charges absurd prices. That is a basic fact of life. On the other, certain constraints are available to prevent the landlord from being unfair and unjust. That is the reason for the Housing Bill and earlier housing legislation.
We seek to free the situation so that more houses will become available. Where people are subject to housing benefit, the Housing benefit ought at least to pay most of the rent required, provided that the rent is reasonable.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, first, a correction. I may have made a point that was not totally accurate in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. My point was that rent officers do not consider quality of accommodation in setting local reference rents for housing benefit purposes. However, they can consider quality in determining a market rent for an individual property for housing benefit purposes. In the local reference sense, they do not look at quality but take the generality of rent levels in a particular area.
I turn to the Minister's comments. The Government said that they want a lively private rented sector and they have taken steps over the years to try to encourage it. I understand that. However, they have also put in place a number of safeguards to protect tenants against excessive rents. That is why we have rent officers and rent assessment committees. The Government believe that those safeguards are necessary for individual tenants, otherwise they would not have retained them in the Bill. However, I hope that, after my suggesting that, the Government will not immediately rush to take the safeguards out.
We are not talking of a provision which will drive a coach and horses through the Government's proposals in this part of the Bill. All we are saying is that if a tenant has safeguards for six months, is it so outrageous

329
that in some circumstances he might wish to make use of the safeguards after, say, eight or nine months rather than six months? That is what the argument is about, not great principles as to whether it will undermine the whole private rented sector. We say that if it is proper and appropriate that a tenant should be able to go to a rent assessment committee after five-and-a-half months, but if for some reason he was not fully aware of all the circumstances, or if he was not impelled to do so, is it so outrageous that he should adopt the same safeguards two months later?
At one level it is a minor point. It is important to an individual tenant in some circumstances. But I hardly think it is a great point for the Government. They could easily concede it without undermining anything else in the Bill.
5 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply. I understand the noble Lord's concern, which is that if a person has had the house for six months, why should he not complain about it afterwards? The person might find himself in different circumstances. Perhaps I may give an analogy to the noble Lord because he may understand much better. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is always impeccably dressed. He might go to his tailor and buy a nice new suit and wear it for six months. If he went back to his tailor after seven months and said: "This is a crummy old suit and I do not want to pay you that amount for it", his tailor would say: "You used it for six months and didn't complaint about it. Why complain now?" That is the point which underlies this part of the Bill.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the compliment. I was so taken aback by it that I was unable to think of a good counter example. If one wears a suit, it wears out quickly—at least on these Benches. It is hard work bobbing up and down. It seems to me that we are dealing with something rather different from a suit which wears out. We are dealing with the accommodation in which a person lives. If the tenant were to be replaced, the next tenant would have every right, if the rent were the same, to go to a rent assessment committee. The concept is different from the one about the suit getting worn. Therefore it was not good enough to start with.
I repeat the example that I gave, as I did not explain it clearly enough, judging by the Minister's comment. There may be a change of circumstances. I gave the example of an individual who might feel that he had a good job, he was earning plenty of money, the rent was a little high but he was not too bothered. Then after six or seven months he loses his job. At that point he is forced to apply for housing benefit and would wish to challenge the level of the rent. He did not feel it necessary to do so earlier because a little more money did not matter much when he was earning plenty but it becomes critical when he loses his job. That illustrates that there can be ordinary, legitimate changes of circumstances which might make it proper to ease the situation in the way that the amendment suggests.
330
The housing market is not a perfect market where if one landlord charges a little more for a flat than someone else, somehow he will no longer be able to let the flat. Given the housing shortage in the whole of London and in other cities, and given the difficulties that people have in finding rented accommodation, not at the top end of the scale but at the lower end, it is not easy for individual tenants to have bargaining power. Therefore, they need the safeguards. It takes time to find out whether one is paying over the odds.
I thought the amendment was so modest that the Government might be sympathetic. We seek no change in the principle in the Bill. I thought the amendment so reasonable that the Government would say: "Yes, there's something in it and there's no harm in accepting it". I am sorry that the Minister feels that he cannot concede the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
Clause 100 [Mandatory possession for non-payment of rent: reduction in arrears required]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if Amendment No. 131 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 132.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 71, line 7, leave out from ("possession") to end of line 11 and insert ("Ground 8 (rent unpaid for certain periods) shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 131 deals with the grounds for possession of a flat. As the legislation stands, rent arrears represent a mandatory ground for possession. There is no discretion to say that if an individual has rent arrears, as proposed in the Bill, the individual can find a good reason which would prevent the ground for possession from being exercised. The Government have shortened the period and it seems to me that there may well be instances when an individual has a good reason for being in arrears. I give the example of housing benefit. The Government have changed the regulations somewhat and housing benefit may now be paid in certain circumstances four weeks in arrears. Perhaps I should correct that. Changes in the housing benefit regulations provide for housing benefit to be paid in arrears, leaving certain tenants with four weeks' rent arrears anyway. It is not difficult, therefore, to envisage a situation where a tenant can be eight weeks in arrears, which is the period stipulated.
It seems to me hard on the tenant if housing benefit arrives so late that the tenant is in arrears but he cannot say: "Don't evict me, don't throw me out. I have a perfectly good reason. The local town hall was slow. It made a mess in the procedures and my housing benefit has arrived late. I shall give you the evidence that the town hall has already apologised for the money coming late. In the circumstances would you please not evict me?" All the amendment does is to make that argument possible. At the moment, I understand that no such argument is possible and no matter how good the excuse

331
or how many extenuating circumstances, the mandatory grounds cannot be altered. A little discretion would surely represent common sense. I beg to move.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. As your Lordships know, the Bill proposes to reduce the current mandatory grounds for possession for assured tenants from three months to two months. As my noble friend Lord Dubs said, this change is now of even greater concern, given the fact that changes to housing benefit regulations provide for housing benefit to be paid in arrears, leaving certain tenants with four weeks' rent in arrears.
The amendment would enable the courts to exercise their discretion over the merits of the case so as to avoid tenants losing their homes unreasonably, for example, as a result of housing benefit delays. This proposal surely will add to tenants' insecurity, while at the same time the housing benefit amendment regulations provide for payments to be made in arrears. This will surely increase the risk of tenants being made homeless for reasons beyond their control: for example, if the local authority is late in providing the housing benefit, even later than the agreed period in arrears. That may be either through inefficiency—they may have lost the case—or for other reasons. The one who pays is the tenant, who is then faced with eviction through no fault of his or her own.
There is widespread discontent with the way housing benefit claims are processed. Delays continue to plague the housing benefit system. As a result I understand that citizens advice bureaux frequently report clients facing rent arrears and being threatened with possession as a result of delays in the payment of their housing benefit. The citizens advice bureaux report the case of a woman in London who had accrued arrears of housing benefit that was due to her from the local authority which had been allowed to run up to £600. The local authority informed the citizens advice bureaux that the claim would not be paid for a further month. The woman had tried to borrow money to pay her landlord but had been unable to do so. I suppose the poor lady had no security. She had subsequently been evicted through absolutely no fault of her own. I hope, therefore, that the Government will look reasonably on this amendment. I hope they will consider these difficulties and accept it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, disturbs me greatly. I long to be able to give him some encouragement and say he has produced the most reasonable amendment and of course we should like to accept it. My difficulty is that I find that most of his amendments, though delightfully and charmingly put, run counter to quite a lot of what the Government are trying to do. That is why I find myself in the position of having to say that it is difficult for us to meet them.
Clause 100 reduces the amount of rent arrears under the mandatory ground for possession for rent arrears in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988. Schedule 2 sets out 16 grounds on which it is possible for a landlord to gain possession of his property. Ground 8 currently
332
requires a court to grant a landlord an order for possession of his property if a tenant is in arrears with his rent by an amount equal to 13 weeks' or three months' rent, both at the date when the landlord serves notice of possession and at the date of the court hearing. So the person has to be three months out of date; application has to be made; and then the court hearing is held. By the time the case reaches court it is possible for the tenant to say, "Here is another month's rent". He is then only two months in arrears and the process begins again, until he becomes three months in arrears; proceedings are applied for; and there is another month's wait for the proceedings, by which time the tenant pays up another month's rent. That is an example.
The vast majority of tenants pay their rent on time and in full. The Survey of English Housing shows that in 1994–95 only 5 per cent. of tenants were in rent arrears, not of three months and not even of two months, but of two weeks. It follows that the number who will be in arrears of eight weeks or more is likely to be considerably lower. However, research shows that although the Housing Act 1988 made it easier for landlords to recover possession of their property, they continue to have problems when the tenant is in arrears with his rent.
A quarter of lettings are owned by a landlord with only one property. For those landlords, having a tenant who withholds the rent will be very difficult, particularly if the landlord has a mortgage or a loan to repay. Small landlords will let property only if they are confident that they can cover their loan or mortgage.
It is true that Grounds 10 and 11 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988 provide discretionary grounds for possession for lesser rent arrears or where the tenant is persistently late in paying the rent. But those grounds do not give landlords the certainty they need that they can repossess their property once a minimum level of rent arrears has accrued.
For a small landlord who relies on the rent to cover his mortgage it is bad enough to have to wait months with little or no rent coming in before he can get his property back. It would be much worse for him if he could not even be certain that the court would grant a possession order. Ground 8 provides that certainty.
The noble Lord's amendments seeks to remove that certainty altogether. Without it, I fear that many people would be dissuaded from letting out their properties in the first place. It would be a backward step for the private rented sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was concerned about housing benefit. He gave the tragic example of a person who was £600 in arrears. Periodically, very uncomfortable and awkward circumstances arise. But even under the new levels proposed in Clause 100, a tenant is unlikely to be evicted until at least three to four months have elapsed since he first started to accrue arrears. That is because the landlord cannot begin any action until the tenant is at least eight weeks in arrears. He must then give the tenant two weeks' notice of possession proceedings. It will then take at least a month for the case to reach court. A court order can be made only if eight weeks' arrears still exist at the time

333
of the hearing. So the whole process takes at least three or four months. That is a reasonable period for a responsible tenant to sort out his financial affairs.
While I sympathise with the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, it is very difficult to make law that takes into account some of the most extreme examples. I quote a phrase which the noble Lord knows; namely, hard cases make bad law. One has to try to produce reasonable law based on reasonable cases. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will feel satisfied with the answer I have given.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, is he aware that the Greater London Council considered that to allow anyone to build up arrears beyond three weeks was very unkind and unfair? Under its policy it would view the eight weeks as far too long. Does the Minister think that the eight-week period is about right?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I did not think it was about right I should not have advocated it. I am very grateful to my noble friend for pointing out the fact that the GLC thought that three weeks was about right and it was "unfair and unkind" to allow the period to go on longer. That is quite right. In many respects, if the time goes on too long the tenant falls into more and more difficulties. That is why we have tried to be reasonable in accepting that point and reducing the period from three months to two months (from 13 weeks to eight).
Lord Dubs: My Lords, had my amendment said that a tenant could build up arrears for six months or a year before there was ground for eviction, I suggest that the Minister's remarks would not have been very different. I was not arguing that point. I do not believe that it is proper for tenants to get themselves into arrears. Everything should be done to prevent that happening. That was not what the amendment was about.
The amendment said that the courts would have discretion, and that is all. Why should they have discretion? They should have discretion because there may be particular and highly exceptional circumstances; and the court could exercise discretion if it were convinced that the circumstances were sufficiently unusual and exceptional to justify not granting possession. I cannot think of a more modest amendment put from this Dispatch Box over the years, and certainly not on this Bill. Yet the Minister treats it almost as if I were giving a licence to tenants to be in arrears for months, if not longer. It is incredibly modest. By replying in the way he did, the Minister is saying to the courts in this country, "We do not trust you to use your discretion. We shall give you no choice at all". That is what the discussion is about. The Minister's remarks were not about discretion. They were about rent arrears, how awful it was for landlords and how wrong it was to allow large rent arrears to occur.
I wish this were Committee stage. One could then press the Minister harder. All that this amendment seeks is discretion for the courts to deal with highly
334
exceptional instances. Perhaps the Minister will think again. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 71, line 11, at end insert—
("(c) after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted—
"For the purposes of this ground, any amount of unpaid housing benefit to which the tenant is lawfully entitled shall be regarded as if it were rent by the tenant;".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, had the Government seen fit to accept Amendment No. 131, Amendment No. 132 would not have been called. This amendment covers similar ground. I am sorry that it was not grouped with the previous one but there is a slight technical difference.
Amendment No. 132 seeks to enable the court, in considering grounds for possession under rent arrears, to set aside any element of the arrears arising from official error such as a slowness in the processing of a housing benefit claim. In other words, in ordinary language, a tenant who is in arrears could say, "I am in arrears to the extent of f100. The housing benefit authority owes me £120. Can that money be set against the £100 in order that I be judged not to be in arrears?"
This is another way of getting at the same point and one which may appeal a little more to the Minister than the previous one. Obviously the tenant would need to provide evidence as to the amount of housing benefit arrears to which he was entitled in order to demonstrate to the court that the money was owed to him from official sources and therefore it would not be appropriate to use Ground 8 as a way of achieving mandatory eviction from the premises.
The amendment is very reasonable. I suspect that it will hang on the ability of the tenant to produce evidence that the local authority has been slow in paying housing benefit. It is an even more reasonable amendment than the last one—I do not know how much more reasonable it is possible to be on this matter. Perhaps the Minister will feel that this amendment, being so reasonable, is worthy of further thought. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the day goes on, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, becomes more persuasive and makes me feel more of a heel because I cannot agree with him. I shall be careful if ever I should have a drink with the noble Lord—if he should ever offer me one—because I fear that, even if it were a poisoned chalice, he would say that it is a most delectable drink and that I should take it.
The noble Lord is enormously persuasive in this matter. He said that this is not the Committee stage, and that is true. He also said that Amendment No. 132 is similar to Amendment No. 131, which it is. He then made a remark which almost persuaded me to invite the leave of the House to allow me to make an intervention, but not quite.

335
The noble Lord said that my speech did not answer his point. It was a gentle speech about the ability of the courts to use their discretion and I was referring to rent arrears. I had the same response the other day from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who said that I had not addressed her point and had interpreted it wrongly. All I can say is that if the words of the amendment are included in the Bill they will have a certain effect. I tried to explain what the effect would be if the words of Amendment No. 131 had gone into the Bill. The noble Lord may have thought that they would have a different effect but, as we see it, it would have the effect that I stated.
The difficulty with this amendment is not dissimilar to the difficulty with the previous one. Under social security legislation, local authorities are required to process housing benefit claims within 14 days of all the required information being received. If the deadline is not met, local authorities have a statutory duty to make payments on account where the delay is not the fault of the tenant. The local authority is entitled to regard that a delay by an employer in providing information is not the fault of the tenant. Department of Social Security statistics show that over 80 per cent. of claims for housing benefit are now processed within that deadline and performance is steadily improving. That figure was queried during the debate in Committee. It has subsequently been checked with the DSS, which confirms it. The DSS also strengthened its guidance in April to remind local authorities of their legal duties to make payments on account. In view of the fact that the possession process is still likely to take three to four months, even under the change which we propose, housing benefit claimants should not be affected.
Local authorities must also ensure that the method and frequency of payments suit the reasonable needs of the tenant. The majority of tenants are paid on a two-weekly basis. Local authorities also have wide powers to pay housing benefit direct to the landlord. They have discretion to make direct payments if the tenant requests it or if it would be in the best interests of the tenant.
They must make payments direct if the tenant is eight weeks in arrears and recent guidance from the DSS recommends them to give serious consideration to direct payments if there are about six weeks' arrears. We would therefore expect that, where the tenant is receiving benefit and is in arrears with his rent, benefit will be paid direct to the landlord long before the case gets to court. A recent sample survey suggests that some 70 per cent. of payments are made direct to the landlord.
The noble Lord's amendment becomes a little unrealistic, even though he says it is the simplest and, astonishingly, the most modest amendment that has come from the Opposition Benches. The landlord is contractually entitled to his rent. It is not fair for him to be personally disadvantaged if his bankers say that he is not paying his bills and in fact he is being denied the rent that is contractually his. The lender will not consider the landlord's monthly loan or mortgage repayments to have been paid just because his tenant's housing benefit may be in the pipeline.
The argument I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is fairly convincing. I know that the noble Lord does not like to he convinced, but I am sure
336
that if he thinks about what I have said, he will find that he is convinced. My reasons indicate that the kind of situation about which the noble Lord is concerned is taken care of.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, first, I shall be delighted to buy the Minister a drink at any time when we are not sitting here engaged in discussion, and I promise him that it will not be a poisoned chalice; it will be whatever is his favourite tipple, and more than one. There is an offer!
I listened to what the Minister had to say. I am tempted to quote the Deputy Prime Minister, who said that his practice in business was to delay paying his bills for as long as possible. But perhaps it would be churlish of me to quote Mr. Heseltine in that context or to develop that argument. I hear what the Minister said: I am not convinced, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 101 [Recovery of possession where grant induced by false statement]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 71, line 17, after ("by") insert ("(a)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 133 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 134 and 185.
Clause 101 introduces a new ground for possession for assured tenancies where the landlord has granted a tenancy as a result of a false statement which was made knowingly or recklessly by the tenant. Local authorities and housing associations can already apply to the courts for possession of a secure tenancy which has been obtained by deceit under Ground 5 in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985. Housing associations now let on assured tenancies but there is no comparable ground for possession for assured tenancies under the Housing Act 1988.
Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 extend Clause 101 to cover false statements which are provided by a third party at the tenant's instigation in order to persuade a landlord to grant an assured tenancy. False information by third parties may be provided so as to obtain social housing. Indeed, Clause 161 of the Bill will enable prosecution of third parties, and not just the tenant, for making false statements in connection with an application for housing through the housing register. Letting agents also report problems arising from false information in references provided by third parties. The extended provision will cover references and other written or oral statements provided by third parties.
The Government see Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 as a sensible and logical extension of Clause 101. Amendment No. 185 would make similar provision in Ground 5 in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985 for secure tenancies. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 71, line 17, at end insert (",or
(b) a person acting at the tenant's instigation"").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 82 [Notice under s. 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 54, line 4, leave out ("any other part of the notice") and insert ("the notice—

(a) to indicate that the tenancy may be forfeited, or

(b) to specify the breach complained of,

whichever is the more conspicuous.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 263. Amendment No. 263 will commence Clause 82 at the same time as Clause 81: two months after Royal Assent. Amendment No. 135 is concerned with the provisions in Clause 82 of the Bill in relation to the service of a notice under Section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which is concerned with forfeiture. The clause requires that any such notice should contain a statement of the effects of Clause 81 of this Bill. That provides that a landlord may not exercise the right of forfeiture in relation to a dispute about service charge payments unless the amount due has been agreed by the tenant or determined by a court.
The Bill as currently drafted requires that the words of advice in the notice must be in characters not less conspicuous than those used in any other part of the notice. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, expressed concern in Committee about the possible ambiguity of this wording and we agreed to reflect on it. Paying attention to amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, may, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, be a dangerous business. To choose an analogy, it may be akin to playing Russian roulette. If that is the case, I hope that the cartridge is a blank, because we have agreed to go along with the arguments that the noble Lord was putting forward at Committee. Therefore, Amendment No. 135 provides that the relevant information in the notice must be in characters no less conspicuous than those which specify that the tenant may forfeit his lease or the breach which the tenant has allegedly committed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will agree that we have gone sufficiently far to satisfy the point that he was putting forward at Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for having, as it were, met the point which we put forward in Committee. I am most grateful to him. He was tentative in saying that he will accept suggestions coming from these Benches. I hope that he does not feel like that. The suggestions are put forward in order to improve the Bill and everything is clear in what we are saying. I am grateful that the Minister has seen fit to accept the point that we put forward earlier.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 83 [Determination of reasonableness of service charges]:
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 56, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 57.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment it may be for the convenience of your Lordships that we discuss Amendments Nos. 137 to 139 and 141 to 143. It certainly gives me hope that we appear to be discussing them at a moment when the Government have moved into a more receptive mood. Perhaps I may at the outset repeat the declaration of interest which I made in Committee. This amendment expresses the deep concerns of the Council on Tribunals, which I am privileged to chair.
Noble Lords who were in their places at nine o'clock in the evening of 13th June may recollect that in Committee I moved a rather modest amendment to this clause. Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I do not propose today to repeat everything which I said on that occasion. Clause 83 proposes to transfer from the county court to the leasehold valuation tribunals a jurisdiction to decide the reasonableness of service charges under Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
There are good reasons for that and the Council on Tribunals would welcome it, subject to two matters. First, legal aid is not available for advice and representation in proceedings before leasehold valuation tribunals. I shall not elaborate on that. I said something about it in Committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and I must resolve our differences on some other occasion.
Secondly, the clause proposes that the parties to proceedings shall be liable to pay fees which will amount, over a period, to the total cost of providing the tribunal's service. I am aware that it is proposed to apply a similar proposal to courts in civil proceedings. Those unfortunate enough to be involved in litigation will be required to pay for the cost of providing the machinery of adjudication. For myself, I find that an application of market principles which amounts to reductio ad absurdum, but it is not within the remit of the Council on Tribunals and this amendment does not seek to address that.
What alarms the council is the proposal in the Bill to extend that principle to tribunals. The Franks Committee in 1957 and the Donoughmore Committee in 1929 recognised that one advantage of tribunals is that they are relatively inexpensive and no one is likely to be deterred from pursuing their rights from a fear of the financial implications.
If that principle is to be breached, surely it should be after a clear proposal to that effect, preferably in a Green Paper, with wide consultation and, I venture to hope, a debate in both Houses. It ought not to be by a provision in Clause 83 of a Bill on a different subject applying to one part of the jurisdiction of one tribunal.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said a moment ago that what mattered was the effect of the words of an amendment on the Bill. I hope at least that the words of this amendment are quite unambiguous. This amendment seeks to remove the whole obnoxious provision from the Bill.
Perhaps I may add a word of explanation. Those of your Lordships who recollect the debate at Committee stage may have noticed an unusual feature of this amendment. It would be normal to move a fairly wide amendment in Committee and, after discussion, to move a more restrictive one on Report. It was at Committee stage that I moved a less ambitious amendment simply to provide for someone whose means were such that, if they were involved in civil proceedings in the courts, they would be entitled to qualify for legal aid with a nil contribution and to declare that such a person should not be required to pay fees under this provision since by definition they could not afford to pay them.
I am aware that the Government propose giving power to the Secretary of State to provide for the remission of fees on grounds of means and to empower the tribunal to order one side to reimburse the other for fees. But I believe that that fails to address the problem for two reasons. First, I believe that it should be made clear in primary legislation that those who by definition cannot afford to pay fees should be exempt from paying them and that that clear message should sound forth from the Bill itself. Even if there were an undertaking that an appropriate provision will be included in rules under the Bill, I do not believe that that would be satisfactory.
Secondly, in any event, no such undertaking has been forthcoming. It may be within the discretion of the tribunal to make such an order, but I do not believe that that is the way in which the matter ought to be dealt with. If someone is considering whether to enforce their rights—usually, in this class of case, against a property company—they should not be concerned that although it may be all right, no one can predict what the tribunal will order. They might be at risk of having to pay fees. Clearly they cannot take the risk.
I made that very modest proposal in Committee hoping that there might be a compromise because I do not believe that the best should be the enemy of the good. Alas, the good was not on offer. The Government opposed my well-intentioned compromise. When he replied in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, announced—going, I believe, as far as he reasonably could given his brief—announced that the Government proposed, presumably in regulations, to provide that a litigant, before embarking on proceedings, will know whether he will be liable for fees so that he can then either embark upon the proceedings without that fear or he can reconcile himself to the loss of his rights. That is a crumb of comfort but it falls a long way short of what we might have hoped.
I should add that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who, at the moment is not in his place, pointed out that the wording of the proposed new Section 31(B)(6) is not as clear as some of us might have hoped, and I ventured to hope that the Government would respond at least to that point.
If it is intended to respond, even to that, there is no indication on the Marshalled List. Apparently, the Government do not consider it possible that they may be wrong about any aspect of this. I would have settled for my amendment in Committee in order to protect those who, by definition, cannot afford to pay fees from having to run that risk. I might even be tempted today in a certain eventuality to settle for Amendment No. 139 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Dubs although I make the offer without prejudice at this stage. But it appears that no compromise is on offer. Certainly no compromise was on offer in Committee.
Therefore I have tabled at this stage the amendment which I should have tabled at the outset to remove from the Bill the whole principle of justice for sale and to preserve inviolate the principle that justice is provided by the community as of right.
If the Government wish to introduce the principle of fees on a full cost recovery basis in the case of tribunals and to reverse a principle which has been established at least since the Donoughmore Committee in 1929, then I hope your Lordships will have none of it. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 138 and 142 standing in my name dealing with the same matter. Clauses 83 and 86 empower the Secretary of State to make provision by order for the payment of fees in respect of any application to the tribunal at a level so as to cover the reasonable costs of the service.
I welcome that proposal to take service charge disputes in long leasehold private residential property out of the county courts and into leasehold valuation tribunals because I supported the Government's aim to make it much easier and more affordable for lessees to challenge unfair service charges.
When this matter was originally discussed with the Government, it was understood that these fees would take the form of an application fee and would be set in the region of £500 per case. The Government now propose that the fees should vary from case to case and should be set at a level to cover the cost of each individual case. The Minister suggested during the Committee stage debate that a simple case, lasting for example two hours, might cost £500 whereas longer cases would need to be charged at a rate of about £2,000 per day. It is my understanding that service charge disputes are rarely simple and it is difficult to envisage what could usefully be achieved in two hours.
The Government's latest position appears to move well away from the concept of an application fee and is a major and most unwelcome departure in the administration of our justice system. No other judicial process requires the applicant to underwrite the court costs. Given that the tribunal will have discretion to make an award for the fees and that therefore ultimately it may become payable by the lessee, it also seems to move a long way from the Government's original concept of affordable justice for lessees. Also, the move from a fixed fee, which would have given certainty

341
regarding cost to potential applicants, to a limitless variable fee will undoubtedly deter applicants from seeking redress via the local valuation tribunal. We must remember that many of the people who will be seeking to have a fair service charge may be old people on fixed incomes and those people who are the least able to risk having to pay a high and limitless cost for the tribunal.
My amendment will not hold up the passing of the primary legislation or frustrate its admirable intent. It will simply enable discussions to take place between the Government and interested parties on the most appropriate level and structure of the fees to be levied before any order is made in respect of them.
My amendments have been subject to wide consultation and have a great deal of support with regard both to their principle and the detailed drafting. I commend the amendments to the House.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, we have a series of amendments all expressing unease about the Minister's statement at Committee stage—which came as a shock to us—that he thought that the fees might be as much as £2,000 per day for access to the LVT.
It was a shock to many noble Lords listening to the Minister. Indeed, it was a shock to people who happened to be in the Public Galleries or who read Hansard and came to me and said they were absolutely astonished. Indeed, one individual concerned with an organisation representing leaseholders said that he thought that at that level it would be better if they took their chances in the county court than have to run the risk of paying £2,000 a day merely for access to the tribunal, to say nothing of any other costs that they might have to incur.
I very much agree with the points made by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer when he moved the first of this set of amendments. I received yesterday a briefing from the Bar Council—as perhaps did other Members of the House. I should like to quote from that briefing, which is concerned about the proposal to charge fees for access to the tribunal:
"It is the hallmark of a civilised society that its citizens should be able to seek to have their disputes resolved by an impartial tribunal at the cost of the state".
It goes on to say, in relation to service charge disputes,
"There is nothing special about service charge disputes that warrant these provisions. They are disputes about the cost of maintaining people's homes. They are no more or less worthy of the provision of free judicial services than any other civil dispute. In practice they are more important than many disputes that are determined in the County Court because they cause great anxiety and can arise out of circumstances of real distress, particularly where lessees are being exploited by lessors with greater resources who are unprepared to co-operate with or consult lessees on the provision of builders' estimates, specifications or quotations."
I appreciate that we are dealing with matters which are complicated. But that, of course, is a consideration which leaseholders or freeholders would have to consider. They might, of course, incur additional costs in seeking legal advice. But we are embarked here on a principle which is, as far as I am aware, quite novel in this country that one has to pay for access to a court or a tribunal. Of course people have to pay their legal costs when going to court or to a tribunal, but surely having
342
to pay for access is an entirely different proposition. There is a cost in running tribunals and courts but, as the Bar Council said, it is the hallmark of a civilised society that access to a tribunal should be at the cost of the state. I should have thought that that was an elementary principle. Until now it has been accepted with regard to all courts and tribunals in this country.
I have tabled an amendment to try to ensure that the maximum cost will be £500, which compares with a possible cost of £2,000 a day. I should be happier if there were no cost, so in a sense I prefer my noble and learned friend's amendment to mine. However, I tabled my amendment because I understood that in so far as a compromise was possible, the sum of £500 might be such a compromise. I am, however, reluctant to accept a compromise on this and I regard my amendment as a very poor second choice to that of my noble and learned friend because my amendment breaches a principle. In practice, it might not represent as much of a deterrent as might result if the Bill is unamended, but I think that the Government are wrong in principle. They are setting a precedent which may deny justice to a lot of people. If they take that precedent further, they may deny justice to a lot more people. This is a very wrong move and I hope very much that the Government will see their way to modifying their position.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I have added my name to that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on Amendment No. 137 which I strongly support and to which I shall speak in a moment. However, I should like to comment first on Amendment No. 136 which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, moved so well. I do not like Amendment No. 136 because I think that it is too sweeping. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that transferring from county courts to leasehold valuation tribunals is welcome. However, his amendment is too sweeping with regard to that process.
I have never agreed with the noble and learned Lord—I still do not—on the—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene, but nothing in my amendment in any way affects the proposal to transfer the jurisdiction to leasehold valuation tribunals. The amendment simply states that people should expect there what they have expected for generations in this country—that is, justice at the expense of the community.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. However, I disagree with him on the question of legal aid in relation to tribunals. The noble and learned Lord has heard me on this point previously. I would be appalled if legal aid were introduced for tribunals, because the whole purpose of tribunals is to have a cheap, simple and effective way of hearing cases. We have argued in the past about industrial tribunals and I have said that my experience is that people who present their own cases often do it very well—and inexpensively.

343
Therefore, I do not believe that anyone is barred from bringing a case under the tribunal procedure—that is, if they are able to speak for themselves.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness again. Lest anyone should be misled, the noble Baroness and I have had this debate over quite a long period and I have no doubt that we shall continue until one or other of us leaves this mortal coil. However, this point has nothing to do with my amendment. Does the noble Baroness recognise that my amendment is in no way proposing to introduce legal aid?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord again. However, when moving his amendment he said that he wished to see legal aid being made available for those attending leasehold valuation tribunals. I am responding to that point. I do not want that to happen.
Perhaps I may return to the basic point of my argument and to why I have added my name to that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on Amendment No.137. I repeat that I believe that we are looking for a cheap, simple and effective way of resolving disputes over service charges. Such a simple and cheap way should appeal to both landlords and tenants. I believe that it does. Even the richest landlord does not want to have to spend days and huge amounts of money defending some minor point. That is why a tribunal system is welcome.
As I have said, if you represent yourself, you can do it for nothing. That too is a merit of the system. I have said before that I believe that the noble and learned Lord is a little protective of the legal profession. He believes that everyone should be represented, but that is costly. If you are a tenant complaining about an over-charge of £1,000 on your service charge and it will cost you £2,000 to have the case heard, you are in a no-win situation because it will cost you £1,000 more to have the case heard than you would have gained if you had won the case. That is total nonsense.
I am glad that we are now talking about the reform of legal aid, but I shall not get into that debate now. However, I do think that the provision of legal aid would be unfair to property owners because people who would never entertain the thought of bringing a case if it depended on their own personal effort might well do so if the procedure was served up to them on a platter. That would be unfair to the other side. If we are to obtain a satisfactory position on this, we should recognise that both property owners and tenants would have their interests served if we had a simple, cheap and effective way of resolving disputes.
I am absolutely shocked—the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that he was shocked also—that there should be any suggestion that people should pay towards the whole cost of running a tribunal service. I believe that there is such a suggestion in this clause. I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to clarify this because I take it to mean that not only does one have to pay costs if the case goes against one, but that one has to pay also towards the structure of the building and its staff, including for the judge in a court or the chairman in a
344
tribunal. Are we saying that someone who wants to take a simple service charge dispute to a rapid determination will find that they are financially supporting the great structure of a tribunal? That would be impossible and unfair to all parties.
I am no expert on British justice and I defer to the noble and learned Lord on this, but I believe that it is totally contrary to British justice that someone should be asked to pay in that way. The taxpayer has always supported the system of justice. There are provisions in tribunal regulations to ensure that if someone brings a frivolous or vexatious case, costs can he awarded against them. I presume that there could be a similar protection in this system to ensure that people are not encouraged to waste the tribunal's time. I do not think that it is overstating the cost to say that it might amount to £2,000 a day. In fact, that might be an understatement of the cost at a tribunal because such costs can be very high.
As I have said, I do not agree with the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord. Nevertheless, I am impressed by his arguments on the legal aspects and by those of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and my noble friend Lord Gisborough. It was a lottery as to whether I would add my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, or to that in the name of my noble friend. However, the noble Lord's amendment came first and covered more or less the same ground. That is why I added my name to that amendment.
The important thing is to establish the principle. I hope that this House will deplore any suggestion that we should ask those who are seeking justice to support financing the establishment of justice other than as taxpayers, as happens now.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, we are all indebted to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell for introducing his amendment so cogently. I sense that there is wide agreement around the House for the concept behind it, if not for its technical wording, but, knowing my noble and learned friend as well as I do, I am sure that he has got that right also.
At this point perhaps I should declare that I have a vested interest in this subject in that the origin of my title and of my ability to be a Member of this House arises from a constitutional and legal change which bears on this argument. Those of your Lordships who are familiar with the works of Dickens will remember the case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce which went on for years and years, eating up all the money, so that there was nothing left for the complainants at the end of it all. My ancestor on whom the title was conferred broke that logjam in chancery by introducing a new court to help reduce the cost and delays of British justice. I have a slight vested interest.
I remind the House of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, last week during the debate on the constitution. He suggested that we needed to be careful about the unintended results of any changes that we made. I suspect that the Government's plans to charge people who wish to take a case to the tribunal will have

345
unintended consequences. These have been alluded to already by a number of noble Lords, but I remind the House of three possible consequences. One is that justice may be denied to poor people. The second is that there is a high risk that, instead of going to the relatively cheap and less time-consuming tribunal, people will go to the courts, clog them up and cause problems for others who seek justice. The third consequence—which I do not believe has been mentioned but should be recognised—is that if people cannot obtain justice through the normal procedures and mechanisms provided by the legal framework, there is a high risk that they will take the law into their own hands. That may be one of the unforeseen consequences. How they might do that I hesitate even to postulate. But in considering what one suspects is a major constitutional change one must be very careful as to how justice is done in this country.
6 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in these proceedings but have been moved to do so by what I have heard. With regard to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, if the Government are minded to make the courts fully cost-bearing, surely that is a matter which should be addressed head on in relation to the courts, with a full debate and Bill upon the matter. It represents a radical change in the philosophy of the centuries. If we are to have full cost-bearing courts, let us debate it with a Bill. It is wrong to slip that into a housing Bill in relation to a particular part of the jurisdiction of a tribunal and to have a minute portion of the tail of the dog before we have debated whether the philosophy of the dog is desirable. Surely, this should be postponed until a Bill comes forward which contains the entire philosophy of the Government on fully cost-bearing justice, if indeed that is to be their philosophy.
If there are to be fees, I am deeply impressed by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, against fees which vary with the length of the case. Presumably, the fee under subsection (2)(a) is to be paid by the applicant. If I am a devious landlord and I know that an application will be made and that the fee to be paid by the applicant will depend upon the likely length of the case, all I have to do is say to the applicant that it is a very complicated matter which raises many principles, that I shall call 14 valuers, 15 engineers and 14 roofing experts and the case will last three weeks. The lady or gentleman in question of modest means will then be told that the fee is enormous and will not be able to bring the case. It is no consolation to that individual to know that if he wins the case in the face of all those experts he may get back his fee. If the fee is to depend upon the likely length of the case, it will be very easy for unscrupulous people to deter applicants.
I strongly support the idea that for the moment these provisions should be left out and introduced in primary legislation directed to the sole question of whether justice should be fee paying.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 139A. Although it does not
346
deal with precisely the same point, it has been tabled to cover the same matter. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, have struck a strong chord on the whole issue of charges levied by the tribunal. Like other noble Lords, I have received correspondence on this matter. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has received correspondence from the Bar Council. I have received correspondence from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Council of Mortgage Lenders, both of whom have an active and experienced hand in this matter.
When I consider the case put by my noble friend, I hope that it is not the Treasury that has insisted upon this issue. He appears to have a number of options to consider on these amendments. In principle, I support the case advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, that there should be no charges for the tribunal's costs. My second choice is the cap of £500 advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. My amendment introduces the concept of transference. One must remember that this is to do only with service charges and is not a major housing issue. Service charges can be dealt with by arbitration, the arbitrator normally being appointed by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The costs will be circa £150. The tribunal hearing may be a very simple operation. This is a recognised way of reaching a fair compromise.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, most of the points that I would have made have already been made and I shall not go over them again. I am chairman of the Leaseholding Enfranchisement Advisory Service, which is a joint government and industry funded advisory service. That body sets out to provide independent and impartial advice to long leaseholders who exercise their rights, principally under the 1993 Act but also under the 1987 Act.
The advisory service would have considerable concerns about this matter. My concerns have grown as I have considered the question of charging for the services of the tribunal in connection with service charges. First, I am concerned as to where the principle stops. Do we then have charges being levied for other aspects of the tribunal's work? What about other tribunals, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, has pointed out? That would give rise to real concern about giving advice, particularly in being able to persuade leaseholders—I believe the House recognises that they tend to be in a more vulnerable position—that they have a ready fallback in the form of access to the tribunal.
Two points need to be mentioned here. There are circumstances in which it is appropriate for the tribunal to charge: first, where recourse to the tribunal is a purely voluntary matter; and, secondly, where some kind of adjudication system arises out of a contractual agreement between the parties, such as a commercial rent review arbitration. But that is something which is imposed by statute and I feel that the circumstances are different. I do not advocate a free-for-all. It may be appropriate to have some kind of registration fee, in precisely the same way as one pays a fee to a local

347
planning authority for a planning application which is intended to cover those costs. However, that is a contribution. It is not supposed to be the case that local authorities necessarily recover all their costs in those ways.
If it is intended that the costs should be discretionary, I should wish to know how that discretion is to be exercised and to have the benefit of that explanation before the Bill leaves this House. Short of that explanation, I should be nervous about the full costs of recovery. Even a cap of £500, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in Amendment No. 139, could be unfair, especially if the disputed part of the service charge—it may a good deal less than the whole—is quite modest. I am talking about a few hundred pounds, which makes a great deal of difference to a pensioner in, say, a tenement block. I believe that the charging will create a barrier in terms of access to justice. We have heard about that and about the possibility that it is open to abuse by an adversary who possesses greater economic might. That is an important consideration and I wish to associate myself with that argument.
There is a further point. If the tribunal may determine costs on its own administration and decide how they are to be met, it is almost inevitable that it will be drawn into questions as to how the costs in the action of the parties are to be dealt with. If the tribunal is not going to consider those—for instance, if the conduct of one of the parties has exacerbated the costs of the tribunal hearing—how is that line to be drawn? That matter needs to be dealt with.
I do not advocate cheapness so that the facility is abused, but cost must not be a barrier. However, at the same time, it can justifiably seek to eliminate the frivolous repetitive application. If that is not correctly achieved in this House, there will be a form of "entryism", a syndrome which a colleague of mine referred to as hammering on the fingers of those trying to get into the lifeboat. I am increasingly nervous that that is happening here. No one in the country at large is asking for the tribunal to charge in the manner supposed in the Bill; not landlords, not tenants, not the property industry, nor the professionals. But the basic principle needs explaining.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, as a chartered surveyor with some modest experience of these matters, but as a retired chartered surveyor who does not need to declare an interest, I wish to support Amendment No. 139A. These matters must be decided on the facts and could more easily be decided by a single arbitrator at much less cost.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and to all noble Lords who have spoken. I have some sympathy with what they have said. We all want to keep the fee down to the lowest level possible. The Government's objective in giving this new jurisdiction to the tribunals is to establish a procedure for settling disputes which is cost-effective. We believe that tribunals can achieve that as they will be able to bring specialised knowledge to the disputes. We also
348
believe that the less formal proceedings of the tribunal will mean that the cost of providing the service can be kept within reasonable bounds and will mean that leaseholders do have access to affordable justice.
The Government believe strongly, however, that the new system which we are seeking to establish should be self-financing. We have to bear in mind the constant pressures on public spending and have regard to the fact that there is no overwhelming case for a disputes procedure of this kind between landlord and tenant to be a burden on taxpayers. By "costs" we mean all costs, down to the milk for the office cat.
We have not yet worked out the detail of the fee scales, but I indicated in Committee that in order to be self-financing the fee might have to be about £500 for straightforward cases and possibly £2,000 a day for the more complicated ones. I believe that fees of this order will still represent good value for money for leaseholders, bearing in mind that in most cases it will be shared among the leaseholders in a block of flats or converted house. I cannot therefore agree that we should amend the current wording in the way envisaged by these various amendments which would seek to constrain the level of fees, in some cases to below the level of full cost recovery.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, also raised his concern that legal aid will not be available for anyone appearing before a leasehold valuation tribunal and seeks a reassurance that there will be an automatic waiver of fees for anyone who would qualify for legal aid before a court. Currently, the Bill provides that the order setting the fees may allow for them to be reduced or waived by reference to the financial resources of the applicant but is not specific about how this should be done.
I am afraid that I have some difficulty in giving such an assurance. The problem is that the arrangements for applying for civil legal aid are quite complex and it would greatly add to administrative costs if tribunal staff had to undertake a similar form of means-testing. As I said in Committee, in order to keep matters as simple as possible we would much prefer that exemption from the LVT fee should be passported on the back of some other benefit. We have not yet decided which regime to use and when we consult in the autumn on the fee levels and structures we will consider views on how the exemptions should work in detail.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull has joined his Amendment No. 139A to this group. We certainly agree that arbitration can provide a very satisfactory means of resolving service charge disputes. Indeed, some leases make explicit provision for cases to be referred to arbitration.
Nothing in the Bill prevents landlords and tenants going to arbitration. Indeed, Clause 81(1)(b) explicitly recognises arbitration as a means of settling service charge disputes. We would certainly encourage landlords and tenants to consider using arbitration. However, we do not believe that it would be right for the court or the LVT to have the power to compel the parties to adopt this route. Therefore, we would not wish to accept my noble friend's amendment.

349
I am aware that in the course of giving that answer I have left every noble Lord unsatisfied. As I have sat in my place I have felt the blows land on my body.I shall undertake to show my bruises to my right honourable friend the Minister and to discuss with him what has been said today. However, I do so with no commitment.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he explain what is so peculiar about the nature of these disputes in that they and they alone merit full fee paying charges, whereas commercial disputes in the commercial court between two multi-million pound companies do not begin to try to make the books balance?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, at this exact moment I do not have an answer to that question. I shall discuss it with my right honourable friend.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I hope that I speak for other Members of the House when I say that it is difficult to ask him to respond to such extremely detailed legal points. I hope that in seeking advice the matter will be raised again. I am hoping that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, will do so. Will my noble friend understand that we appreciate that a Housing Bill is not the appropriate place to be changing the whole system of justice?
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, in approaching his right honourable friend will he recall that professional bodies consider that charges of £2,000 a day are prohibitive for those involved in service charge disputes?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I and my right honourable friend, I am sure, will pay careful attention to what my noble friends have said.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am thinking on my feet. Earlier today your Lordships held a discussion about the location of the heart of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, knows the location of his heart better than I do. However, I think better of him than to believe that his heart was in what he was saying today.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I believe that currently it is in my boots!
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the noble Lord is irresistible. How could I press on in the face of that? I say only that the brief to which the noble Lord spoke was couched in terms as though the idea of a judicial service being self-financing was self-evidently right. Apparently, whoever drafted the brief was totally insensitive to the fact that for generations the people of this country have expected the community to provide a judicial service. Perhaps at least the noble Lord could
350
explain that to them. If they would open the most elementary of history books we might begin the debate again. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and my noble friend Lord Dubs reminded us of some of the alarming figures which the noble Lord mentioned in Committee, from which I do not think he resiled today. The figures we are dealing with are very alarming figures—astronomical figures—to some of those who will be involved.
My noble friend reminded us of the views of the Bar Council, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, reminded us of the views of many of the people who have occasion to use these tribunals. I was very tempted to say that in those circumstances I would test the opinion of the House, but who could resist what the noble Lord said to us a few moments ago? I think that possibly we may have an abler advocate in him than any of us could be, at least through the pages of Hansard. In hope, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 137 to 139A not moved.]
Clause 85 [Appointment of manager by the court]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 59, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) After subsection (9) insert—
"(9A) The court shall not vary or discharge an order under subsection (9) on a landlord's application unless it is satisfied—

(a) that the variation or discharge of the order will not result in a recurrence of the circumstances which led to the order being made, and

(b) that it is just and convenient in all the circumstances of the case to vary or discharge the order.".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 140. This concerns the proposal which is currently contained in the Bill that leasehold valuation tribunals shall deal with applications from leaseholders in blocks of flats for the appointment of a manager in cases of unsatisfactory management performance by their landlord. The new grounds which the tribunal must consider are set out in Clause 85 of the Bill and modify the provisions already contained in Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
The existing legislation also provides that where a manager has been appointed the court is required to consider, at any time, an application from any person to vary or discharge the order appointing that manager. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, proposed an amendment in Committee to tighten up the procedures for the discharge of a management order, as he felt that the current rules could allow the landlord to come back to the tribunal with possibly some cosmetic changes to his management arrangements and ask to be given another chance. Quite obviously, there is some scope for abuse of these procedures.
My noble friend Lord Lucas agreed that the current provision was unsatisfactory and undertook to look at it further. This amendment is therefore designed to secure that tightening up. It would clarify that before a tribunal could vary or discharge a management order following an application from a landlord it would have to be satisfied that the new management arrangements would

351
not result in a recurrence of the circumstances which led to the order being made in the first place. It would also need to be satisfied that it would be just and convenient to vary or discharge the order. The onus of proof that the landlord's management will in future be up to a satisfactory standard will lie with the landlord. We do not wish to prevent landlords from seeking a discharge of the order in all circumstances. Clearly there may be cases where the landlord has made a genuine effort to impose sensible management arrangements. At the end of the day, it must be the duty of the tribunal to decide, and they would have to decide whether in these situations a convincing case had been laid out which would be fair to all the parties concerned.
That is what this amendment seeks to achieve and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will feel happy that once again the Government have listened to what he and other noble Lords have said and have come forward with an amendment to meet the problems stated. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, indeed, I welcome what the Minister has said. I am grateful to him for having met the points that were made during the Committee stage of this Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 86 [Appointment of manager: transfer of jurisdiction to leasehold valuation tribunal]:
[Amendments Nos. 141 to 143 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 144:
After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—

COMMON PARTS: RIGHT TO SELF-MANAGEMENT
(". After section 34 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 insert—
"Common parts: right to self-management.
(1) The Secretary of State shall have power by order to provide a scheme for the self-management by qualifying tenants of common parts of the premises which the landlord is obliged to maintain and for which the tenants contribute a service charge under their existing leases.
(2) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 144, standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, attempts to make possible a self-management scheme for the common parts of buildings in which there are leaseholders. I have looked carefully at the issue of Hansard covering a discussion of the same point, although on a different amendment, at the Committee stage. The Minister referred at that time to the fact that I had not only tabled an amendment which was about two columns in length but had also sent him a copy of an alternative scheme which was, I think, some 24 pages in length, for his comments. I did not think it appropriate to table such a complicated scheme for debate at the Committee stage; nor have I thought it appropriate to do so at this stage of the Bill. However, I should like, if I may, to quote a passage from Hansard at col. 173 during the Committee stage, when the Minister said:
352
"I know the noble Lord has a more detailed proposal up his sleeve—and he was kind enough to show me a copy. Indeed, that would be a useful starting point. But there are many difficult questions to be addressed. There is a great deal of detail to be gone into. There is a requirement for extensive consultation if we wish to go down that route and it would quite clearly not be possible to incorporate such a proposal in this Bill without extensive Henry VIII provisions. Under these circumstances I hope the noble Lord will realise that even should we favour his proposals—which we do not—it would not be appropriate to proceed with them in this Bill."—[Official Report, 18/6/96; col. 173.]
Although the Minister said that the Government were not in favour of these proposals, I took some comfort from what he said. He suggested that developing a scheme of self-management for leaseholders was complicated, very detailed and would require extensive thought and consultation. With that I quite agree. That is why I was concerned that the amendment I had tabled for Committee stage did not meet all the requirements. I felt that the scheme which I sent to the Minister—the more detailed scheme which he said would be a useful starting point—actually went further towards trying to develop a self-management scheme for leaseholders.
However, it is quite clear that to put down an amendment which is virtually a Bill in itself was still quite an undertaking and probably not appropriate; so what I have here in Amendment No. 144 is something quite different. This amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State the power, if he chooses to exercise it, to develop a self-management scheme for qualifying tenants of common parts of premises, and that such an order would be made by statutory instrument subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. In other words, if the Secretary of State felt that there was something in this and it would be appropriate to accept this amendment, it does not compel him to do anything at all. But should the Secretary of State feel, in the near or distant future, that there was merit in developing a self-management scheme, he would have the powers to do so.
This allows the Secretary of State on a future occasion, after consultation, to put forward a scheme; but I repeat that the Secretary of State is under no obligation to do anything. The wording of the amendment is quite clear: that the Secretary of State shall have the power by order to provide a scheme but that he does not have to do anything at all if he wishes not to do so. He is enabled to do this in the future. A great deal of concern has been expressed by many leaseholders about the management of their properties.
A self-management scheme would have much to commend it. It would give leaseholders certain rights of management; it would not take away ownership from the freeholder; but it would ensure that the management was carried out in a way which was sensitive to the needs and wishes of the people living in the flats and subject every day to the consequences of poor management, if that exists.
Therefore, it seems to me that this amendment would go some way towards meeting the wishes of leaseholders. It would certainly go a long way towards meeting what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said—and I repeat my quotation—that the scheme that I sent him would be a useful starting point. I believe that that was the case also with this amendment. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the idea of a self-management scheme is seductive but I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the dangers. There may be cases where self-management would lead to problems. Elderly people whose central heating is in need of repair or whose roof needs mending may simply decide not to bother to have the necessary repairs carried out. It is a recipe for many buildings getting into serious disrepair.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I had considerably sympathy with the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on self-management when he raised the matter in Committee. Having said that, there are a great many problems involved, both problems of principle and considerable practical problems as those who have the slightest experience of self-management in the rare instances when it has happened will know.
The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, mentioned one particular problem. It is very difficult to get a small number of people, even well-educated and intelligent people, to reach agreement about what is to be done in relation to the maintenance of the buildings concerned and it is even more difficult to get them to make a contribution towards the cost, whatever the technical, theoretical legal obligations may be. This is really a matter for primary rather than secondary legislation. Therefore, I could not support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there was extensive discussion at Committee stage of the Bill in this House and at various stages in another place about whether leaseholders of flats should be given a right to manage in the form which is advocated by the noble Lord's amendment. The different amendments, which the Opposition have tabled at previous stages, have varied in length and complexity, although all have been incomplete and deficient in various ways.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that his scheme would run to 26 pages. As far as we can see, any scheme which would come close to working could be in the order of 25 clauses. Therefore, this is a fairly complicated proposal. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, did not wish to table at this stage the equivalent of 25 clauses. If we wanted to run such a scheme, the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, might have been a starting point. But the real problem is that we do not wish to run such a scheme.
Amendment No. 144 is now reduced to the bare minimum as it provides the Secretary of State with an order-making power to introduce the scheme at a later date if the Secretary of State thought it appropriate. That is a whacking great Henry VIII clause. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that this is not something which should be introduced in secondary legislation. If we were to do that, I fear that we should incur the wrath of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, not to mention the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is not in his place. I did not see the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, rise up in wrath at the idea of introducing a Henry VIII clause but I have no doubt that she feels a similar sentiment.
354
As the current amendment contains no detail of what sort of scheme is being envisaged it is difficult to make any further specific criticisms of it. But, in moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has indicated that he wishes to see the same sort of scheme as that set out in the previous amendment debated in Committee.
The Government have consistently opposed an automatic right to self-management at every stage of this Bill's progress through Parliament, and for very good reasons. The right would apply whether or not the landlord was doing a good job. Even if he were behaving impeccably, the leaseholders could say, "Thank you for what you have done and goodbye. We'll take over now", and the landlord receives no compensation. Noble Lords might ask why he should receive any compensation. Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that the price which the landlord pays for property does reflect the income which is available from management. Management should be a wholly reputable business; exploitation is not. If management is the landlord's job, then management has a value to him. Yet the noble Lord's proposal contains no provision for any element of compensation to the manager who has been discharged summarily from his responsibilities.
This right to manage would therefore be unfair to the many reputable landlords who undertake their responsibilities in a conscientious manner. It offends against the basic premise of the leasehold system, which is that a lease is a private contract freely entered into. It is a voluntary agreement between the landlord and the tenant which gives certain rights and obligations to each party.
The Government therefore think that the right to manage is not the right way forward. We believe that our proposals represent a better alternative. Perhaps I may state briefly what they are. We have already given leaseholders the right to buy out the landlord's interest in the property if they wish under the enfranchisement legislation. This Bill contains a number of proposals to improve that right in ways which we shall be discussing shortly. Enfranchisement provides a complete and clean break—the leaseholders take over all the landlord's rights and obligations, and they take over his interest in the property. They gain complete control over the property. And the landlord goes down the Suwannee with a cash sum.
For all those reasons, I believe that a right to remove a person who is doing his job properly is not correct. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that his amendment is inappropriate.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the Minister said that my amendment, if accepted, would represent a Henry VIII provision. I obviously defer to noble Lords who have far more experience than I in those matters but I understand that a Henry VIII provision allows primary legislation to be amended subsequently by statutory instrument. That is clearly not the case here. I would argue that this is not a Henry VIII provision. It is an amendment which gives the Secretary of State powers to devise a scheme concerning self-management. No amendment to primary legislation is envisaged in that. We would have a detailed scheme setting out the

355
terms under which leaseholders might self-manage, the conditions, the methods, the qualifying periods and that sort of detail. It is not a Henry VIII provision by any means.
Amendment No. 144 is very similar to many other provisions in legislation which simply give the Secretary of State the power to develop schemes or detailed proposals which do not affect the primary legislation itself. That is the first point.
Secondly, although I had not specified any scheme in the amendment or, indeed, set out any details of one, the Minister said that it was clear that I had something in mind comparable to an earlier amendment that I moved in Committee. Well, that may or may not be the outcome. I favour the approach set out in Amendment No. 144. I do so because I am not entirely sure about the detailed points which were raised as a result of the earlier amendment. Indeed, I was told that there were some technical defects in it.
Moreover, the amendment would leave the Secretary of State free to do whatever he wishes; in other words, it is possible that the Secretary of State could meet the Minister's point and that there would only be a right to self-manage if there was a defect in existing management. I should have thought, therefore, that my proposal goes further towards meeting the Government's objections than the Minister conceded a few moments ago.
I had hoped that there would be a little more sympathy for the suggested approach. It would enable a self-management scheme to be more limited. Indeed, if the Secretary of State so chose, it would enable a self-management scheme to be developed as a result of intensive consultation and might well limit the right to self-management to individuals living in flats which are not well managed. However, I see that the Minister shows no willingness to concede the point that I am making. I hope that he will agree with me at some point that it is not a Henry VIII clause. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 89 [Notice required to be given by landlord making disposal]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 62, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 146 and 147. Amendment No. 145 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 147. Amendment No. 146 recasts the transitional provision in Clause 89 to cover all obligations, not just contracts: it is also consequential to the effect of Amendment No. 145.
In this Bill we have established criminal sanctions against landlords who fail to offer their tenants the right of first refusal when they wish to sell their interest. In the Bill as printed, those sanctions apply only to failure to serve notices under Section 5 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987—the primary offer. But, on reflection, that does not go quite far enough. A landlord might serve a Section 5 notice but then fail to follow the proper procedures
356
subsequently. He might sell to a third party after Section 5 notices have been served, or sell on better terms within 12 months after negotiations with the tenants have broken down.
Therefore, Amendment No. 147 broadens the offence to cover contravening any prohibition or restriction in Sections 6 to 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. These prohibitions refer to the sales to third parties which I have just described. The extension to the offence is set out in Amendment No. 147 as new Section 10A(1)(b), which is the only new element in this group of amendments. We believe that the principal responsibility for offering the right of first refusal lies with the vendor landlord. These amendments will ensure that he cannot avoid his obligations without penalty. I hope that the House agrees to them.
I have one further matter to mention before I move the amendment. I promised in Committee to return to the question of defining a "relevant disposal" for the purposes of the criminal offence. We have not yet been able to do this, but we intend to bring forward the necessary amendment on Third Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, may quail at introducing a 24-page amendment, but I fear that I may be doing exactly that. Indeed, very extensive amendments are necessary to various pieces of legislation and, indeed, to earlier legislation to achieve the effect that we desire.
We intend to lay the amendment on Monday. However, we will make available to all noble Lords who have spoken in Committee or on Report a draft of the proposed new clause on Friday so that they may have a chance over the weekend—that is, if they have nothing better to do—to look at it. If any noble Lords will not be in a position to receive mail directly from this House on Friday and would like to receive it by some other means, perhaps they will let me know and I shall ensure that that is done. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, perhaps I may comment briefly on what the Minister said about the definition of "relevant disposal". I am very pleased that the noble Lord is looking further into the matter. I thank him for his willingness to make the details of the proposed new clause available as early as possible. I hope that it comes out in the form that we would wish.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 62, line 39, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("( ) The above amendment does not apply to a disposal made in pursuance of an obligation entered into before the commencement of this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 147:
After Clause 89, insert the following new clause—

OFFENCE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF PART I
(".—(1) After section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 insert—
"Offence of failure to comply with requirements of Part I.
10A.—(1) A landlord commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he makes a relevant disposal affecting premises to which this Part applies—

357

(a) without having first complied with the requirements of section 5 as regards the service of notices on the qualifying tenants of flats contained in the premises, or

(b) in contravention of any prohibition or restriction imposed by sections 6 to 10.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(3) Where an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved—

(a) to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or a person purporting to act in such a capacity, or

(b) to be due to any neglect on the part of such an officer or person,

he, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
here the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, the above provision applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.
(4) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be brought by a local housing authority (within the meaning of section 1 of the Housing Act 1985).
(5) Nothing in this section affects the validity of the disposal.".
(2) The above amendment does not apply to a disposal made in pursuance of an obligation entered into before the commencement of this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 149:
After Clause 94, insert the following new clause—

REGISTRATION OF RENTAL DEPOSIT MONEY
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make a scheme or schemes authorising the registration and holding of all rental deposit monies charged by landlords letting residential properties.
(2) The Secretary of State may at any time by order vary or revoke a scheme.
(3) An order under subsection (1) shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a debate in Committee about elements of the point raised in this amendment; namely, that there should be a scheme to protect the rent deposits paid by tenants so that there would be some safeguards for the money being held. The Minister was not too convinced at that time about the proposals and, therefore, we have now brought forward an amendment which is somewhat different in form. It would enable the Secretary of State to develop a scheme which would authorise,
"the registration and holding of all rental deposit monies charged by landlords letting residential properties".
After all, it was recognised in our earlier debate that landlords can hold considerable sums of money. Indeed, on finishing their tenancies when their time is up and they wish to leave, some tenants have experienced difficulties in securing the money held on deposit. I do not believe that there would be any weakening of the position of landlords if there were a scheme to safeguard the way in which such deposits are held.
Tenants fail to get their money back at the end of a tenancy because sometimes there may be a letting company involved which acts like a bunch of cowboys or, indeed, which may have collapsed. Alternatively, the landlords sometimes claims damage to the property which is disputed by the applicant. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has pointed out that this is likely to be a matter of one or two months' rent and certainly not an insignificant sum of money. That is especially so if the individual concerned wishes to utilise that sum of money as a deposit for another property into which he or she might move.
Unlike other countries, we have no specific system as yet for tackling what is a growing problem: how tenants get their rent deposits back. The problem has damaged the image of the private rented sector and, indeed, is a sign that yet more modernisation is urgently needed. As we discussed earlier in Committee, other countries have recognised the need to modernise their whole private rented sector by tackling the problem of rental deposits and disputes. I believe that reference was made on the last occasion to a scheme in New South Wales which was developed in 1977, called the "rental bond scheme". I understand that such a scheme is favoured by both citizens advice bureaux and the National Consumer Council. It is an independent and impartial custodian of rental bonds taken on private residential tenancies.
From people who have examined the scheme in New South Wales, I understand that it has performed very well; that it is efficient and cost-effective; that it has not developed any significant faults; and that there are no major criticisms of it. Indeed, it has handled a large amount of money, and by all standards it has worked well.
I do not want to go into all the details of the scheme but it is more than a custodial service for holding money. It is also linked to tenancy services and to a tenants' advice and advocacy programme. There is also a residential tenancies tribunal. As I have said, I do not want to go into too much detail. However, the board in New South Wales has reduced bureaucracy and the need for court action. It has also reduced the number of disputes. It has therefore become popular not just with tenants but also with estate agents because it has saved time and it has taken away the unpleasant air of controversy which sometimes surrounds arguments about the return of moneys.
The moneys received by landlords are deposited with the rental bond board. At the end of the tenancy either party can claim the deposit. If the landlord does not claim within seven days, the full bond is returned to the tenant. Evidence from the board suggests that the return of deposits is on the whole dealt with in a satisfactory manner. Far from being bureaucratic, the system speeds up the process of the return of the money. There are some impressive statistics which show how well the system has worked. I understand that it has had all-party support in New South Wales.
At an earlier stage the Minister suggested that the small claims court offered a cheap and relatively simple way of dealing with disputes. However, I do not think

359
that is as good a system. There are many doubts about whether the small claims system in county courts works as well as all that. Certainly evidence from the National Audit Office shows that 49 per cent. of plaintiffs surveyed thought the small claims procedure was either fairly or very slow. Fewer than 40 per cent. of arbitration cases were completed within six months, and one in five plaintiffs found that their case took more than a year to complete.
The small claims procedure has its faults. It may be cheap but it is not free. It takes rather a long time, whereas the New South Wales system works quickly, has all the advantages of a small claims court and appears to have none of the disadvantages. I think what we have here is an approach which is sensible and which should work well. The amendment would give the Secretary of State the power to develop such a scheme. The experience of New South Wales could be considered and the scheme could be amended in the light of different circumstances in this country. It would deal with a problem which has caused much upset and much anxiety to many tenants. It seems to me that there are simple ways of dealing with that anxiety, but doing nothing is not one of them. I beg to move.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Dubs. There is currently no regulation on how these sums are held by landlords or agencies and the money is often put in an agency's general office account or in a landlord's own personal account. All too frequently this leads to tenants failing to get back their deposit—as my noble friend has said—at the end of the tenancy, in some cases because the limited liability company has folded, or more commonly because the landlord simply claims there has been some damage or wear and tear to the property, or that professional cleaning is required. In other cases no reason is given and tenants are left with the feeling that the landlord clearly never had any intention of returning the money. We are not dealing here with the many good large landlords, but the small, rogue landlords. We are not dealing with great letting agencies and estate agents such as those one sees in Berkeley Square or Belgravia, but with small, fly-by-night, bucket shops which are often on the verge of bankruptcy and often disappear with the deposits. There is absolutely no protection at all for the tenant.
The problem is compounded by the fact that few tenancy agreements give any indication of the grounds on which a deposit may be withheld or of the cleaning and redecorating responsibilities which will be demanded at the end of the contract. There are also rarely any indications of the timescale within which a deposit should be returned. My noble friend has mentioned a scheme which seems to be working well in New South Wales. I gather that it has also been taken up by other states in Australia. I hope that the Government will study that and see how they can introduce a similar scheme over here. If it is working so well in Australia, why should it not work over here? I hope therefore that the Government will treat this suggestion with sympathy and consider some of the
360
difficulties involved with tenants as regards these deposits. I hope that the Government will do what they can to help.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in comparison with Amendment No. 144, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, a few minutes ago, the issues at stake here are much simpler and less controversial. Any action taken by the Secretary of State—were this amendment to be agreed to—would be smaller in scale and effect, as well as being unlikely to have any adverse, unintended consequences. I should be happy therefore to support this amendment were the noble Lord to put it to a Division.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, support this amendment to which I have added my name. Recently I received a document—I imagine other noble Lords may have received such a document—from the director of trading standards of Suffolk County Council. The document refers to problems identified during the council's anti-poverty strategy. The trading standards department had undertaken a monitoring programme of accommodation within the county and reported that there were some 60 agencies operating, most of them entirely satisfactorily. However, the letter states:
"It is a matter of concern however that our officers have encountered one problem that appears to recur with alarming frequency".
That problem is accommodation agencies going out of business and deposits being lost as a result.
The lack of any safeguards as regards how deposits are held to me contrasts starkly with the stakeholder arrangements with which solicitors are used to deal in the transfer of property. To allow deposits to be put into a normal bank account undifferentiated from other funds gives obvious scope for problems. As has been said, those who may lose their deposits—either because the landlord has misused them, or refuses to return them, or because an agency holding them goes out of business—are not well placed to withstand such losses. Given the intention to increase the occupation of the kind of property and tenure for which deposits will often be payable, this is a matter that is worthy of the Government's attention.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I believe I first referred to this matter at Committee stage when I tabled an amendment on similar lines. Since then I have received a letter from the Small Landlords Association. That body has statistics on the New South Wales experience which indicate that it is a great failure. That was interesting. The Government should consider this matter carefully, as I do not know the facts. I only repeat what I have heard from that association. In an earlier debate I said that on the whole the people in New South Wales seem to be reasonably satisfied with the scheme. The Government should check whether there is strong evidence one way or the other.
We also need to check the cost of running such a scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that the scheme in New South Wales is linked to various other services. Unless it was linked to other services, it might

361
be an expensive system to set up. The prime point of importance concerns who is responsible for the money. An agent may be responsible for holding the money. If the agent is bonded for that amount, that is fine. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we are concerned about those agents who go out of business. Those agents may, for example, have been using the money to pay wages. That is when the situation becomes hopeless. People should be protected from that situation. The landlord needs to be protected. If his lease or tenancy agreement entitles him to have the premises left in the clean order in which they were found at the beginning, he would be entitled to claim for cleaning at the end of the tenancy. There are procedures which deal with those matters.
I strongly support the principle of ensuring that a tenant's deposit is not lost through the vanishing of the deposit or of the person holding the deposit. To that extent I support the amendment. But the matter should be considered carefully in terms of what the Small Landlords Association said about the failure of the New South Wales system. Perhaps the Government will look into that matter before Third Reading to check whether or not the claims are accurate.
7 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I have had some experience of this issue over the years. I have great sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said. However, the problem does not stop at deposits. Many of us know of the recent experiences of tenants of blocks of flats in Westminster and elsewhere where the agent did a bunk taking tens of thousands of pounds that had been collected for maintenance charges. The two issues are connected. I do not believe that it will be possible to legislate for that situation in this Bill. But I hope that the Minister will consider the general picture with a view to further legislation in due course which will cover both aspects.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that questions arise not only about rental deposits and sinking funds, but the problem of someone running off with the money. However, the administration can be complex. Where does the money belong—the sinking fund or the rental deposits? What is its purpose? Its purpose is to pay for expenditure which may be incurred genuinely in order to bring a building up to scratch or to clean it after rental.
But there are complications. If the money is placed on deposit in a bank, to whom does the interest belong? Is that interest taxable? I have raised these issues previously. The administration can be extremely complex and costly.
If we introduce a further element of protection involving the Secretary of State, or registration, it causes even more costs. In most cases we are not talking about large amounts of money relating to individual blocks but of amounts often involving only a few thousand pounds. Your Lordships will be aware that these days the professional classes of this country have a tendency to charge relatively large amounts of money for each hour
362
of work or advice. My worry does not relate to the principle, which I accept, but to the cost of making the provision more complex.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for having put down the amendment. It has stimulated an interesting debate on a complicated subject. It is one on which the Government do not have firm views and convictions.
There is a problem here which ought to be addressed. The difficulty is how best to address it. The issue was considered in Committee. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes tabled an amendment to allow a local authority or a body authorised by the local authority to register and hold rent deposit moneys. We have considered that but have come down against the proposal because it is likely to complicate and slow down arrangements which, in the case of the majority of landlords, are already working satisfactorily. It could also impose a considerable burden on local authorities. I know that a number of your Lordships shared this concern.
The noble Lord's amendment leaves open the question of who should oversee and operate such schemes. Presumably it could be a local authority, or it could be an independent public body as is the case with the Rental Bond Board of New South Wales, to which a number of noble Lords referred. Quite heavy costs are associated with that scheme which effectively deprives both the landlord and the tenant of any interest accruing on the deposited moneys. That is one of the points my noble friend Lord Selsdon made. Who gains the interest? If one is not careful, the interest goes on administration. But someone has to be the beneficiary of the interest, and someone has to pay the tax.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that the proposal had universal support, but the Small Landlords Association opposes the introduction of a scheme such as the one which operates in New South Wales. So it does not have universal support.
A criminal offence would need to be created if the scheme is to work properly. It is a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred. Is that the right kind of provision to have in secondary legislation?
Other options have been presented to us as well. The Association of Residential Letting Agents favours bonded schemes run by recognised letting agents. However, there are also disadvantages with that proposal. Only about a third of lettings are organised through an agent, so the majority of lettings would not be covered by bonding. Since most landlords operate only on a small scale, it would not be practical for them to join bonding schemes individually and the requirement to hold deposits jointly would impose unwelcome burdens.
What I am saying is that this is not a straightforward or easy matter and there are a number of complicated issues to be resolved. First, there is the question of whether the problem is sufficient to warrant the cost and the bureaucracy of setting up such a scheme—and there will be both elements.

363
Secondly, the main problem with rental deposits is disputes—to which my noble friend Lord Selsdon referred—over who has the best claim to the money at the end of the tenancy, and the interest on it during the tenancy. The key problem is finding a speedy and effective means of resolving who has the best claim. There will be cases where the landlord has a legitimate claim to some or possibly all of the deposit to cover theft or damage. In other cases, the tenant will have every reason to expect the full deposit back.
I am not clear whether we are to give schemes powers to act in lieu of the courts. I cannot see how that would be appropriate. If we do not give the schemes powers to act in lieu of the courts, I am not clear what benefits the scheme would bring. The small claims court—it was argued that it was not working well—offers a cheap and relatively simple way of dealing with disputes of this nature. If the claim is not contested, there is no need for a court hearing. If it is contested, the amount in dispute is likely to be sufficiently small for the hearing to be dealt with under the informal small claims arbitration procedure.
I understand and share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and others who have spoken, that a small minority of landlords or agents should not be allowed to misappropriate their tenants' deposits. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish made clear in Committee to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes that the Government will look at schemes in other countries to see whether they have any advantages for our own situation. I was interested to hear the noble Baroness say that she has discovered since she made her remarks in Committee that not everyone in New South Wales likes that scheme. It might be surprising if everyone did. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, seemed to think that the scheme was so good that it should be employed everywhere in this country and that everyone would enjoy it.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I did not say that. I said that the scheme seemed to be working well in Australia and the Government might have a look at it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the last thing that I wish to do is to put words into the noble Lord's mouth. Of course, if the scheme is working well in Australia, that is something to be considered in this country. Even if it is not working well in Australia, we shall still consider it.
Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. We have had an interesting debate in which, regrettably, I misappropriated the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for which again I apologise. It indicates that there are problems. The difficulty is how best to resolve them without creating another bureaucratic and complicated set-up.
My noble friend Lord Finsberg is right that it would not be appropriate to legislate on the matter in this Bill. If your Lordships are content, I shall consider all that has been said and look at the scheme which works in New South Wales. I hope your Lordships will understand that it is unlikely that we would be able to reach a conclusion on a matter of this nature and complexity by Third Reading, but we will consider it.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, as regards interest, does he agree that most
364
provisions for a deposit with the landlord or an agency do not provide for interest? To that extent, the tenant does not normally receive interest on the deposit when it is returned. It is an open issue and is probably quite unfair to the tenant. However, it is not a major reason to discard the scheme because what is proposed is no different from the present situation.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct that it is not a reason for discarding the scheme, but it is a factor which must be taken into account. If the Bill works well and in the way that everyone expects, there will be a certain amount of money in limbo which earns interest. If it does not do so, it has not been looked after properly. What happens to the interest is a matter of concern. As I understand it, in New South Wales most of the interest has gone into running the scheme. One might ask whether that is a good idea. There are complicated problems here which need to be resolved.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I fully accept that the whole subject is complicated. That is why the amendment did not stipulate a scheme. It simply suggested that there was a way forward through giving the Secretary of State the power, if he chose to use it, to develop a scheme based on consultation, examining the New South Wales experience. I thought that the amendment went quite a long way towards meeting the Minister's objections. However, he said that he would consider it further. He could have done so while accepting the amendment, because it has not been couched in terms which oblige the Secretary of State to act unless he wishes. The amendment could have been on the statute book without compelling any further action, while giving the Minister time to look into it. However, he has said he would look into the scheme, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.15 p.m.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
7.15 p.m.
Read a third time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
This Bill has continually enjoyed all-party support at every stage of its parliamentary passage. It has also, I believe, benefited from being dealt with under the Scotland and the Union procedures which gave us several opportunities to consider and debate this Scottish Bill in Scotland.

365
This process began, following introduction in another place, with Second Reading before a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Glasgow. A Special Standing Committee was then set up and heard evidence in relation to the proposals in Clause 1 of the Bill at special hearings held in Stirling, Ayr and Inverness.
These sessions enabled the committee to consider the views of a wide variety of bodies and individuals with an interest in our proposals and enabled us subsequently to bring forward amendments in another place which we believe significantly improve the way our policy will be delivered.
The Bill has also been the subject of further intense scrutiny by your Lordships and I am grateful to the noble Lords who contributed so helpfully and constructively to those considerations.
I believe that we now have measures which will contribute significantly to the aim we all share of protecting our children from the evils of drug misuse.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his kindness and help during the passage of the Bill. I apologise for the fact that my noble friend Lord Macaulay is not able to be here today. He put two questions at an earlier stage of the Bill which the Minister promised to consider. He had the courtesy to write both to my noble friend and to myself. The issues with which we were concerned had been raised by local authorities. They related partly to interpretation but they also had substance.
There was the question, first, of licensing boards acting reasonably when implementing certain requirements in Clause I and, secondly, whether there should be an express provision in the Bill for a licence holder's representative to attend in his place at a board meeting called to consider whether the relevant liquor licence should be varied. In his letter to my noble friend of 4th July the Minister said that he noted from the Official Report that my noble friend suggested that:
"Clause 1 as presently drafted gives an absolute power to the licensing board with no provision for review. That is why you feel that a requirement should be placed on the licensing board to act reasonably when determining whether an event would be such that it was likely there would be a contravention of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971".
I should like the Minister to put the contents of that letter on the record for the sake of the committee and also of the people who are most anxious that we raise those matters, even at this late stage. Other than that, I am happy with the way the Bill has gone so far.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I too am pleased that we have before us what I believe will be realistic legislation to deal with the problems caused by some recreational drugs and that we have a framework here for health and safety measures to deal with those problems.
366
At an earlier stage I mentioned the situation of the local authorities. There are 32 licensing authorities in Scotland and I believe that they will require considerable ingenuity in working out what the health and safety measures will be. The ingenuity will be required on the part of the applicants and the board members and their advisers.
The licensing activity was the responsibility of the district councils in the past and therefore the new authorities which were based on district councils will perhaps find the task even easier. I mentioned earlier the situation in Clackmannanshire. I am happy to tell the noble Earl that since the Clackmannanshire council used to be a district council, it will have adequate experience, even if it lacks members to deal with the problem of licensing.
In passing, I wonder when there will be a review of how all 32 licensing authorities are getting on. There is the suggestion that the Secretary of State will come forward with prescribed conditions, and perhaps a time will be set for that review.
The noble Earl was kind enough to write to me because I have raised the issue on all recreational drugs, rather than just illegal drugs. In his letter of 4th July he said that:
"The White Paper [Crime and Punishment] reports the Government's intention to fund a number of initiatives aimed at stimulating community action including measures to curb the supply of alcohol to underage drinkers".
I wish to reinforce the point that community action means not just action by the police and publicans. It also means the example and attitude set by parents, teachers and all adults. That is what "community" means.
The noble Earl went on to say:
"It is also our intention to legislate to give police the power to confiscate alcoholic drink from underage drinkers in public places".
That strikes me as a surprisingly realistic approach. I am surprised that it is not already on the statute book. It should be. The letter continues:
"The drinks industry also has an important role to play and the White Paper notes that the industry has adopted a new code that will deter firms from targeting young drinkers. In support, there is to be an increase from October in the duty on cider which is…popular with young people because it is relatively cheap to buy".
I agree with that approach. However, I hope that the noble Earl will include MD 20/20—or "Mad Dog 20/20"—and Buckfast as two other drinks which are of more interest to young people than perhaps they ought to be. The Bill is a good framework within which to deal with what is definitely a problem.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, at Second Reading I gave the Bill a very warm welcome. However, I had certain reservations. I reiterate that welcome. It is a measure that will generally take care of the problems it was intended to deal with. The particular concerns I raised were addressed by the Minister. I am most grateful to the noble Earl for having answered all my questions. The question that remained was that of reasonableness, as referred to in the amendment tabled at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar.

367
I am very grateful to the Minister for his letter to me in which he stated:
"we will be issuing comprehensive guidelines to local authorities aimed at ensuring that licensing boards implement the provisions in Clause 1 of the Bill reasonably and effectively".
I was very grateful for that, and I accept it.
At Second Reading I also mentioned my belief that the time was approaching for a general revision of licensing legislation. Today, by a fortuitous coincidence, the British Hospitality Association launched what it is pleased to call its "election manifesto". I hope that does not mean that hoteliers will be standing for Parliament everywhere! I believe it relates to provisions that the British Hospitality Association would expect from this Government or any future government. That document calls for a review and revision of licensing law in England, Scotland and Wales. I very much hope that the House will have the possibility of debating that subject on a future occasion.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for the general welcome they have continued to give to the Bill. The rest of the House will be grateful for the expert scrutiny that they have applied from their various backgrounds as the Bill has passed through its various stages. I also include my noble friend Lord Balfour and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, who I regret is not in his place, for the help that they gave us.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, was quite rightly concerned about the exact definition of "community action". I reiterate the statement in my letter. We see the action against under-age drinking and abuse by those who are under age of all products with which they should not be in contact as very important, and also as involving all players. It is not just a matter for central government, local authorities or the voluntary sector; it involves communities and the industry itself. As the noble Earl so rightly pointed out, it involves all of us as adults. We must help as well.
Whether Mad Dog 20/20, Buckfast and other refreshments which I have yet to experience should be included is a matter that I shall pass on to my colleagues. The Committee was certainly grateful when the noble Earl gave an expert lecture on recreational drugs. We all learnt a lot that night.
The noble Viscount asked about the review and revision of the whole licensing framework. The House would benefit if, through the usual channels, he brought this matter to the Floor of the House for general debate, especially given his background in this field.
I turn to the two main points set out by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and touched upon today and at earlier stages by the noble Viscount and the noble Earl. The first involves the licensing board acting reasonably. As I stated in my letter,
"it is without doubt incumbent upon a licensing board, or indeed any other public body, to act reasonably in the discharge of any function given under legislation. If a licensing board unreasonably discharges the functions which the Bill will confer then that is a matter which can be subject to judicial challenge",
368
either under Section 39 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 or by way of judicial review. We also recognise that one can perhaps prevent such actions by issuing sensible guidance. As the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, quoted from my letter to him,
"we will be issuing comprehensive guidelines to local authorities aimed at ensuring that licensing boards implement the provisions in Clause 1 of the Bill reasonably and effectively".
The last point relates to the ability of a licence holder to be represented at a hearing before a licensing board. I remind the noble Lord that there are other provisions in the 1976 Act relating to the holding of hearings by the licensing board. As I stated,
"An example, which I gave in Committee, is section 31 of the Act which provides for the holding of a hearing when the licensing board is considering whether to suspend a licence following receipt of a complaint. That provision says that the board shall not suspend the licence without hearing the licence holder. It does not expressly say that the holder can, for that purpose, be represented. However, it is a long established practice that a holder can be represented for that purpose".
It is our intention that that long-established practice should continue. Guidance on that point could always be issued should it appear to be threatened.
I hope that, with the further assurances that I have been able to give tonight, noble Lords will continue to support the Bill as it goes forward to enactment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his explanations. I hope he will agree that it was rather important to have those points stated on the Floor of the House so that the House knows exactly what was intended. While it was very kind of him to write to certain Members, the whole House should know about these matters. I am grateful to him for making the effort to explain to the House exactly what was meant by the comments in his letter.
On Question, Bill passed.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.28 to 8.15 p.m.]

Housing Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 150:
Before Clause 104, insert the following new clause—

LOW RENT TEST: NIL RATEABLE VALUES
(".—(1) In section 4(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (meaning of "low rent")—

(a) in paragraph (i) (cases where rent limit of two-thirds of rateable value on later of appropriate day and first day of term applies), for the words from "or (where" to "that date" there shall be substituted ",or on or after 1st April 1990 in pursuance of a contract made before that date, and the property had a rateable value other than nil at the date of the commencement of the tenancy or else at any time before 1st April 1990,",

369

(b) in paragraph (ii) (other cases), for the words from "is entered" to "1990)," there shall be substituted "does not fall within paragraph (i) above,", and

(c) in paragraph (a) (definition of "appropriate day" by reference to section 25(3) of the Rent Act 1977), there shall be inserted at the end "if the reference in paragraph (a) of that provision to a rateable value were to a rateable value other than nil".

(2) In section 4A of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (alternative rent limits for the purposes of section 1A(2) of that Act)—
(a) in subsection (1)(b) (cases where rent limit of two-thirds of rateable value on the relevant date applies), for sub-paragraph (ii) there shall be substituted—
"(ii) the property had a rateable value other than nil at the date of commencement of the tenancy or else at any time before 1st April 1990,", and.
(b) in subsection (2), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
"(b) "the relevant date" means the date of the commencement of the tenancy or, if the property did not have a rateable value, or had a rateable value of nil, on that date, the date on which it first had a rateable value other than nil;".
(3) In section 8 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (leases at a low rent)—
(a) in subsection (1)(b) (cases where rent limit of two-thirds of rateable value on the appropriate date applies), for sub-paragraph (ii) there shall be substituted—
"(ii) the flat had a rateable value other than nil at the date of the commencement of the lease or else at any time before 1st April 1990,", and.
(b) in subsection (2), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
"(b) "the appropriate date" means the date of commencement of the lease or, if the flat in question did not have a rateable value, or had a rateable value of nil, on that date, the date on which the flat first had a rateable value other than nil;".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 150, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 161. Amendment No. 150 deals with the treatment of properties which have hitherto been unable to meet the low rent test for leasehold enfranchisement because they had a nil rateable value on the relevant date. The problem was raised in Committee by my noble friend Lord Carnock, for which I thank him, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. The matter has also been raised outside Parliament with the Department of the Environment.
As noble Lords pointed out, the problem is quite widespread and has generally arisen in one of two ways. For houses, leases were granted at a reduced premium on damaged or derelict properties which were not fit for human habitation (and so had a nil rateable value) on the understanding that the lessee would restore the property to a good standard. For flats, leases were granted in conversions off the drawing-board; again, the property had a nil rateable value because it was not complete at the time.
Amendment No. 150 looks complex but it has a very simple effect. If the property had a nil rateable value on the date that would have been chosen for the low rent test, then the relevant date is the first subsequent date before 1st April 1990 when the property did have a
370
rateable value. Noble Lords will recall that the domestic rating system was abolished on 1st April 1990, which is why that date is significant.
Amendment No. 161 is consequential in that it recasts Section 1(1)(a) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which sets out the dates on which the rateable value limits are effective, to conform to the wording in Amendment No. 150. The amendment removes a potential lacuna in the current wording of Section 1(1)(a) as well. I beg to move.
Lord Carnock: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment. It will correct an anomaly and a number of injustices. However, in view of the extensive amendments that are being made to the Bill, perhaps consideration can be given to reprinting the section as amended as a schedule to the Bill. That was done with Schedule 15 of the 1993 Act in relation to a section of the earlier 1967 Act.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding with this amendment to concerns that were raised during the Committee stage. I am grateful to him for that.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I welcome what the Government have done to meet this problem. We are grateful that they have seen the light and responded to requests from all sides of the House.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted to begin the after-supper business in such good heart and good company. I am grateful to noble Lords for having shown us the light. I shall bear in mind what my noble friend Lord Carnock said and talk to my colleagues on the subject.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 104 [Low rent test: extension of rights.]
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote moved Amendment No. 151:
Leave out Clause 104 and insert the following new clauseߞ

ABOLITION OF LOW RENT TEST IN NON-RURAL AREAS
(" .—(1) The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 shall be amended as follows—

(a) in section 5, the words "at a low rent" shall be omitted in both places they occur; and

(b) section 8 shall cease to have effect.

(2) The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 shall be amended as follows—

(a) in section 1(1)(a), for the words "at a low rent" there shall be substituted the words "and is not an excluded tenancy under subsection (1A) below";

(b) after section 1( ) there shall be inserted—

"(1A) A tenancy is an excluded tenancy for the purposes of this section if—

(a) the house which the tenant occupies under the tenancy is in an area designated for the purpose of this section as a rural area by the Secretary of State;

(b) the freehold of that house is owned together with adjoining land which is not occupied for residential purposes;

(c) the tenancy was granted on or before the day on which Part III of the Housing Act 1996 came into force; and

371

(d) the freeholder satisfies the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal that the house—

(i) is leased at an annual rent less than one-half of the current annual letting value of comparable properties in the designated rural area concerned,

(ii) is occupied by a member of the family of the freeholder or former freeholder of the estate within which it is situated or has been leased on terms related to such future occupancy, or

(iii) is occupied by an employee or former employee of that freeholder.

An application to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal in accordance with paragraph (d) above shall be made by the freeholder within two months of his receipt of the relevant notice of the leaseholder's claim to enfranchise under the terms of this Act."; and.
(c) sections 4 and 4A shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as I did at Committee stage, I must declare an interest in this amendment. I am a long leaseholder of a London flat. In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 155, 155A and 159. Amendment No. 155A is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Coleraine. He has asked me to make his apologies to the House. Because of another commitment he cannot be here tonight. He asked me to propose the amendment on his behalf.
All these amendments deal with limitations on the right to enfranchisement, specifically the low-rent test and the special limitations in designated rural areas. The principle of granting the right of enfranchisement to certain tenants has already been accepted on the basis that it is desirable and equitable, despite some objections made by noble Lords to revising contracts already made between freeholders and tenants.
These rights are given where the length of the lease is such as to give the tenant in effect an equity interest in the property. But where the lease is for a relatively short period, say, less than 21 years, it is almost invariably let at a rack rent based on the current market value. In such cases the tenant can claim no equity in the property and the lease should clearly not be enfranchisable.
However, it has been argued that there is an appreciable number of long leases let at or near rack rents and that these leases should be excluded tenancies for the purposes of enfranchisement. This is the justification for the low-rent test. The fact is that the evidence supporting this argument is extremely flimsy. Only six examples have been provided by the British Property Federation where it is alleged that long leases have been granted on a commercial rental basis where no premium has been paid. No detailed information has been provided on the ground that it is confidential. I understand that a few other cases have been quoted, but with even less information available. It is surely clear that these few examples, even if relevant at all, are very special cases and should not determine the content of an Act of Parliament.
Amendment No. 151 therefore seeks to delete the low-rent test entirely in both urban and rural areas by introducing a new Clause 104. The revised clause contains certain requirements which, if satisfied, will provide for the tenancy to be excluded from the rights of enfranchisement in rural areas. I draw attention
372
particularly to the fact that paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2) are "and" requirements—that is, all of them have to be satisfied if the tenancy is to be excluded—but that paragraph (d)(i) to (iii) contains "or" requirements; namely, only one of them has to be satisfied.
I believe that the provisions in this part of the amendment give adequate protection to the owners of estates and provide a fair balance between long leaseholders and freeholders. In rural areas they exclude from the right to enfranchisement properties forming an integral part of an estate which are required for the responsible stewardship of it.
As regards Amendment No. 159, since the sole purpose of the existing Clause 104 is to bring Schedule 9 into force, Amendment No. 159 is consequential to Amendment No. 151. If Amendment No. 151 is passed, then Amendments Nos. 155 and 155A will not be moved, for Amendment No. 155 deals only with the special exclusions for tenancies in rural areas. It is more restrictive as it does not deal with the low-rent test in general and therefore is less satisfactory than Amendment No. 151. However, it would certainly be an improvement on Schedule 9 as it now stands.
Amendment No. 155A will not be required if Amendments Nos. 151 or 155 are passed. It is more restrictive still than Amendment No. 155 but would remove some anomalies from the existing Bill including, for instance, those in the village of Adlestrop where, under the Bill as now drafted, some very long leases over 75 years will be enfranchisable and others will not.
It is surely inconceivable that categories of leases for which this exemption is sought will have been granted for more than 50 years. However, to be on the safe side, Amendment No. 155A limits the rural exception to leases of less than 75 years.
I realise that these are difficult issues with strongly held views on each side of the argument, but I sincerely believe that Amendment No. 151 both clarifies the law and provides a much more equitable and sensible balance between landlord and tenant. No doubt the amendment needs tidying up by experts. These are complicated issues. I hope very much that Her Majesty's Government will support the amendment in principle and bring forward a better worded amendment at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 151. Indeed, I had intended putting my name to it. The amendment goes to the heart of the difficulties we have with the present system. There is a perceived sense of unfairness among leaseholders. I am sure that all of us have had letters from leasehold organisations and from individual leaseholders, complaining about unfairness and anomalies in the present system.
Amendment No. 151 seeks to put right the majority, if not all, of the anomalies that I have had drawn to my attention. It is a sensible way forward. I have some further amendments dealing with aspects of the matter which we shall come to later. In the meantime

373
Amendment No. 151 establishes clearly the main point of principle. I hope that the Government will look at it sympathetically.
Lord Carnock: My Lords, I support these amendments for the reasons already given.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I too support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. The Government contend that many of the leases are really rented property and are not leasehold in the normal course of events. That is one of the reasons why, for some extraordinary reason, they increased the period from 21 years to 50 years.
The Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service knows of no long lease that is at a market rent or anything approaching it. Ministers have not produced a single example. I have seen the paper that was sent to the department by the British Property Federation on which it is basing its decisions. It seems to believe that it is clear evidence, but, as the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, said to me, most of it appears pretty dubious. I understand that the department has not seen the leases in question. The British Property Federation has refused to give any further details, claiming that the matter is confidential. It looks pretty phoney to me.
There is a four-storey terraced house in Chelsea let at a peppercorn rent for nine months from £600 a year and now there is a current rent of £9,000. There is another four-storey house in Chelsea where, in 1975, it was claimed there was a rent of only £600 a year—£600 a year for a four-storey house in Chelsea!—and where the current rent is now £3,000. And so it goes on. This looks pretty dubious. I hope that the department will try to base its evidence on something wider and that it will consider doing away with the low-rent test altogether because it has driven a coach and horses through this legislation. All the landlords need to do is to put up the rent so the leaseholder does not qualify. As I said in Committee, do the Government believe in leasehold enfranchisement or not? Is it just something that is put into the Conservative election manifestos and then nothing is done about it, or is it something that they really want to proceed with? That is the test that they are required to apply. I hope the Government will consider these amendments seriously because I am sure it is the right way to proceed.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I am entirely persuaded by my noble friend Lord Caldecote's argument and agree that his amendment deserves support on all sides of the House. I hope my noble friends on the Front Bench will observe that possibly my noble friend's amendment is wiser than their proposals.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I supported amendments to a similar effect at the last stage and I am happy to stand my ground, despite having been duffed up orally on the basis that I was suggesting that contracts were things easily to be put aside. That was not what I said and it is not what
374
I am saying now. But I do believe that enfranchisement and a fair scheme which does not leave certain leaseholders without rights is the correct way to go forward. Like the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I am concerned about any scheme which allows landlords to find devices to avoid it. It is always difficult to exclude avoidance devices but this test seems to have been something of an open invitation.
I was initially concerned about the exclusion of the test in rural areas but I think that the noble Viscount's amendment is ingenious in hedging the matter with such conditions that it is only in very closely defined circumstances that the test would not apply.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I too have had a number of items of correspondence from people who have expressed their disappointment that, despite a manifesto pledge from the Conservatives, the issue is still unresolved.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene on this amendment and I am slightly surprised by the agreement that exists across the whole House. But your Lordships' House is known for finding issues, however small, where there is an element of unfairness, and one can usually win an argument in your Lordships' House when one says, "This is unfair to the minority", however small that minority may be.
In my noble friend's intervention he indicated that there is a sense that there is unfairness to one group and perhaps fairness to another. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, raised the issue of value or equity participation and rent. At Second Reading I took the liberty of pointing out that we have moved into a new world where inflation is no longer a worry. Historically, people bought fixed assets on borrowed money because in an inflationary environment they saw a capital gain. Hence property investors, whether they were the great, responsible estates or small speculators, would seek to own a leasehold or a freehold because of the capital gain. Arguments about a rent of £600 or a small amount are irrelevant. I know that people put them forward in order to defend their position, but we all know that the differential between rentals and capital values today no longer applies in the same way as it did a few years ago.
I do not think that the amendment is drafted in a way which would prevent further confusion, but it is an area that perhaps the Government ought to consider more closely because if in your Lordships' House we detect an element of unfairness to a minority it is worth looking at.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I knew it would not last. Here I am, back on my own again, not a friend in the House in front of me or behind me. Still—there we are—that is the way it goes. But when my noble friends look at all the changes we have made and are making in this area of leasehold enfranchisement, and particularly in the area of the low rent test and associated parts of the legislation, I think they will agree that we have gone a long way to dealing with problems which have existed in the past, although we cannot go as far as they wish. My noble friend Lord Caldecote, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said that we

375
should not legislate on the basis of a few exceptions produced by the British Property Federation. I entirely agree.
I also feel that we should not, when we come to the point, legislate on the basis of a few villages in Gloucestershire which happen to be left outside another more general provision. Our basis for liking the existence of the low rent test is that we feel there is a genuine overlap in lease lengths between leases let at market rents and those let at a premium on ground rents. If we abolish the low rent test for all long leases we should be introducing we feel an unnecessary rigidity into the market, making it impossible for anyone to offer more than 21 years' security of tenure at a market rent without risk of being deprived of the freehold.
We like the idea of two cut-off dates: below 21 years, and above a certain figure—presently 50 years but we will be discussing that later on and, I hope, coming to a view on what that figure should be. As I said at Committee stage, that is something which the Government have been considering. But between the two we feel that there should be the option. Either it should be possible to let on a lease at a premium or it should be possible to have a full market rent. A 25-year lease is not uncommon, and we do not see why that should be forced to be enfranchisable, even if it was intended to make it at full market rent, or why, alternatively, full market rents should be restricted to below 21 years. We prefer to leave the structure of the market with this flexibility. That is why we do not want to move on the existence of the low rent test.
Amendment No. 151 also deals with the rural exemption. It may help the House if I refer to the government scheme which is set out in Schedule 9. The tenancy will be excluded under the rural exemption if the house is in a designated rural area, the freehold is occupied together with non-adjoining residential land—and a later amendment will deal with that to tighten up possible abuses there—and the tenancy was granted on or before the day on which Clause 104 of this Bill comes into force. So it is a provision which is looking back, dealing with the way things used to be arranged and ensuring that this Bill does not upset them. I shall come in due course to the way in which things will operate in the countryside in future.
We want to preserve the integrity of rural estates where houses have been let on long leases so that the expectation that they will be restored to the freeholder for future generations is not frustrated.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote has built on the rural exemption set out in Schedule 9 by adding further restrictions to narrow the class of case which would qualify. These are that the annual rent is less than one-half of the letting value for comparable properties or that it is occupied by a member of the freeholder's, or former freeholder's family, or has been leased on terms related to such future occupancy, or that it is occupied by an employee or former employee of that freeholder. My noble friend has introduced a separate additional test in Amendment No. 155A which would remove leases exceeding 75 years in length from the rural exemption, so making them enfranchisable even if they fulfil all
376
the other conditions for the rural exemption. It has been argued that alienation effectively for two generations should permit enfranchisement. We do not believe that it would be wise to permit the break-up of rural estates, even in these circumstances because of the disruption it would cause to the balance of rural life and the complexity which it would add to enfranchisement rights.
My noble friend has criticised the present version of the rural exemption for being too wide, but we feel that he has introduced something far too narrow. What I believe we should be looking at is the relationship between the house and the estate of which it is part, not the relationship between the leaseholder and the freeholder. The principle is not who occupies the house, but that it has been let on a long lease at a rent which exceeds the threshold for the low rent test. That would exclude from enfranchisement properties let at higher rents for estate management purposes. The rural exemption is framed to formulate that distinction.
As to the future, landlords in rural areas will be able to grant leases at rents above the threshold for the low rent test, up to the very long lease limit, whatever that may be. As I have said, we shall discuss that later. Secondly, and on a longer view, some tenancies terminable on a death or a marriage are not enfranchisable. The main excluded tenancies of this type are described in Section 3 of the 1967 Act and in Section 7 of the 1993 Act.
This is a somewhat recondite corner of property law and I do not propose to go into it in detail. However, the effect is that certain types of life tenancy do not fall within either Act and nothing in Schedule 9 changes that broad position. It would therefore be possible for a landlord to offer an employee or a relative a house for their life or for some known life and that would not be enfranchisable under the Act. We believe that that offers the rural communities sufficient flexibility to plan the use and occupation of properties associated with an estate in the future and we do not therefore need to continue the rural exemptions for the future, although we do need to look at them in terms of protecting what has happened in the past. For those reasons, I am afraid that I cannot give my noble friend any comfort on any of his amendments. Nonetheless I hope that he will feel able to withdraw them.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I should not like him to feel that he is friendless. I did not say that I was opposed to the low rent test. I simply think that it is a bit unfair that there has to be a transition. It is important to create an element of stability in the market whether the period is to be 21 years or 50 years. Let us ensure that all sides of the House accept that that is reasonable.
I should like to draw attention to one simple anomaly. The 1993 Act was not perfect. Following that Act, a number of freeholders decided in good will to grant longer leases (of over 50 years) to a number of people. Their fear now is that having

377
granted those longer leases, the properties immediately become enfranchisable in terms of freeholds. Such elements create a certain instability. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will be prepared to say that he thinks that 21 years or 50 years are acceptable so that at least we know where we stand, because people who tinker with the years cause lots of problems.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, in view of the wide support on all sides of the House, I am extremely disappointed that my noble friend on the Front Bench was not able to be more sympathetic to the amendment. He said that the Government have gone a long way to meet some of the points made in Committee. I submit that the Government have gone a short way and that we have not gone nearly far enough along the road that many of us would like. That is clear from the view that has been expressed today.
I did not think that my noble friend's arguments about the dangers and difficulties of abolishing the low rent test were at all convincing. He argued on the basis of maintaining the flexibility in the market. Is he really saying that there are going to be many long leases, however defined, let at rack rents? I do not think that that is true. As I have said, I am extremely disappointed by the Government's response. Although I do not want to press the amendment at this stage, I reserve the right to think about it again and, having read the reply in Hansard, to return with it at Third Reading. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 9 [Low rent test: extension of rights]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 160, line 43, after ("purposes") insert ("and has been owned together with such land since the coming into force of section 104 of the Housing Act 1996").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 152, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 154. Amendment No. 152 is an anti-avoidance measure for the rural exemption to the low rent test. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Coleraine pointed out that there was nothing to prevent the freeholder of a house in a rural area that would have been enfranchisable from buying an adjoining plot of non-residential land, thus taking advantage of the rural exemption.
The Government reflected on my noble friend's observation and concluded that adjoining land qualifying the house for the rural exemption must have been held together with the house continuously since the coming into force of the Bill. My amendment is to that effect. It ties in with the provision in new section 1AA(3)(c) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which requires that the tenancy itself must have been granted on or before commencement. I believe that this is a useful anti-avoidance measure. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 153 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
8.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 160, leave out line 45 and insert ("that section came into force").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Burnham): My Lords, we now come to Amendment No. 155 and I must advise the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 155A.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 160, line 45, at end insert ("and
(d) the freeholder satisfies the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal that the house—

(i) is leased at an annual rent less than one-half of the current annual letting value of comparable properties in the designated rural area concerned,

(ii) is occupied by a member of the family of the freeholder or former freeholder of the estate within which it is situated or has been leased on terms related to such future occupancy, or

(iii) is occupied by an employee or former employee of that freeholder.

An application to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal in accordance with paragraph (d) above shall be made by the freeholder within two months of his receipt of the relevant notice of the leaseholder's claim to enfranchise under the terms of this Act.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. As drafted, it relates to Amendment No. 151, although it is much more restrictive and deals solely with rural restrictions.
My noble friend referred to the importance of not breaking up rural estates. This amendment would precisely prevent that by ensuring that all properties required in connection with the estate, and for the proper management and stewardship of the estate, are excluded from the enfranchisement provisions. I cannot see how my noble friend can say that that contributes to the break-up of estates. It simply enables properties to be enfranchised which now have nothing to do with the estate but which might well have had something to do with it 50 or 100 years ago when hundreds of people worked on the farms instead of two or three. Can my noble friend comment on that point? I beg to move.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, my noble friend on the Front Bench says that he is friendless in this debate. I assure him that he is not. As there seems to be a sort of batting order about the number of noble Lords who speak, I think that perhaps I should voice my opinion on this, although I did so in Committee and I have not changed my opinion since then. The trouble with my noble friend Lord Caldecote is that he will not be satisfied until every single house in the country which was previously leasehold is taken over by the leaseholders. When I listen to these debates—
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, that is quite unfair. I made a particular distinction in the amendment between those houses that are required for the operation of the estate—it is absolutely right that they should not be

379
enfranchisable—and those that are not. I have no wish at all to make all houses enfranchisable, as my noble friend says, now or at any time in the future.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says, but how is he to judge what is part of an estate and what is not? Personally, I have spent a vast sum of money on making sure that houses on my estate are free to be let to people on my estate because I do not depend on the fact that agriculture will always remain a profitable occupation. I have put myself in such a position that there are no longer any leaseholders at all on my estate.
During this debate and debates on other aspects of this Bill, I hear noble Lords from the other side of the House complaining that there is no security of tenure. Of course there is no security of tenure. Security of tenure has been destroyed. My noble friend Lord Caldecote would want to make a proper job of it and destroy it altogether.
Perhaps I may cite a particular instance. I had a chap on a 12-year lease who had done various improvements to his house to suit his own convenience. He asked me for another 12-year lease. I was just on the point of granting it to him so that he could do further things to amuse himself and make himself more comfortable when leasehold enfranchisement loomed on the horizon. He has now become a statutory rent holder on a rack rent and can do nothing in his house. That is much to his inconvenience. It is beyond belief that people like my noble friend should insist endlessly on forcing through this issue when clearly the intelligent course is to leave it as it is.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I appear to be striking a reasonable balance between my noble friends on this matter. I understand what has been said by my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, which illustrates some of the problems to which this amendment gives rise. I believe that we should be looking at the relationship between the house and the estate of which it is part, not the relationship between the leaseholder and freeholder. The principle should be based not on who occupies the house but on whether it has been let on a long lease at a rent which exceeds the threshold for the low rent test. We believe that that is the right way to treat it, rather than looking at family or employment relationships which do not describe the relationship between the two bits of property. The basis of my opposition to the amendment of my noble friend is practicality and trying to ensure that things work in the right way, rather than a matter of settled principle. The matter has been given considerable consideration since Committee stage, and we believe that we are striking the right balance.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I do not wish to make life difficult for my noble friend, but I find his logic extremely difficult to follow. However, on the basis of what I said earlier, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote moved Amendment No. 155A:
Page 160, line 45, at end insert ("and
( ) the tenancy was granted for a term of years certain not exceeding seventy-five years.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 155A is a fallback if the House does not accept either of the other amendments in my name. It would remove some glaring anomalies in certain villages, of which I gave one example. I do not want to use that particular village as an argument in itself; it is merely an example. I believe that a period of 75 years provides a very much better balance than that which exists now in settling these difficult matters. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this is not a matter that we can accept. Although I understand the argument that is advanced by my noble friend, the Government prefer to stick to the basic principle of trying to preserve the arrangements which have been made in the countryside in the past for the purposes of keeping together an estate. We should not try to alter the law of the land to rescue a few villagers in one village who find themselves unable to benefit from the Bill as it currently stands. We do not disadvantage anyone in this Bill, but that a few people may not benefit as a result should not weigh with us too heavily in making sure that we have the principle right. I believe that that is what we have done.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, on the basis of what I said earlier, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 161, line 46, leave out ("50") and insert ("35").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 156 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 157 and 158. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, asked me what was the correct period of time. The purpose of these amendments is to make progress in answering that question. For the sake of consistency, I still prefer Amendment No. 151 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. In principle, I believe that that is a better approach. However, in Amendment No. 156 I seek a compromise.
When this matter was discussed in Committee I was curious about where the 50 years had come from. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said:
"In all of my relatively short years as an accountant 50 years has been a figure of great significance as regards leases. Fifty years is the point at which a lease begins to depreciate. Beyond that, for longer terms, a leasehold is essentially freehold and can be treated in the same way for accounting purposes. Below that it is a depreciating asset. That is why the figure of 50 was chosen". [Official Report; 18/6/96; col. 194.]
I understand the point about depreciation. Perhaps I should put the arguments on the other side. First, there is a commitment by the Conservative Party to take firm steps to enfranchise leaseholders. Secondly, there is a move from 21 years to 50 years in this Bill. Fifty years is a long time. Many leaseholders who hope to have the opportunity to enfranchise now find themselves unable to do so because they have been in their homes for a

381
number of years, and the period remaining is less than 50 years. If one chooses a period as long as 50 years it will be possible to circumvent the intentions of enfranchisement simply by having leases of a certain length.
Where does the period of 35 years come from? I am bound to say that it is the mid-point between 21 and 50. I cannot give any rational justification for it. I believe that the proposal is none the worse for that. There must be some basis for doing it. Logic suggests that 50 years is far too long a period. The Minister was reluctant that it should be reduced to 21 years. I put down the amendment in the hope that it will tempt the Minister to be conciliatory and agree that the proposal is acceptable. I admit that there is no particular reason for choosing 35 years other than that it is the mid-point between two different figures. However, it has the merit that it will do justice to a good many leaseholders who will be able to enfranchise but who would otherwise not be permitted to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I support the amendment. As I said in Committee, I was concerned and shocked when the Government suddenly increased the period from 21 to 50 years. It means that all leaseholders with fewer than 50 years cannot enfranchise. If landlords take advantage of the low rent test it makes the position virtually impossible. However, the Government have refused to budge. As my noble friend has said, this is a compromise, and it is one that I hope the Government will accept. Although it is a halfway house, I believe that it will go some way to solve the problem.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I apologise that I was delayed in returning to the Chamber. I arrived just in time to hear the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, moving the amendment. This is a matter in which I have taken an interest throughout and I should like to speak to it. I am rather concerned about reducing the period from 50 years. I am a great supporter of enfranchisement, and it is a pity if we do not have it. However, I believe that the period of 35 years is neither here nor there. I would rather that 21 years or 50 years was treated as the figure. Having gone into the matter fairly thoroughly, I am convinced that if one does not take a period considerably in excess of 21 years—that is why I come back to the 50 years—people will not be prepared to invest in property. It means that they will have no firm possibility of buying or holding property as an investment.
Enfranchisement has been a disappointment for a number of people who have believed that they will get something for nothing. To enfranchise one's lease, whatever its length, appears to be a costly exercise. The shorter the term the more costly it is. People have been very disappointed by that. I believe that major developers who would be prepared to invest in the construction of flats would hardly be interested in doing it if everything was to be enfranchised under them. The position might be different if the property was built as commonhold and sold freehold from the start. That is the Australian system, which I very much favour.
382
A sinking fund is established for a new building. I do not believe that 35 is a satisfactory compromise, and I am not in favour of the amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, it is important that we should all agree on the year. In many parts of the world leases are granted for 49 years. The only reason why the term should be 50 years that I can think of is:
"Now of my three score years and ten
Twenty will not come again.
Take from seventy years a score,
That leaves me only fifty more,
And fifty years is little room
To see the cherry hung with bloom".
I do not believe that it matters, because people do not stay in houses for 50 years. They stay only for short periods. In order to produce stability in the property market we must give assurances to leaseholders, potential tenants, potential investors and banks which might lend that whatever is agreed as a result of the Bill will remain for a determinable period.
I do not see the point of 35 years. I do not believe in compromises. I believe that 50 years is reasonable because, as your Lordships will know, it is the period over which a bank will lend money. We should agree the period, whether it is 50 years or 21 years. If noble Lords opposite would agree not to alter whatever period is decided, we should introduce a certain amount of stability. I regard the period of years as being critical to the total market.
Lord Carnock: My Lords, I support the amendment. Under the Bill the particularly long lease is defined as a lease whose original term is for more than 50 years. In the human experience, a term of 21 years may be taken as approximating to the period of the minority and a term of 35 years as approximating to the period of generation. Therefore, I see human reasons for attributing significance to the periods of 21 and 35 years.
However, a term of 50 years has no significance in the context of the human experience. It is a term used in the context of capital gains tax, where leases of more than 50 years are assumed to have a value equivalent to a freehold. Even in that context, the depreciation in the value of the leasehold interest as the term is eroded by time from 50 years to 35 years is relatively small.
As the term reduces from 35 years, the value of the leasehold interest diminishes with ever-increasing rapidity until ultimately it reaches a value approaching zero. Moreover, 35 years is already recognised in our stamp duty laws as a significant boundary demarcation. Stamp duty on the grant of leases for terms of more than 35 years is very considerably higher than for shorter terms. For those reasons I support the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too support the amendment, although with the reluctance expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I too should prefer to see a period of 21 years, which I have always regarded as accepted in the property world as meaning something. We have heard some interesting commentaries on

383
35 years as a generation and on 50 years in a rather more extravagant explanation than the prosaic accountants' and auditors' explanation given at the last stage from the Government Front Bench. If we are unable to address the low rent test in the way that leaseholders have been asking, to fail to address the long lease part of the test seems to me to be something of a double whammy.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we touched briefly on the problem when discussing the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Caldecote. As I said in Committee, the figure of 50 is not one to which we have any permanent attachment. I shall resist the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that we have been moving it from 21. The figure of 21 has remained where it was fixed for some time. It is the boundary between something which, presumably, is always rented property and the zone above in which a leasehold can exist.
The question of the point at which the leasehold should exist used to be infinite but has been brought down by another place to 50. We are discussing whether we should move that further. Certainly it has never been in the Government's contemplation that it should be reduced to 21. As I said when replying to my noble friend's amendment, we are decided that there should be a period between 21 years and a higher limit where it is possible for it to be either an enfranchisable lease or a rented property. We do not feel comfortable with the idea that the property market should be restricted to giving 21 years' security. We wish it to be able to give a longer period.
The question of where that upper boundary should be clearly excites some differences of opinion. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would like 21 years. My noble friend Lady Gardner would like 50 years. I believe that if we move away from 50 years the concerns of my noble friend about investment are unlikely to be devastating in practice. The institutions which are building residential property in connection with commercial property—flats above shops, which will commonly be the case in inner cities and other situations—are protected from enfranchisement under the Bill—and properly so, because they have a great interest in the continuing good management of the property as a whole. Those who are building purely residential properties will generally be wishing to obtain the maximum money immediately. They will at least be selling long leases and the residual freehold will be of little interest to them. The fact that they will have to dispose of the freehold to those leaseholders who wish to buy it, should not, if they are selling leasehold properties, be of much weight in their overall investment decisions.
Therefore, we are prepared to consider moving away from 50 years and there are some good reasons why we should do so. A number of leases let about 50 years should, in all conscience, be enfranchisable. As noble Lords have pointed out, at 50 years a leasehold is considered equivalent to freehold in valuation for capital gains tax purposes and for general accounting principles. That would argue that at 50 years the value is with the occupier and not with the freeholder.
384
Therefore it should be enfranchisable. We do not want to find ourselves in a position where people are constructing devices to avoid enfranchisement by putting together leaseholds of 50 years and finding that there is a real market for them. At 50 years, you could argue that you could get a 25-year mortgage and still have 25 years left at the end of it; so we are convinced of the need to drop the figure.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has proposed 35 years. My noble friend Lord Carnock has pointed out that that is an existing threshold for stamp duty, which perhaps gives us some excuse for liking 35 years. It is also the point at which, as I understand it, the value becomes one-third with the freeholder and two-thirds with the leaseholder. Perhaps there is an attraction in 35 from that point of view. However, as the noble Lord points out, this is not really something which is an exact science. It is a matter of choosing something and, as my noble friend Lord Selsdon said, sticking by it so that people can be confident of what the pattern will be for some while in the future. Since the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and his party like 35 and since 35 appeals to us, we propose to accept these amendments.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, one is permitted to be a little surprised at times. I am delighted by what the Minister says. It is an improvement. It does not go as far as I would have wished, given Amendment No. 151, but I think it will improve the situation for quite a number of leaseholders between the 35 and the 50 years. For that reason, I thank the Government for having come some way to meet us.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 162, line 10, leave out ("50") and insert ("35").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 162, line 14, leave out ("50") and insert ("35").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 160 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 160A:
Before Clause 106, insert the following new clause—

COLLECTIVE ENFRANCHISEMENT: NOTICE BY QUALIFYING TENANTS
(".—(1) The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 13, in subsection (2), for the words after paragraph (b)(ii) substitute—
"and not less than 25 per cent. of the qualifying tenants must satisfy the residence condition and give notice to enfranchise".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment which stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This is an amendment which, on the one hand, sounds a bit technical and, on the other hand, deals with a matter of some importance to leaseholders. It concerns the formula for qualification.
I have long been concerned about how one can establish whether anybody is resident. I appreciate there are many difficulties. If there were easier tests of what is a resident, no doubt we would have been able to suggest amendments accordingly. But this amendment deals with the residence test. In the way that the formula works at the moment there is a possibility that the outcome can be—I hesitate to use such a strong word—manipulated or the arithmetic of the ways in which people can claim to be residents can have a slightly distorting effect on the outcome.
As I understand it, the test is that no fewer than 50 per cent. of qualifying tenants who give the initial notice must satisfy the residence condition. The suggestion is that that residence condition should be reduced from 50 to 25 per cent. I have been told that there are occasions when, by persuading some people not to take part in the process, a smaller proportion of the leaseholders can achieve a particular outcome and this can be made more difficult by people who are absent and therefore do not take any real part in what happens in the block if they happen to own a leasehold of a flat within it.
Perhaps I could best explain this by quoting from a letter from a woman living in Bayswater which refers to the 1993 Act and the question of residential qualifications:
"The above Act, as it stands, is not helpful to lessees, in blocks of flats such as this one. The main problem being the very stringent residential tests.
By the very nature of such blocks, there are far more frequent changes of tenancy than in outer London or the provinces. Many of the flats here are studio or one-bedroomed—the largest have two bedrooms (not unusual in areas such as Bayswater) and so we have many 'first-time buyers' pending purchase of larger homes. Also, many people working abroad have homes here which they eventually intend to return to when their tours of duty are completed. This means that very long term residents, such as me, are virtually denied the right to purchase the freehold.
If the above Act is to have any relevance for lessees, such as me, and there are many of us, it is essential that the residential qualifications are made less onerous and that the residential qualification be reduced to 20% of households".
That is what this amendment seeks to achieve. It seeks to put into statutory form what is the spirit of the intention; namely, that it should not be too difficult for people who wish to enfranchise to do so and that the complicated formula of the residence test and people who do not live permanently in the blocks has made the formula more difficult.
I believe that, although this amendment does not go as far as I should wish it to, it helps in that respect. It will enable some leaseholders to enfranchise who otherwise meet all the criteria. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I find this extremely interesting. In the 1993 Act, it was only at the very last moment that the residential qualification was introduced at all, as I recall it. Certainly the introduction of a right to the extension of the lease was at a late stage.
386
I must declare an interest. In the block in which I have a flat, there is no hope of enfranchisement because there are not enough residents. The flats are held by people who live abroad and let them. I do not live in the flat myself. If 25 per cent. enables enfranchisement, I presume that that 25 per cent. of people will then own the freehold and the other 75 per cent. of people in the block will become tenants of the 25 per cent. I am not clear on that point.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I was surprised by my noble friend when he went down from 50 to 35 years. I assume that that is because he is nearer in age to 35 than I am to 50. I hope that he may continue to surprise everyone because it makes the evening much more interesting, although I should still have preferred 50.
On this issue, as my noble friend pointed out, the residential test came in at the last moment in the 1993 Act. This is a difficult matter. I have worked internationally with many people who own flats in the United Kingdom. They have bought those flats either as an investment, for their retirement or for members of their family who may be at school or university here. In this international world, we are trying to attract foreign investment and we are trying to attract foreigners to live here in this new enterprise centre of Europe. Therefore, I do not think that we should differentiate and I do not think that the residence test is appropriate.
Equally, I believe that 50–50 is the fairest ratio. I do not see how this can be implemented when only a minority qualify. It is a difficult issue. We are talking about money and we should not be talking about strange windfall profits.
It may be that in a block 25 per cent. of people are entitled to enfranchise one day but that then changes the next day. The procedures are quite lengthy and in blocks of flats the average stay is not very long—a matter of a few years or in some cases a few months. The difficulty of determining who is a foreign resident or who is a resident is always difficult when there are trusts and others involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, thinks that 25 per cent. is the correct figure. I do not believe it matters so long as the majority are entitled to enfranchise. I personally would not have the residence test. I am not prepared to say that I would support 25 per cent. or 35 per cent. I feel sympathy for those people who are in a minority in a block who feel that they should have the right to enfranchise. On the other hand, I could say that it is rather unfortunate but just bad luck that they happen to be there because they have no control over the buying or selling of other flats. We are in a continually moving society. After the passing of this legislation, I hope that we shall stick to a fixed figure on which everyone is agreed.
Lord Carnock: My Lords, the drafting of Section 13 of the 1993 Act is so convoluted that it is extremely difficult for ordinary people to take on board its effect and full implications. The reason for that convolution is that the residence test was introduced at the last minute when the 1993 Act was passed.
I am sure that many professional advisers would have similar difficulties. Section 13 is crucial in the process of leasehold enfranchisement for blocks of flats as it sets

387
out the qualifications required for those who sign the initial notice required to start the enfranchisement procedures. A mistake made at that point would invalidate all later steps in the procedure and the existing drafting contains traps for the unwary.
The amendment should make the section and its implications more intelligible. It would not change the existing law to any significant extent, if at all. That is my understanding of it. Under the section as it is, 25 per cent. of people who are resident can initiate the procedures. However, the detailed wording of the proposed amendment, if it is accepted in principle, needs the attention of the parliamentary draftsman. I support the thrust of the amendment.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I also support the amendment. It is, of course, a problem of the minority in a block of flats or building where the majority do not want to enfranchise. While we feel sorry for the lady in Bayswater in her wish to enfranchise when she is not able to do so—indeed, it is always better to enfranchise if you can than to have a long lease—I seem to remember that, in the proceedings on the 1988 Act, we succeeded in gaining a last-minute concession in that respect from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on behalf of the Government on Third Reading. By way of that concession, people in such an unfortunate position who had a dwindling lease which was decreasing the whole time until, in the end, the period was probably so short that the lease was no longer saleable, were able to extend the lease for a further 90 years. I hasten to remind the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that that was only obtained at a price. Nevertheless, people were able to do so. Am I correct in my understanding that that is still the position?
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords; the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is indeed right. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes also struck me as being right when she questioned whether 25 per cent. of the tenants should, effectively, be able to force the other 75 per cent. to enfranchise. That, I believe, would be the import of the amendment. If I may say so, that is the telling point against proceeding down the road proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
The current position is that 66 per cent. of tenants have to say that they wish to enfranchise. Of those, one half have to be qualifying tenants. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is not seeking to move very far in terms of the percentage that he proposes. At present the percentage is one third who qualify and he is moving it to one quarter. The difference is only a matter of 8 per cent. or so, and, in many cases, it would make very little difference; indeed, perhaps just one tenant. Therefore, I do not believe that we are looking at a large change. However, in terms of the way in which the amendment is phrased, we prefer our current arrangement where the process must at least be initiated by a majority of tenants, even if the question then arises as to what percentage of them need to be qualifying tenants.
As I mentioned at an earlier stage, we are undertaking research into the experience of those seeking to use the enfranchisement legislation. We are not yet persuaded
388
that it would be right to relax the qualifying conditions. I would not hold out the hope that the Government would wish to do so in future. But if it does emerge that there is a significant difficulty in preventing what one might describe as "genuine" cases from going ahead—for example, if there is, as in the problem outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, a real and significant problem to be addressed—then obviously the issue will be examined in the light of our research. I appreciate that that is not the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, wanted. Nonetheless, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Indeed, it was not quite the answer that I had hoped for. Nevertheless, I shall read his remarks in Hansard tomorrow and consider what he said. I may then possibly get in touch with him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 161:
Before Clause 112, insert the following new clause—

MINOR AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1(1)(A) OF LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967
(". In section 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (tenants entitled to enfranchisement or extension), in subsection (1)(a)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (i), for the words from "or (where" to "that date," there shall be substituted ", or on or after 1st April 1990 in pursuance of a contract made before that date, and the house and premises had a rateable value at the date of commencement of the tenancy or else at any time before 1st April 1990,", and

(b) in sub-paragraph (ii), for the words from "is entered" to "I990)," there shall be substituted "does not fall within sub-paragraph (i) above,".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to the above amendment when moving Amendment No. 150. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 162:
After Clause 112, insert the following new clause—

COMPENSATION FOR POSTPONEMENT OF TERMINATION IN CONNECTION WITH INEFFECTIVE CLAIMS
(". Schedule (Compensation for postponement in connection with ineffective claims) (which makes, in relation to claims to enfranchisement or an extended lease under Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and claims to collective enfranchisement or a new lease under Chapter I or II of Part I of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, provision for compensation of the landlord where the claim has prolonged an existing tenancy, but is ineffective) shall have effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendment No. 163. Amendment No. 163 is of inordinate length. I think that the two amendments together occupy about 10 pages, or will occupy about 10 pages in the Bill, if they are accepted. They deal with what is essentially a fairly simple problem.
Noble Lords will observe that Amendment No. 163, long and complex though it is, consists of three parallel sets of provisions: for cases under the Leasehold Reform

389
Act 1967; for collective enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993; and for lease renewal under the same Act.
The problem which these amendments seek to resolve concerns the situation where a claim for enfranchisement or a new lease is made shortly before expiry of the existing long lease, usually in the final few months. If the term date of the lease is reached before the claim is settled, the legislation provides for the lease to be continued during the currency of the claim and for three months afterwards.
Where there is no claim for enfranchisement and a long lease expires, most tenants can hold over at or near a market rent. This arrangement is overridden when an enfranchisement claim is in progress, and so the landlord would only receive the ground rent in this period. This is seen to be unfair when the claim is unsuccessful because the landlord is denied the market rent from the original term date which he would have received had there been no claim. This could be a significant sum for high quality properties in desirable locations. We are aware of some persistent abuse along these lines and we do not see the people indulging in that abuse as a particularly deserving or needy class. The present arrangement can be an incentive for tenants to spin out procedures, even if they decide that they cannot go through with the claim, as they will prolong the period during which they pay only ground rent. In addition, the landlord will not have the benefit of a capital sum at the end of the process.
These amendments will apply only when the claim is made within two years of the expiry of the long lease term. Once such a claim has been determined as unsuccessful, the tenant would become liable to pay the landlord the difference between what the tenant would have paid in market rent and what he has actually paid in ground rent over the following period (called the appropriate period in Amendment No. 163). Broadly speaking, this period begins with the earliest date when the long lease could have terminated (this will usually be the date of expiry of the long lease term) and ends with the date when the claim for enfranchisement etcetera ceases to have effect. These amendments would remove any incentive for tenants to prolong the procedures. Provision is also made to cope with cases where there has been a change in the leaseholder's immediate landlord.
The provision will apply to claims made on or after 15th January 1999. This is the changeover date for the statutory regimes for holding over after a long lease expires (that is, Schedule 10 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, will replace Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954). Tenants will therefore have adequate time to prepare and submit a claim before these provisions come into force. I beg to move.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, this is of course a whopping amendment, about 12 pages long. I congratulate him on the brief and succinct way in which he has boiled it down to quite a small number of words. Having said that, I must say I am not really happy about it. This
390
amendment seems to have been tabled virtually entirely for the benefit of the large estates, mainly in London. I hasten to say that I live on one of them, the Grosvenor Estate. I declare an interest as a committee member of the Belgravia Residents Association. I do not include the estate in any criticism because the Grosvenor Estate is an extremely good landlord and on the whole has a happy relationship with the people who live on the estate. It looks after the estate in a most magnificent way so that it remains one of the most beautiful—probably the most beautiful—parts of London. I hope it will never be broken up in the way that Pimlico was broken up when the previous duke but one died. I must say I would rather live under a duke any time than one of these new fangled property companies or overseas banks.
Having said that, I do not think that all the other estates are equally good in the way that they treat their tenants. Some landlords have for some years pursued a policy of not renewing or extending leases as they reduce in years but instead deliberately let them run out, with enormous resultant hardship, loss and misery to the many long-term tenants living on the estate.
In coming to an assessment of the price to be paid for the freehold or new lease, however, these tenants are profoundly disadvantaged by the fact that they were not granted an extension of lease at an earlier stage and are now coming, through absolutely no fault of their own, to enfranchise or buy a new lease with little equity on their side. The price will be high because they have to start from scratch. For many it will be a difficult business to complete the process. The whole undertaking is, therefore, fraught with anxiety and uncertainty for some tenants on some of the estates of London.
If this leasehold enfranchisement gets under way—and, I believe, collective commonhold is also on the far horizon—I hope that the Government will be able to fulfil what they promise when an election comes. I suppose that next spring they will promise it all over again. In the meantime, I hope that they will try to get the issue resolved so that we do not have to live with these large estates for much longer.
I do not believe that because someone owned a few fields 300 years ago they should be able to continue to let property on leasehold for 100 or 200 years, gaining it back after that period. I do not believe that that situation should continue until the end of time. I hope that one day this Government or a Labour Government will bring that situation to an end.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I have listened with interest and I largely agree with my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. I also listened to what the Minister said. Given the length of the amendment and the fact that it is marked with a star—although it was put down a few days ago, it was changed yesterday and we have this version today—it is difficult to engage with the details of the amendment and to make a proper assessment. The Government may have had good reason for bringing forward such a large amendment so late. It runs to some

391
10 pages or so and is very complicated. The only information that I have received makes me concerned about its possible effects: that it will not be helpful to some people living on some larger estates.
Having said that, I wish to protest that we have been given such a complicated amendment without the benefit of the Government's view until a few moments ago. I appreciate that the Minister was succinct and clear in what he said. I sought to relate that to the amendment. It is rather difficult. I am not sure that we are in the best position to consider such a complicated amendment at Report stage when we cannot engage in any further discussion beyond one intervention in the debate.
I express a reservation about how the provision has been handled. It makes the position very difficult for us.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, have a reservation about this. It seems to me that if one has a cut-off period, whatever the period is, one plays the game by the rules set. If one happens to come close to the edge, costs and so on will fall where they fall.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said both in his praise for the quality of some of the London estates and the fact that they give us some of the most pleasant environments of any European city; and what he said about the future and the importance of people being able to own their own homes and do as they wish with them. The two are to some extent mutually exclusive. As the noble Lord recognises, we have moved some way from one towards the other over the past few years. At some stage perhaps some government will move further.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the amendments are tabled much later than I should like to have seen. I assure the noble Lord that the recent changes have been minor. We have not made major changes to the amendment. Nevertheless, it is a long amendment which contains many references to other legislation. It needs much examination and consideration. I apologise for the difficulty under which it will place the noble Lord in seriously criticising it. If he has any problems with the wording, I can assure him that my time and that of my officials is at his disposal to go through it. That is the best I can do in the time that remains for us.
That said, it is a desirable change, given the length of time that we leave before the provision comes into effect. There will be plenty of time for those nearing the end of their leases to make the necessary arrangements to begin the enfranchisement procedure without making themselves liable for paying what in some cases may be quite hefty rent for the year or two it takes the enfranchisement procedure to go through if they fail at the end to raise the necessary capital to buy the freehold.
I understand the picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, but, given that we are leaving it until 1999 for the legislation to become effective, there will be plenty of time for people to take the necessary action. It is worthwhile making the change to prevent what shows signs of becoming a tiresome abuse.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 163:
After Schedule 10, insert the following new schedule—

COMPENSATION FOR POSTPONEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH INEFFECTIVE CLAIMS
Claims under Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967
1.—(1) After section 27 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 there shall be inserted—
"Compensation for postponement of termination in connection with ineffective claims.
27A.—(1) This section applies where, on or after 15th January 1999—

(a) a tenant of any property makes a claim to acquire the freehold or an extended lease of it, and

(b) the claim is not made at least two years before the term date of the tenancy in respect of which the claim is made ("the existing tenancy").

(2) The tenant shall be liable to pay compensation if the claim is not effective and—

(a) the making of the claim caused a notice served under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 10 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to cease to have effect and the date on which the claim ceases to have effect is later than four months before the termination date specified in the notice,

(b) the making of the claim prevented the service of an effective notice under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 10 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (but did not cause a notice served under that provision to cease to have effect) and the date on which the claim ceases to have effect is a date later than six months before the term date of the tenancy, or

(c) the existing tenancy is continued under paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 3 to this Act by virtue of the claim.

(3) Compensation under subsection (2) above shall become payable at the end of the appropriate period and be the right of the person who is the tenant's immediate landlord at that time.
(4) The amount which the tenant is liable to pay under subsection (2) above shall be equal to the difference between—

(a) the rent for the appropriate period under the existing tenancy, and

(b) the rent which might reasonably be expected to be payable for that period were the property to which the existing tenancy relates let for a term equivalent to that period on the open market by a willing landlord on the following assumptions—

(i) that no premium is payable in connection with the letting,

(ii) that the letting confers no security of tenure, and

(iii) that, except as otherwise provided by this paragraph, the letting is on the same terms as the existing tenancy.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, a claim to acquire the freehold or an extended lease is not effective if it ceases to have effect for any reason other than—

(a) the acquisition in pursuance of the claim of the interest to which it relates, or

(b) the lapsing of the claim under any provision of this Act excluding the tenant's liability for costs.

(6) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4) above, the appropriate period is—

(a) in a case falling within paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above, the period—

(i) beginning with the termination date specified in the notice mentioned in that paragraph, and

393

(ii) ending with the earliest date of termination which could have been specified in a notice under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 10 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 served immediately after the date on which the claim ceases to have effect, or, if the existing tenancy is terminated before then, with the date of its termination;

(b) in a case falling within paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above, the period—

(i) beginning with the later of six months from the date on which the claim is made and the term date of the existing tenancy, and

(ii) ending six months after the date on which the claim ceases to have effect, or, if the existing tenancy is terminated before then, with the date of its termination; and

(c) in a case falling within paragraph (c) of subsection (2) above, the period for which the existing tenancy is continued under paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 3 to this Act.

(7) For the purposes of this section—

(a) references to a claim to acquire the freehold or an extended lease shall be taken as references to a notice of a person's desire to acquire it under Part I of this Act and as including a claim made by a tenant not entitled to acquire it, and

(b) references to the date on which a claim ceases to have effect shall, in relation to a notice which is not a valid notice, be taken as references to the date on which the notice is set aside by the court or withdrawn or would, if valid, cease to have effect, that date being taken, where the notice is set aside, or would (if valid) cease to have effect, in consequence of a court order, to be the date when the order becomes final.

Modification of section 27A where change in immediate reversion.
27B.—(1) Where a tenant's liability to pay compensation under section 27A above relates to a period during which there has been a change in the interest immediately expectant on the determination of his tenancy, that section shall have effect with the following modifications.
(2) For subsections (3) and (4) there shall be substituted—
"(3) Compensation under subsection (2) above shall become payable at the end of the appropriate period and there shall be a separate right to compensation in respect of each of the interests which, during that period, have been immediately expectant on the determination of the existing tenancy.
(4) Compensation under subsection (2) above shall—

(a) in the case of the interest which is immediately expectant on the determination of the existing tenancy at the end of the appropriate period, be the right of the person in whom that interest is vested at that time, and

(b) in the case of an interest which ceases during the appropriate period to be immediately expectant on the determination of the existing tenancy, be the right of the person in whom the interest was vested immediately before it ceased to be so expectant.

(4A) The amount which the tenant is liable to pay under subsection (2) above in respect of any interest shall be equal to the difference between—

(a) the rent under the existing tenancy for the part of the appropriate period during which the interest was immediately expectant on the determination of that tenancy, and

(b) the rent which might reasonably be expected to be payable for that part of that period were the property to which the existing tenancy relates let for a term
394
equivalent to that part of that period on the open market by a willing landlord on the following assumptions—

(i) that no premium is payable in connection with the letting,

(ii) that the letting confers no security of tenure, and

(iii) that, except as otherwise provided by this paragraph, the letting is on the same terms as the existing tenancy."

(3) In subsection (6), for "(3) and (4)" there shall be substituted "(3) to (4A)"."
(2) In section 21(1) of that Act (matters to be determined by leasehold valuation tribunal), after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—
"(ca) the amount of any compensation payable under section 27A;".
Claims under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993
2.—(1) After section 37 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 there shall be inserted—
"Landlord's right to compensation in relation to ineffective claims.
Compensation for postponement of termination in connection with ineffective claims.
37A.—(l) This section applies where a claim to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement in respect of any premises is made on or after 15th January 1999 by tenants of flats contained in the premises and the claim is not effective.
(2) A person who is a participating tenant immediately before the claim ceases to have effect shall be liable to pay compensation if—

(a) the claim was not made at least two years before the term date of the lease by virtue of which he is a qualifying tenant ("the existing lease"), and

(b) any of the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) is met.

(3) The conditions referred to above are—

(a) that the making of the claim caused a notice served under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 10 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in respect of the existing lease to cease to have effect and the date on which the claim ceases to have effect is later than four months before the termination date specified in the notice,

(b) that the making of the claim prevented the service of an effective notice under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 10 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in respect of the existing lease (but did not cause a notice served under that provision in respect of that lease to cease to have effect) and the date on which the claim ceases to have effect is a date later than six months before the term date of the existing lease, and

(c) that the existing lease has been continued under paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 3 by virtue of the claim.

(4) Compensation under subsection (2) shall become payable at the end of the appropriate period and be the right of the person who is the tenant's immediate landlord at that time.
(5) The amount which a tenant is liable to pay under subsection (2) shall be equal to the difference between—

(a) the rent for the appropriate period under the existing lease, and

(b) the rent which might reasonably be expected to be payable for that period were the property to which the existing lease relates let for a term equivalent to that period on the open market by a willing landlord on the following assumptions—

(i) that no premium is payable in connection with the letting,

395

(ii) that the letting confers no security of tenure, and

(iii) that, except as otherwise provided by this paragraph, the letting is on the same terms as the existing lease.

(6) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (5), the appropriate period is—

(a) in a case falling within paragraph (a) of subsection (3), the period—

(i) beginning with the termination date specified in the notice mentioned in that paragraph, and

(ii) ending with the earliest date of termination which could have been specified in a notice under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 10 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in respect of the existing lease served immediately after the date on which the claim ceases to have effect, or, if the existing lease is terminated before then, with the date of its termination;

(b) in a case falling within paragraph (b) of subsection (3), the period—

(i) beginning with the later of six months from the date on which the claim is made and the term date of the existing lease, and

(ii) ending six months after the date on which the claim ceases to have effect, or, if the existing lease is terminated before then, with the date of its termination; and

(c) in a case falling within paragraph (c) of subsection (3), the period for which the existing lease is continued under paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 3.

(7) In the case of a person who becomes a participating tenant by virtue of an election under section 14(3), the references in subsections (3)(a) and (b) and (6)(b)(i) to the making of the claim shall be construed as references to the making of the election.
(8) For the purposes of this section—

(a) references to a claim to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement shall be taken as references to a notice given, or purporting to be given (whether by persons who are qualifying tenants or not), under section 13,

(b) references to the date on which a claim ceases to have effect shall, in the case of a claim made by a notice which is not a valid notice under section 13, be taken as references to the date on which the notice is set aside by the court or is withdrawn or would, if valid, cease to have effect or be deemed to have been withdrawn, that date being taken, where the notice is set aside, or would, if valid, cease to have effect, in consequence of a court order, to be the date when the order becomes final, and

(c) a claim to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement is not effective if it ceases to have effect for any reason other than—

(i) the application of section 23(4), 30(4) or 31(4),

(ii) the entry into a binding contract for the acquisition of the freehold and other interests falling to be acquired in pursuance of the claim, or

(iii) the making of an order under section 24(4)(a) or (b) or 25(6)(a) or (b) which provides for the vesting of those interests.

Modification of section 37A where change in immediate reversion.
37B.—(1) Where a tenant's liability to pay compensation under section 37A relates to a period during which there has been a change in the interest immediately expectant on the determination of his lease, that section shall have effect with the following modifications.
(2) For subsections (4) and (5) there shall be substituted—
"(4) Compensation under subsection (2) shall become payable at the end of the appropriate period and there shall be a separate right to compensation in respect of each of the interests which, during that period, have been immediately expectant on the determination of the existing lease.
(5) Compensation under subsection (2) above shall—

(a) in the case of the interest which is immediately expectant on the determination of the existing lease at the end of the appropriate period, be the right of the person in whom that interest is vested at that time, and

(b) in the case of an interest which ceases during the appropriate period to be immediately expectant on the determination of the existing lease, be the right of the person in whom the interest was vested immediately before it ceased to be so expectant.

(5A) The amount which the tenant is liable to pay under subsection (2) above in respect of any interest shall be equal to the difference between—

(a) the rent under the existing lease for the part of the appropriate period during which the interest was immediately expectant on the determination of that lease, and

(b) the rent which might reasonably be expected to be payable for that part of that period were the property to which the existing lease relates let for a term equivalent to that part of that period on the open market by a willing landlord on the following assumptions—

(i) that no premium is payable in connection with the letting,

(ii) that the letting confers no security of tenure, and

(iii) that, except as otherwise provided by this paragraph, the letting is on the same terms as the existing lease."

(3) In subsection (6), for "(4) and (5)" there shall be substituted "(4) to (5A)"."
(2) In section 91(2) of that Act (matters to be determined by leasehold valuation tribunal), after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—
"(ca) the amount of any compensation payable under section 37A;".
Claims under Chapter II of Part I of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993
3.—(1) After section 61 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 there shall be inserted—
"Landlord's right to compensation in relation to ineffective claims.
Compensation for postponement of termination in connection with ineffective claims.
61A.—(1) This section applies where, on or after 15th January 1999—

(a) a tenant of a flat makes a claim to acquire a new lease of the flat, and

(b) the claim is not made at least two years before the term date of the lease in respect of which the claim is made ("the existing lease").

(2) The tenant shall be liable to pay compensation if the claim is not effective and—

(a) the making of the claim caused a notice served under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 10 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to cease to have effect and the date on which the claim ceases to have effect is later than four months before the termination date specified in the notice,

397

(b) the making of the claim prevented the service of an effective notice under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 10 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (but did not cause a notice served under that provision to cease to have effect) and the date on which the claim ceases to have effect is a date later than six months before the term date of the existing lease, or

(c) the existing lease is continued under paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 12 by virtue of the claim.

(3) Compensation under subsection (2) shall become payable at the end of the appropriate period and be the right of the person who is the tenant's immediate landlord at that time.
(4) The amount which the tenant is liable to pay under subsection (2) shall be equal to the difference between—

(a) the rent for the appropriate period under the existing lease, and

(b) the rent which might reasonably be expected to be payable for that period were the property to which the existing lease relates let for a term equivalent to that period on the open market by a willing landlord on the following assumptions—

(i) that no premium is payable in connection with the letting,

(ii) that the letting confers no security of tenure, and

(iii) that, except as otherwise provided by this paragraph, the letting is on the same terms as the existing lease.

(5) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4), the appropriate period is—

(a) in a case falling within paragraph (a) of subsection (2), the period—

(i) beginning with the termination date specified in the notice mentioned in that paragraph, and

(ii) ending with the earliest date of termination which could have been specified in a notice under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 10 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 served immediately after the date on which the claim ceases to have effect, or, if the existing lease is terminated before then, with the date on which it is terminated;

(b) in a case falling within paragraph (b) of subsection (2), the period—

(i) beginning with the later of six months from the date on which the claim is made and the term date of the existing lease, and

(ii) ending six months after the date on which the claim ceases to have effect, or, if the existing lease is terminated before then, with the date of its termination; and

(c) in a case falling within paragraph (c) of subsection (2), the period for which the existing lease is continued under paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 12.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (2), a claim to a new lease is not effective if it ceases to have effect for any reason other than—

(a) the application of section 47(1) or 55(2), or

(b) the acquisition of the new lease in pursuance of the claim.

(7) For the purposes of this section—

(a) references to a claim to acquire a new lease shall he taken as references to a notice given, or purporting to be given (whether by a qualifying tenant or not), under section 42, and

(b) references to the date on which a claim ceases to have effect shall, in the case of a claim made by a notice which is not a valid notice under section 42, be taken as references to the date on which the notice is set aside by the court or is withdrawn or would, if valid,
398
cease to have effect or be deemed to have been withdrawn, that date being taken, where the notice is set aside, or would, if valid, cease to have effect, in consequence of a court order, to be the date when the order becomes final.

Modification of section 61A where change in immediate reversion.
61B.—(1) Where a tenant's liability to pay compensation under section 61A relates to a period during which there has been a change in the interest immediately expectant on the determination of his lease, that section shall have effect with the following modifications.
(2) For subsections (3) and (4) there shall be substituted—
"(3) Compensation under subsection (2) shall become payable at the end of the appropriate period and there shall be a separate right to compensation in respect of each of the interests which, during that period, have been immediately expectant on the determination of the existing lease.
(4) Compensation under subsection (2) above shall—

(a) in the case of the interest which is immediately expectant on the determination of the existing lease at the end of the appropriate period, be the right of the person in whom that interest is vested at that time, and

(b) in the case of an interest which ceases during the appropriate period to be immediately expectant on the determination of the existing lease, be the right of the person in whom the interest was vested immediately before it ceased to be so expectant.

(4A) The amount which the tenant is liable to pay under subsection (2) above in respect of any interest shall be equal to the difference between—

(a) the rent under the existing lease for the part of the appropriate period during which the interest was immediately expectant on the determination of that lease, and

(b) the rent which might reasonably be expected to be payable for that part of that period were the property to which the existing lease relates let for a term equivalent to that part of that period on the open market by a willing landlord on the following assumptions—

(i) that no premium is payable in connection with the letting,

(ii) that the letting confers no security of tenure, and

(iii) that, except as otherwise provided by this paragraph, the letting is on the same terms as the existing lease."

(3) In subsection (5), for "(3) and (4)" there shall be substituted "(3) to (4A)"."
(2) In section 91(2) of that Act (matters to be determined by leasehold valuation tribunal), after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—
"(cb) the amount of any compensation payable under section 61A;".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 164:
After Clause 114, insert the following new clause—

LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNALS: PRE-TRIAL REVIEW
(".—(1) Procedure regulations may make provision in relation to proceedings before a leasehold valuation tribunal—

(a) for the holding of a pre-trial review, on the application of a party to the proceedings or of the tribunal's own motion; and

(b) for the exercise of the functions of the tribunal in relation to, or at, a pre-trial review by a single member who is qualified to exercise them.

(2) In subsection (1) "procedure regulations" means regulations under section 74(1)(b) of the Rent Act 1977, as that section applies in relation to leasehold valuation tribunals.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)—

(a) a "member" means a member of the panel provided for in Schedule 10 to that Act, and

(b) a member is qualified to exercise the functions referred to if he was appointed to that panel by the Lord Chancellor.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause concerns the procedures used by leasehold valuation tribunals. From the debate on the Bill, the House will be familiar with the role of the tribunals under the existing legislation in dealing with leasehold enfranchisement and under this Bill in dealing with service charge disputes and with the appointment of a manager.
The purpose of the new clause is to allow pre-trial reviews. Mrs. Susan Lloyd, the president of the London Rent Assessment Panel, from which leasehold valuation tribunals are drawn, has suggested that it would be extremely useful if, when dealing with complex cases, a preliminary hearing might be held, under a single member of the tribunal, to clear the ground in advance of the main hearing. She has suggested this in the light of experience in handling cases in disputes over the price to be paid for flats and houses being enfranchised. A pre-trial hearing would allow the parties to indicate to each other, and to the tribunal, the points on which they are agreed and the points on which they disagree, and to indicate broadly the evidence which they will be bringing forward. This will allow each of the parties to be better prepared, and to concentrate on the issues which are in dispute. This should save time and effort both before the main hearing and at the hearing itself. For example, it is not uncommon for parties to ask for an adjournment to prepare a response to unanticipated evidence.
There are often delays in setting up leasehold valuation tribunal hearings. These are primarily caused by the difficulty of finding a date convenient to the parties. A pre-trial review would provide a better opportunity to identify the length and complexity of a case and to negotiate on the spot a firm date for the hearing to begin.
Our informal discussions suggest that both landlords and leaseholders are likely to welcome this provision as a helpful step towards streamlining tribunal procedures—something which will save time and money, as noble Lords appreciate from earlier discussions. I therefore commend the new clause. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, on the face of it, the provision seems sensible. I wish to ask the Minister one question, going back to the charges made for applications to leasehold valuation tribunals. Will he say a little more about the implications of a pre-trial review? He may well say that it will shorten the number of days the tribunal sits and to that extent the daily charge of £2,000 or whatever it is will be reduced. The charge perhaps will not be reduced, but the total sum of the daily charges will be less because there will be fewer hearing days. Will the pre-trial review be a part of the process
400
that has to be paid for? Or will there be some other way in which people can, as it were, have a pre-trial review before they start incurring charges?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I will correct my statement in a letter if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the Bill constrains us to recover costs as a whole. How we charge for particular elements of the service—for example, a pre-trial review—is to be determined through consultation and discussion after the Bill receives Royal Assent. As yet, I know of no proposals, particularly on such a new element as this, as to how charging should be undertaken.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 164A:
After Clause 114, insert the following new clause—

ASSIGNMENT OF SHORT TENANCY OF DWELLING BY PAROL.
(".—(1) Section 54 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (creation of interests in land by parol) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (2) substitute—
"(2) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall affect the creation or assignment by parol of leases of dwelling-houses taking effect in possession for a term not exceeding three years (whether or not the lessee is given power to extend the term).
(3) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall affect the creation by parol of leases not falling within subsection (2) above taking effect in possession for a term not exceeding three years (whether or not the lessee is given power to extend the term) at the best rent which can be reasonably obtained." ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment may appear more mysterious than it is. In principle, the creation and assignment of every lease or tenancy has to be by deed. Section 54(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 contains an exception relating to short leases.
Assignment by way of exchange is a right of secure tenants and tenants of housing associations. Comments made during the course of the Bill suggest that noble Lords would probably applaud the fact that in such situations consultation with a lawyer is rare. It is certainly the case that lawyers rarely become involved. It must be very rare for assignments to take place by deed. If they are not executed by way of deed, their validity must be in question.
Fairly recently, alterations to the formalities required to execute documents by way of deed have been made. Even companies were not wholly observing the formalities. The physical aspects of impressing a deed and so on are not now required. It is expecting quite a lot of tenants in this kind of situation to observe all the formalities.
Where an assignment takes place on family break-up a similar situation arises. There is no exception for assignments to be other than by deed, even though the grant of the tenancy need not be. That was drawn to my attention; and I understand that some comments were made in the Court of Appeal five years ago. However, it still appears to be the case that assignments are required to be by deed. Speaking as a lawyer, I am more than happy to advocate circumstances in which people

401
do not need to involve lawyers and to suggest a change in the formalities required as set out in this amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, complained that Amendment No. 163 was a starred amendment and appeared on the Marshalled List only today. Curiously enough, this amendment is also starred, which indicates that it, too, appeared on the Marshalled List only today. I grant that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, does not run to 10 pages, as mine did. Her amendment involves a modest single clause. When I examined it, I thought that she might be aiming—
Lord Dubs: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. There is a world of difference between a very long government amendment to a government Bill which has been going through both Houses of Parliament for months and an amendment tabled fairly late by a Member of an Opposition party. With respect, there is no comparison.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that there is a comparison; the comparison is that they both appeared on the Order Paper today for the first time. I agree that the government amendment was a long one, but for reasons explained by my noble friend it had to be.
I was simply pointing out that the amendment of the noble Baroness appeared today and we have had to consider what it meant and so forth. I am not complaining. When we looked at the amendment I thought the noble Baroness was aiming to reverse the situation. She spoke of a divorce settlement in which a husband gave an oral undertaking to transfer the tenancy to his wife but that nothing was put down in writing and the wife was judged to have no defence to possession proceedings.
I have great sympathy for anyone who is forced to leave their home simply because an assignment was made orally rather than in writing. In practice, many short-term leases cannot be assigned because it is prohibited by the terms of the tenancy agreement or the statute. Not only that, but since the introduction of assured shorthold tenancies there are few advantages to the tenant in being able to assign the tenancy.
I have difficulty with the proposal that a tenant might be assigned a tenancy on the basis of an oral agreement. In most cases where assignment is allowed the landlord's agreement is required. The amendment would increase uncertainty in this area of the law and it may lead to an increase in the number of cases whereby a tenant unwittingly tries to assign the tenancy where the law or the terms of the tenancy specifically prevent that or where the landlord has not given his consent. That may well be good for the legal profession, of which the noble Baroness is a distinguished member, but it is unlikely to be good for the tenants.
The landlord should also be entitled to know who the tenant is. There is a strong case for requiring leases to be assigned in writing. But there are dangers in rushing
402
to change—in this case 24 hours—laws which have been settled and go back hundreds of years. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for springing to my defence. One of the worlds of difference between the two sides of the House is that the House by its nature is an amateur House and the part-time nature of our role has its own problems. However, we should appreciate the contributions made by those observing the workings of this House and another place from outside and who bring matters to our attention, which is precisely what happened here. In fact, I understand that the department had a copy of the clause and the notes from which I spoke on Monday. I accept that that is not very long when one looks at the amendment in the context of the working of the Law of Property Act 1925—I am not so sure about hundreds of years.
I am not convinced that what the Minister said went to the point of the requirement of the deed. However, I accept that this is something that has been established, though, as I said, probably not working very well, for quite a long time. It is not the sort of thing one would want to alter on the hoof. To that extent, I take the slap over the wrist that came from the Minister.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I can explain to the noble Baroness that I did not want to give her a slap over the wrist. It was a gentle nudge because the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, gave me a gentle nudge a little while earlier.
When I said that the statute goes back hundreds of years, I meant that the current provisions of assignment of land and property go back 300 years to the Statute of Frauds of 1677. That is why I thought it may be a little rushed to alter that.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I accept that this should not be done on the hoof. When there is a circle of us, as soon as someone gives a nudge that nudge will go round and round. I shall not over-react for fear of keeping the nudge going. Nevertheless, it is a serious point. This is not the opportunity to address it, but I hope that the department will take the point seriously and, if it believes that it is worth looking at the law again to bring it up to date, that it will find another opportunity to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 165:
Before Clause 115, insert the following new clause—

EXCEPTIONAL LEAVE TO REMAIN: BACKDATING OF ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFIT
(" . Any asylum seeker who is granted exceptional leave to remain shall be entitled to—

(a) housing benefit, and

(b) council tax benefit,

backdated to the date of their asylum application.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I realised that the time was close when this amendment was to be considered when I saw the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, take his place on the Government Front Bench.
I do not apologise to the House for yet again raising the question of asylum seekers and refugees, although I agree that in two Bills going through Parliament simultaneously we have had a lot of debate on the issue. The reason for this amendment is very simple. The Government have already agreed that if an asylum seeker is granted asylum status, he shall be entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit back-dated to the date of the asylum application. It is clearly an anomaly that that provision has not been extended to asylum seekers who are granted exceptional leave instead of full refugee status.
My understanding is that in every other respect as regards entitlement to benefits and all the other provisions that we discussed during the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Bill and the earlier stage of this Bill, asylum seekers granted refugee status and those granted exceptional leave to remain have been treated in a similar way. Therefore, it is clearly an anomaly that they have been missed out in this respect. I am confident that the Government will feel that this is the right occasion on which to rectify that anomaly. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, as the noble Lord rightly says, we have discussed these matters on a fair number of occasions during the course of both this Bill and the Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is now on its way to the other place. This amendment is interesting in that it introduces an entirely new concept into the income-related benefits. It actually provides that someone should be entitled to benefit simply by virtue of having a particular status. If a United Kingdom citizen seeks housing benefit or council tax benefit, he has to show a liability for rent or council tax and then that he fulfils and satisfies all the other entitlement conditions which apply to those benefits, including income.
A person with exceptional leave to remain under this amendment would gain entitlement simply by having exceptional leave to remain. That would be a most curious way to proceed. I understand that noble Lords opposite seek to refer to our proposals that those granted refugee status should be able to claim retrospective payments to cover periods when they have been excluded from income-related benefits. They seek to extend that proposal to cover those granted exceptional leave to remain. Even if the noble Lord's amendment was couched in more technically correct terms, I am sorry to say to him that it would still be unacceptable.
Perhaps I may explain the rationale which underpins our proposal to make retrospective payments available to refugees. The Government's policy on benefits for asylum seekers, which we shall seek to restore in the Asylum and Immigration Bill, aims to reduce incentives for people to make unfounded claims for asylum. To that end we shall restrict benefits to those who have
404
claimed on arrival in the United Kingdom and who have not received a negative decision from the Home Office—in other words, we shall insist that in order to gain benefits under the United Kingdom system, people will have to claim at the port of arrival. If, after consideration, the Home Office decided that they were not eligible for consideration as asylum seekers, they would not then be able to claim benefit during the time they waited for their appeal to be considered.
As your Lordships know, the House took a slightly different view on this matter by a small number, a fortnight ago. Those people who apply at the port or within three days, according to the amendment carried against my advice, would receive benefit not merely up until the point when the Home Office made a decision, but actually beyond that point and during all the time they were awaiting an appeal decision.
Your Lordships will know that my right honourable friend Peter Lilley, the Secretary of State for Social Security, has indicated that it is the Government's intention to ask the other place to overturn that particular amendment which your Lordships passed.
But in a minority of cases, where an asylum seeker is found to be a genuine refugee, we think it is reasonable that they should, in effect, be retrospectively exempted from the measures designed to dissuade the bogus from claiming. Therefore, we proposed and inserted in the Asylum and Immigration Bill that refugees should be eligible for retrospective payments covering periods during which the benefit regulations had previously excluded them from benefit.
That would mean that those people who claimed in country and who were subsequently found to be genuine refugees would be able to have retrospective payments and those who appealed and were eventually found to be genuine—three out of every 100, as it turns out—would be able to have retrospective payments.
This, as your Lordships will recall, puts refugees on a similar footing to United Kingdom nationals who lodge a claim against refusal of benefit. During the appeal no benefits are paid, but if the appeal is successful benefit can be backdated.
We do not accept—as I have explained to your Lordships before—that people who are granted exceptional leave to remain should be treated in the same way. Refugees are accorded specific rights under the UN convention. We ensure that those rights can be exercised. Exceptional leave to remain is a discretionary concession made by the UK Government over and above its obligations under the UN convention. It seems to me entirely reasonable that a person granted exceptional leave to remain should be paid the benefit from the date that the status is awarded.
Tonight, I can see no case for making such payments retrospective to an earlier period. I have been over this argument before. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, feels that I am making a rather narrow distinction between refugee status and exceptional leave, but we have argued it before and I am not convinced that I should change my position. The position of a refugee—somebody who is granted refugee status—is

405
quite different from that of a person with exceptional leave to remain. It is only right that we retain that distinction in that we will pay retrospective benefit to those people who are granted refugee status but that we will not pay it to those granted exceptional leave to remain.
I appreciate that the noble Lord will find my reply disappointing but I suspect he will also find it predictable. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I find it disappointing but I am bound to say I have more faith in the Minister than to suggest that I predicted his answer. I appreciate that technically the amendment is somewhat defective, but the Minister directed most of his arguments against the principle. I would simply say this. This is the only occasion on which the Government have made a distinction between benefit entitlement on the part of refugees—people given refugee status—compared with those given exceptional leave to remain.
We are talking of very small numbers because if people are going to be given ELR they are normally given it in response to their asylum claim. Only in isolated cases are they refused asylum. They then appeal and, although refused asylum status, they are granted exceptional leave to remain. It does happen, but we are talking of a handful of cases. I should have thought that the principle was clear—and the sums of money are tiny. We are making a distinction between two groups of people who, in all other respects, are allowed to stay in this country and who ought to have the same rights. It seems to me that the Government are being a bit niggardly about this. It would have been generous to say, "Yes, this is an anomaly", and to do something about it. I am dismayed that the Government do not see it that way. Reluctant as I am to accept something like that, I do not think that I have any choice but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Clause 115 [Payment of housing benefit to third parties]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 79, line 30, at end insert—
(" "(5A) As it has effect in relation to housing benefit subsection (1)(h) above shall require a request for information or evidence by the determining authority to be made in such a manner and within such a target period as may be prescribed."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment too relates to housing benefit, something that preoccupied us earlier today. The purpose of the amendment is to provide for regulations to ensure that, when applications for housing benefit are made, requests for information and evidence in relation to that housing benefit are made within a set or specified target period. We are concerned that delays in the determination of claims for housing benefit are a significant factor causing arrears of rent
406
and even homelessness, despite regulations requiring local authorities to make payment within 14 days of receiving full information on the claim.
One cause of the delays is the current lack of any time limit on the period for requesting additional information. The amendment seeks to tackle that by introducing target periods for time limits for requests by the determining authority for additional information and evidence.
Perhaps I may give one or two examples from the citizens advice bureaux. A CAB in Norfolk reported that a single parent moved into a housing association house in July and claimed benefit. By September no payment had been made and she received a notice to quit. In October she was threatened with court action for arrears of £683.88. Benefit was finally paid after 11 weeks. The housing benefit department claimed that it had been waiting for information from the Benefits Agency, but there was still a further month's delay even after the CAB sent it a copy of the Benefits Agency letter confirming the client's income. Those are long delays. If there were targets for getting the information, such delays could be significantly shortened.
Perhaps I may give another example, again from a citizens advice bureau but in this case from Devon. It reported that a client waited eight weeks for his claim to be processed. He had been served a notice to quit for rent arrears. When the CAB contacted the department, it was told that there was a backlog and that the claim could not be speeded up.
I think that having a time limit would be helpful. It is quite common to set targets for various authorities so that they can meet adequate standards of sensitivity for their customers. It would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to have the powers to set targets for the collection of such information. It is a simple point. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support this amendment, recognising that in doing so I am supporting some centralisation of a local provision. Nevertheless, I support the amendment for one particular reason: the importance to the smooth functioning of the private rented sector of the housing benefit system. My own experience, which I do not think is unusual, is of potential landlords refusing to make properties available to tenants on housing benefit because of their fears about problems in terms of getting paid—and getting paid promptly. It is important to keep properties available. That is why I believe the amendment is important.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has come up with a variation of an earlier amendment which we debated in Committee and which would have required local authorities to request all the information and evidence they would ever need within seven or 10 days of the date of a claim for housing benefit. Now, the noble Lord is suggesting that local authorities must request the information and evidence they need within a "target" period. Regulations would be required to lay down the length of this period. But how long would that period be? Whatever the length

407
of the period, the real question is: would this amendment have the desired effect of delivering a better service to claimants? My view and that of my colleagues is that it would not.
If the "target" period is too long, local authorities could take their time about dealing with the majority of inquiries. This would defeat the purpose of the amendment, which is to speed up the process. Giving local authorities a shorter period of, say, seven or 10 days, to take the appropriate action would result inevitably—and for good reasons, such as staff sickness or an unexpected surge of claims—in some of them missing their target. That is when the problems would begin.
Local authorities would have two choices: they could do without the necessary evidence or choose to ignore the fact that they have no statutory power to ask for the evidence. Even then, claimants could refuse to provide it and there is nothing an authority could do about that. In consequence, some claimants would be refused benefit because they had not supported their claim—indeed under this amendment they might not even be told what further information was required—while others would be overpaid benefit or would suffer hardship because they were paid too little. That would be a very unsatisfactory situation.
The nub of the problem is that many claimants fail to provide the information and evidence requested on their claim form in the first place. If they did, most delays would be avoided. It is in the authority's own interest to obtain the information as quickly as possible. I am sure there is no suggestion that authorities deliberately delay taking the appropriate steps. Many authorities set their own administrative targets, which can be as low as five days, for getting information and replies to inquiries. The results are monitored by my department's officials through a programme of visits to local authorities. I can tell your Lordships that standards are undoubtedly improving. However, I am not complacent. I recognise the strength of feeling behind this amendment. I propose to monitor the position. If I am persuaded by the evidence that something needs to be done, I shall consider carefully whether a change can be introduced which meets the needs of claimants and local authorities.
But I do not believe that the way forward is to have a piece of primary legislation like this. We shall monitor the position. We appreciate the need for speedy and correct action as far as concerns these benefits. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I indicated earlier that my support for this amendment was a little out of character. I was glad to hear his acceptance of the difficulties experienced by local authorities in meeting a target which is a short period of time. In reviewing the targets and the workings of this matter, will the Minister bear in mind and discuss with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment the appropriateness of certain performance indicators under the Citizen's Charter which perhaps give the public the false impression that local authorities are themselves at fault
408
in failing to meet targets? The underlying reasons are, as he has indicated, rather complex and not necessarily of their own making.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a valid point. On a number of occasions, I have said that it takes two to tango. If the claimant does not give the information quickly and in proper form, delay is inevitable because the authority is obliged to go back to the claimant to ask for further details. That is one of the difficulties about setting targets. None the less, it is important that an attempt is made to set targets. As the noble Baroness has said, it is important for claimants that decisions on their cases are made as quickly as possible. I will make sure that the points raised by the noble Baroness are borne in mind when we look at how authorities perform.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, although the Minister has rejected the amendment it is of comfort that he agreed to review the workings of the system and to see what can he done if it is not working well. On that basis, I thank him for what amounts to a small concession and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 79, line 38, at end insert—
("(3) In section 5 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (regulations about claims for and payment of benefit) at the end of subsection (1)(k) insert "and where a claimant who is a local housing authority tenant is on income support and has included in the calculation of his applicable amount the pensioner, the enhanced pensioner or the higher pensioner premium, or although not in receipt thereof has included in the calculation of his applicable amount the pensioner, the enhanced pensioner or the higher pensioner premium, the award of benefit shall be made for an indefinite period."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to provide for regulations which will enable claims for pensioners who live in council housing to be determined for an indefinite benefit period. At present, housing benefit claimants must renew their claims every 12 months. I suppose that for the majority of claimants that is a reasonable process. However, the renewal claims increase the administrative burden on local authorities. They often delay sending out renewal claims, do not always explain why the claimant must reclaim and can delay or lose the renewal claim.
The amendment is concerned with elderly claimants who experience stress and even the threat of eviction because either they do not know that they have to reclaim housing benefit or are deterred by the claim form. The requirement of housing benefit authorities that claims must be renewed every 12 months is the subject of the amendment. Often clients in receipt of income support do not understand the need to reclaim because they are not required to do so for income support. There are two different procedures.
As regards people below pension age, perhaps the requirement for the 12 monthly renewal of claims is satisfactory. However, in the case of pensioners, perhaps they are subjected to too many bureaucratic requirements which some find difficult to understand

409
fully. Perhaps I may give two examples. A citizens advice bureau in Sussex reported that many elderly clients seek advice as to why they have received a housing benefit renewal form. The form arrives in the post without explanation. There is no local council office to approach for advice. Furthermore, a CAB in London reported the case of an elderly housebound woman on income support who lives alone in a council flat. She received a notice seeking possession from the council for rent arrears, which left her in a very distressed state. That had been caused by the cessation of housing benefit following the failure of the council to send out the yearly renewal forms.
The point is fairly straightforward. In other respects we simplify the procedures for pensioners knowing that their circumstances are much less likely to change than those of younger people. Therefore, it is appropriate to ensure that pensioners' entitlements to certain benefits, once the case has been established, should not require the frequent and repeated renewal of claims. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord has fairly described the objectives of his amendment. It may be helpful if I explain why we do not believe that it would be wise to put such an amendment into the Bill. Housing benefits are awarded for a fixed period called "a benefit period". The length of a benefit period is at the discretion of a local authority and it is up to a maximum of 60 weeks; in other words, just over a year. After that the local authority must invite a repeat claim.
In that way there is a formal statutory mechanism for ensuring that benefit is paid accurately and that it reflects the applicant's circumstances and any changes which have occurred in the previous year. The requirement to make a fresh claim for housing benefit applies to all claimants, not only to pensioners, and it ensures that local authorities are administering the scheme correctly by paying the correct amount of benefit and therefore preventing both overpayment and underpayment building up.
We have in the past consulted the local authority associations and asked them to provide evidence for improving administrative efficiency through adopting easements similar to what is suggested in the noble Lord's amendment. The evidence they provided was inconclusive. There was evidence of overpayments and some local authorities prefer to set even shorter benefit periods than the maximum of 60 weeks.
In addition, we remain unconvinced that any administrative easement following a move to continuous awards would justify the costs involved in identifying the cases affected. Such a move might result in overpayments, for which there would be subsidy implications for the local authority. Claimants could suffer because the complete absence of a review of their entitlement might result in underpayments for which they would not be fully reimbursed as there is actually a 52-week limit for paying arrears. If there were an underpayment and there was no need to review the claim at any given period, somebody could be underpaid
410
for quite a considerable time and all they could get by way of arrears would be up to 52 weeks. Of course if there were overpayments they could be asked to refund the money and I think that could be particularly difficult over time. Therefore, far from making pensioners' lives easier, a move to indefinite benefit periods could result in actually causing some distress to at least a number of individuals in this group.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, pointed out that we do simplify procedures for pensioners in other regards, and I want to say to him that there is no need for the renewal claim form to be an onerous one. The practice varies from local authority to local authority, but they may at their discretion use a shortened form for repeat claims in order to avoid the need for claimants to repeat all the same details. I did write to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, a noble friend of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, following her withdrawal of a similar amendment during the Committee stage. I advised her that my officials would be having further discussions with local authority associations about this issue.
I further explained—and I do so again now—that any easement of the rules should, in our view, be permissive rather than a requirement. If we were to ease the rules, we should give a permission to do so rather than making it a requirement, so that local authorities can make their own decisions about granting longer benefit periods. If we come to that conclusion at some stage in the future we can change these rules by secondary legislation. We do not need primary legislation to do so, because the rules governing the length of benefit periods are decided in secondary legislation.
I can give the noble Lord these assurances. The first is that, if at some time in the future the Government decided that the rules could be changed, the powers to do so are there in secondary legislation and therefore primary powers are not necessary. Secondly, in our view, it would be right, if one were to go down that road, to give local authorities permission rather than to make it a requirement. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I think the Minister has said no, but he has said it in a helpful and positive way. In the light of the assurances that he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 119 [Introductory tenancies]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 167A:
Page 81, line 11, after ("force,") insert ("except where subsection (2A) applies,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment standing in my name and, with it, I should like to talk briefly to Amendment No. 168B. We have now moved on to the question of introductory tenancies and this amendment is concerned with tenant management organisations—a term used to describe tenant management co-operatives or estate management boards. The amendment seeks to say that where TMOs exist they are likely to have a view on whether they

411
wish to operate an introductory tenancy regime. This amendment proposes that, where the authority proposes to operate an introductory tenancy scheme, it should consult tenant management organisations where they exist. If, having consulted them, they are of the view that the TMO and the tenants managed by the TMO do not wish to operate an introductory tenancy scheme, then the amendment will give the local authority discretion to exclude the particular estate managed by the TMO from the scheme. In that sense, the issue is rather simple and I think that the point is a fairly obvious one. I am just considering whether there are any further aspects of this which are worth mentioning at this stage.
The reason that it is proposed that local authorities should have discretion as to whether or not to exclude an estate is that some tenant management organisations will take on all aspects of tenancy management, including the decision whether to seek possession against tenants for non-payment of rent or other breaches of the tenancy conditions delegated to them under the management agreement. Others operate differently and do not have as many powers.
Rather than attempt to specify in the amendment the precise degree of delegation of management functions beyond which the TMO should have the right to decide that it should be exempt from the introductory tenancy scheme, this proposal would leave local authorities with a discretion on the assumption that an authority would be more likely to accede to the TMO's request where the TMO was substantially responsible for managing anti-social behaviour and enforcing tenancy conditions. That is the nub of the argument. TMOs have a range of differing responsibilities and for some one particular approach would be more appropriate than for others. The point of the amendment is to allow that element of discretion.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall follow the example of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and say no helpfully. We are quite comfortable with the idea of consultation. During Committee stage in another place my right honourable friend the Housing Minister explained that under Section 105 of the Housing Act 1985 local authorities are already required to consult their tenants on matters of housing management and, in particular, changes in practice and policy. He confirmed that a decision to have an introductory tenancy regime would fall into that category. This consultation would cover all the tenants of a local authority, including those whose properties are managed by a TMO.
We are not at all happy with the idea that a TMO should be able to exempt itself or should be exempted from the system. We have maintained consistently that introductory tenancies must apply to all new tenants and that there can be no cherry-picking. The reason underlying that is that we believe that exemptions would encourage discrimination and lead to the stigmatising of introductory tenants. We are not prepared to countenance that.
412
It may be that, in putting forward these amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is suggesting that the tenants involved in a TMO are unlikely to be the kind of tenants who need an introductory tenancy to keep them on the straight and narrow. That may well be true, but such tenants have nothing to fear from an introductory tenancy. We are not prepared to have a system in which introductory tenants are singled out as people who are somehow less worthy than others. If the authority needs the scheme, it should apply to everybody. For that reason, we are not content with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I hope he will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I heard what the Minister said. I am disappointed because I do not think that he recognises fully the difference between the responsibilities and the functions of one TMO compared with another. They cover a very wide range of responsibilities. Putting them all in the same position demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to their differing roles and functions. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 81, line 13, leave out ("have been") and insert ("be").
The noble Lord said: my Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 169, 170, 178 and 182. Clause 119 enables a local authority or housing action trust to elect to run an introductory tenancy scheme. Clause 120 provides that the trial period for an introductory tenancy shall be 12 months. Clause 129 deals with assignments of introductory tenancies and Schedule 13 contains consequential amendments. The minor amendments in this group are all designed to clarify and tidy up the existing provisions and prevent the potential for abuse. They have no new implications for the policy on introductory tenancies.
At present, an introductory tenant who leaves his dwelling and who returns at a later stage would become a secure tenant by default, even though he had not completed the trial period. That is because the test of whether someone is an introductory tenant is established at the start of the tenancy. Amendments Nos. 168, 169 and 170 will close this potential loophole. They provide that the test of whether a tenant is an introductory tenant can be assessed at any time during the tenancy, rather than only at the start of the tenancy. The result will be that, should an introductory tenant leave the dwelling and return, he will not become a secure tenant.
Amendment No. 178 prevents an introductory tenant from leaving his home and assigning it to someone else with the result that the incoming tenant becomes a secure tenant. That could occur because, under Clause 120 as it stands, when an introductory tenancy has ended the tenant will still hold a tenancy at will. So he will not be bound by the provision in Clause 129 which prohibits the assignment of introductory tenancies. The incoming tenant would not be an introductory tenant because he succeeds to the tenancy at will held by the outgoing tenant. Further, if the

413
incoming tenant occupies the dwelling as his only or principal home, he may well obtain a secure tenancy by default. Amendment No. 178 aims to prevent this potential for abuse by preventing assignment where the introductory tenant is not occupying the dwelling.
Finally, Amendment No. 182 is consequential on these amendments. It amends Schedule 16 to the Housing Act 1985 (the schedule that lists tenancies which are not secure) so as to ensure that if an introductory tenant—or, in the case of a joint tenancy, every tenant—ceases to live in the dwelling as his only or principal home he will not become a secure tenant.
I should point out to the House that these were serious unintended consequences of the wording as originally in the Bill. I am delighted that the diligence of parliamentary draftsmen has highlighted them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 168A
Page 81, line 19, at end insert ("; or
(c) in a case where the authority have adopted the tenancy, a regulated tenant or an assured tenant (otherwise than under an assured short hold tenancy) of the same dwelling-house.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would add a further exception to the short list of exceptions contained in Clause 119(2) which deals with introductory tenancies. The clause establishes introductory tenancies preventing a tenant of a local housing authority becoming a secure tenant. Subsection (2) sets out two exceptions. However, why should a regulated tenant of a dwelling, for example, which is compulsorily purchased or otherwise acquired from the private sector—perhaps under threat of a CPO—lose his security of tenure if he has lived in the dwelling for a long period? It is the property that has changed, not the tenant.
I suspect that the amendment would be likely to apply only in a relatively few cases. However, it has been drawn to my attention—and I apologise for the fact that this is another starred amendment—that this is a group of people to whom it would be unfair not to give the equivalent protection to that already afforded to those protected under subsection (2). I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we may be discussing another starred amendment, but the noble Baroness has explained its meaning with admirable clarity which, if I may say so, is something which is entirely usual in her case. A similar amendment was discussed during the Committee stage in another place. I should emphasise that one of the principles behind the introductory tenancy regime is that all tenants should be subject to the trial period, and that there should be no picking and choosing. But we looked very closely at who should be exempt from the new arrangements and have provided exemptions only for established tenants of either a local authority or housing association. Private sector tenants are not subject to the same housing management regime as social landlords. We did not feel that we could therefore make comparisons between a tenant of a local
414
authority or registered social landlord and one who has come from the private sector where his or her track record may be difficult to establish.
Introductory tenancies are designed to deal with problems that local authorities and housing action trusts face in their role as social landlords. Therefore it must be right that people with existing social housing tenancies of a secure nature should have the benefit of that continuity. However, where people come from different sorts of tenancy there can be no objection to their being asked to serve the trial period required under an introductory tenancy. As I explained under the previous amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that is required of everyone coming into the system. As the Government have always said, good tenants have nothing to fear from introductory tenancies, and this applies equally to the small minority of tenants who have their tenancies adopted by the local authority. We are sure that in this as in other cases the vast majority of introductory tenancies will become secure. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, if I were a tenant in this situation I would object to the slur in that I should not like to be asked to serve time, as it were. However, the Minister has explained the Government's thinking. It is another occasion where we beg to differ. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 168B not moved.]
Clause 120 [Duration of introductory tenancy]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 81, line 31, leave out from ("which") to ("entered") in line 32 and insert ("was").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 81, line 37, leave out from ("which") to ("adopted") in line 38 and insert ("was").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 122 [Proceedings for possession]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 82, line 38, at end insert ("or it is unreasonable to make such an order").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 172. The amendments again are concerned with introductory tenancies. Their purpose is to give the courts discretion not to grant an order for possession if doing so would be unreasonable to the tenant, and to give additional protection to tenants by allowing the court to judge whether in seeking the order the landlord is behaving in an unfair or discriminatory manner.
The Government have made it clear that they accept that local authorities which establish introductory tenancies will need to have fair procedures for dealing with them. The problem is that the individual who may be the victim of these procedures will have no

415
legislative defence if it is judged by the individual that the procedures are not fair. His only safeguard to make certain that the local authority is following fair procedures is that the courts should be given an element of discretion.
The issue of introductory tenancies and the way in which they will operate has caused a great deal of concern, as the Minister will know. I rely again on the citizens advice bureaux which have already reported instances where tenants have been threatened with eviction for anti-social behaviour where the full complexity of their situation has not really been considered. That is why there is a fear that these proposals may reduce the security of tenants in a way which is unfair to tenants. It is best to illustrate this by way of one or two examples. There was an instance from Dorset where an 80-year old tenant of a housing association had a son who suffered from manic depression. He lives in accommodation without a bath and visits his mother regularly in order to use her bath. Neighbours complained about his behaviour, and the housing association has threatened to take legal action to evict her if he continues to visit. So an elderly mother has a son with a severe depressive state; the son visits his mother; neighbours complain, and there is a threat that the mother will be evicted because of the son's visits.
I have an example from South Wales. A couple live in a council flat; they have an adult son with a mental health problem. Neighbours have complained about the son's behaviour, and the local authority wanted repossession. When the CAB visited the housing department, it said that it would rehouse the couple but not the son. Quite naturally and understandably, the parents did not want the family split up.
Some examples of threats concern racial harassment. For example, a client in Greater Manchester has five children of mixed race. Since moving into her present home she has been subject to verbal and written abuse. But the police and local authority have told her that they can do nothing. Again there is a danger that if this were an introductory tenancy that would lead to eviction.
I give another example. In south London an elderly Caribbean man was evicted from his council flat for making himself a nuisance to neighbours. However, he believed that he had been racially harassed and strongly contested the allegations made.
These and other examples demonstrate that there are ways in which, at least on the face of it, people can be under pressure. They may well be innocent parties, yet they face eviction. The vulnerable position of introductory tenants means that that could happen all too easily.
I have many other instances that I could cite. What is needed are better procedures for demonstrating complaints of nuisance. I accept that nuisance can exist. I do not say that there are not instances where it is absolutely right that action should be taken against a tenant who behaves in a very anti-social way and makes neighbours' lives miserable. But one needs a balanced approach. One needs to ensure that one is behaving fairly to these people.
If the courts were to have an element of discretion not to grant an order of possession, they would be able to look into these matters and arrive at a fairer and more balanced conclusion. There may be pressure, and a mistaken and unfair decision may be made to remove a tenant. The courts would provide the necessary safeguard. They would not protect tenants who behave in an anti-social manner but would protect tenants who were the victims of a misunderstanding or of neighbours who complained without all the facts being understood. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is odd that the court should not have the power not to make an order if it considered that to do so would be unreasonable. If the court has to make the order whether it likes it or not, as appears to me to be the case, that is not proper justice.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I entirely agree with the last comment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we visited this matter at Committee stage with a similar amendment, if not the same one. I have not a great deal to add to what I said then, although if noble Lords wish I can repeat it. It is several pages long and is available in Hansard, but noble Lords present will remember what I said.
We appreciate the point being made but I am sure noble Lords also appreciate that we are not prepared to go down the road proposed by the amendments. They would effectively destroy the utility of introductory tenancies by opening up every case to trial in court in the way that existing ordinary tenancies have to be terminated. They would bring an end to the advantages we seek to gain through introductory tenancies of a quick and simple process.
In the following amendments, my noble friend Lord Swinfen proposes a different route and one which we might explore more fruitfully at this time of night. If noble Lords opposite wish me to go through the full arguments, I shall, but I hope that they understand that I have nothing to say other than what I said in Committee. The needs of vulnerable people whom the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, used to illustrate his argument are important. It is a matter of great moment for us that local authorities and others should take appropriate and sensitive decisions and look after the needs of those people as well of the communities of which they form part. I covered all that at Committee stage and I have nothing else to say.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I do not wish the Minister to repeat exactly what he said at Committee stage. The hour is late. Normally one thanks a Minister for a concession that he has just made. I cannot do that because he has not made one, but I intend to thank him in advance for the concession he is about to make to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 172 not moved.]
Clause 124 [Right to request review of decision to seek possession]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 83, line 18, leave Out ("a") and insert ("an impartial").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was prophesying. In moving Amendment No. 173, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 174. They are very similar to amendments I moved at Committee stage. This time I seek to ensure that introductory tenants have the safeguard of an impartial review before they are evicted. At Committee stage I sought an independent review.
Under the proposals in the Bill, during the period of the introductory tenancy a landlord will be able to evict a tenant at any time. The landlord will have to obtain a possession order from a court but there will be no defence to the possession proceedings and the landlord will not have to prove to the court that tenancy conditions have been broken. There is nothing in the Bill to indicate on what grounds a landlord would issue such proceedings but debate around the Bill has indicated that the introductory tenancy is intended as a method to enable the speedy eviction of anti-social tenants.
The concern about the introductory tenancy is that it gives considerable power to landlords to make decisions about which tenants are behaving anti-socially and gives the tenant no defence against proceedings which may be unreasonable. There are particular concerns among representatives of disability organisations that people whose behaviour is unusual due to mental illness or disability may find themselves summarily evicted by a landlord who is under pressure from other residents or who is unwilling or unable to try to resolve problems in a more constructive fashion.
The only safeguard given to an introductory tenant faced with possession proceedings is that he is entitled to a review of his case. The Bill proposes, however, that such a review should be carried out by the landlord. Clearly, a review carried out by the landlord who has instigated possession proceedings is unlikely to be impartial and is certainly unlikely to be seen as such by the tenant.
When this issue was discussed in Committee, my noble friend the Minister stressed that there is the option of a judicial review open to tenants who are not satisfied with the internal review carried out by the landlord. This, however, is a very lengthy and costly procedure. If the local authority has to defend a number of judicial review hearings this will take up valuable staff time and cost public money. The tenant involved might also be entitled to legal aid, which would again be a drain on the public purse. Such a review is also unsatisfactory because it takes considerable time. In the meantime what will happen to tenants threatened with eviction? Will they be homeless, or will they be able to remain in their home, perhaps continuing their anti-social behaviour?
I noticed when reading the account in Hansard of our proceedings last Monday that my noble friend Lord Ferrers moved Amendment No. 18, which lays down a review procedure in Part VI of the Bill. I wonder whether he will bring forward a similar amendment at Third Reading to lay down such an impartial procedure for this part of the Bill if he is not prepared to accept my amendment this evening. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not wish to leave my noble friend wondering for too long. Clearly, he will understand that, whatever review procedures we have, we wish to avoid the pitfalls we felt were opened up by the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, introducing delays into the procedure which made introductory tenancies no longer useful in the way that we wish them to be.
At the same time it is essential to ensure that the tenant is treated fairly throughout the process. There will have been negotiations between tenant and landlord in an attempt to resolve matters before the eviction stage is reached, and impending eviction should not come as a surprise to the tenant. Even so, the landlord will be obliged to notify the tenant in writing of his intention to seek a possession order. At that stage the tenant will also learn of his right to request a review of the decision. Such a review must then be completed by the earliest date on which the proceedings against the tenant could begin, which would be 28 days after the notice had been served.
The Government are confident that local authorities will act fairly and impartially at all stages of this procedure. Local authorities are well practised in handling these kinds of problems among their tenants. The Department of the Environment will also be issuing detailed, firm advice to local authorities which will cover all stages of the tenancy, including deciding when to take action, what evidence is required to seek eviction and how a review should be handled.
To supplement the advice on the handling of the review, the Government have decided to bring forward at Third Reading amendments which will provide the Secretary of State with a power to make an order to lay down requirements for the review. We would certainly wish the order to provide that the person who made the original decision to evict should not be involved with the decision-making process in the review. Other matters to be dealt with might be when written or oral representations might be appropriate and whether the tenant might be represented and, if so, by whom. The local authority associations and other interested bodies, including tenants' representative bodies, will be consulted on this.
The Government believe that this strikes the right balance between giving the tenant a fair opportunity to have his case heard and the local authority effecting a prompt eviction in those cases where it has become necessary. We do not consider that to set up an independent review, whether it be styled after the Housing Benefit Review Panel or the child support reviews, is warranted. The additional bureaucracy and

419
expense could not be justified when a perfectly good and impartial system of review can be offered through the local authority. We do not believe that there will be many introductory tenants who face eviction, and even fewer will have grounds to dispute their landlord's decision. Within the framework which the secondary legislation will provide such cases will receive a fair hearing. The secondary legislation will also give us the advantage of being able to change the arrangements in time if it proves that any of the worst fears expressed by noble Lords are realised and if partiality is creeping into the decisions being made on introductory tenancies.
I hope that will be sufficient comfort to enable my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I shall certainly withdraw the amendment because those are comforting words indeed. I look forward to seeing the amendment my noble friend proposes to table for Third Reading and hope that I shall not feel it necessary to improve upon it by moving amendments to it. However, at this stage of the Bill and at this stage of the night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 174 not moved.]
Clause 127 [Cases where the tenant is a successor]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 84, line 35, after ("proceedings)") insert ("or section 17(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (property adjustment orders after overseas divorce, &c.)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 175 to 177 with Amendment No. 5, and to Amendment No. 178 with Amendment No. 168. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 128 [Succession to introductory tenancy]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 85, line 16, at end insert—
("(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).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 129 [Assignment in general prohibited]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 177 and 178:
Page 85, line 23, 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).").

Page 85, line 25, at end insert—
("(3) Subsection (1) also applies to a tenancy which is not an introductory tenancy but would be if the tenant, or where the tenancy is a joint tenancy, at least one of the tenants, were occupying or continuing to occupy the dwelling-house as his only or principal home.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, having spoken earlier to these amendments, I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 130 [Right to carry out repairs]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 178A:
Page 85, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 178A I shall speak also to Amendment No. 178B. The purpose of these amendments is to give introductory tenants the right to have their properties repaired or improved. It is difficult to see why introductory tenants should not enjoy the same rights to repair as secure tenants. After all, the properties are all likely to be local authority properties and it is difficult to see why introductory tenants should live in property of a lower standard than secure tenants because it is in need of repair.
If the arrangements for introductory tenants are different from those applying to secure tenants, there is likely to be extra administrative work for local authorities operating the scheme. They would have to check the tenancy status of every tenant reporting a repair to see which procedure should be initiated. If the scheme for introductory tenants differs significantly from that for secure tenants, there will be other procedural and administrative issues for the local authority.
Whereas I fully understand the Government's thinking as regards introductory tenancies—but I am not happy about it—when tenants may be living side by side in adjacent flats and one has an introductory tenancy and the other a more secure tenancy, it is anomalous that the local authority should have a higher responsibility to carry out repairs and maintenance for one property than the other. It also means that the housing stock will deteriorate in condition because introductory tenants would live in flats in a less good state of repair than secure tenants. That makes for unfairness for tenants living side by side and means that local authorities have to behave in a curious way. It is surely better that the right of repair should be the same for introductory tenancies as for secure tenancies. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendments seek to make absolutely sure that the right-to-repair scheme is applied to introductory tenants. I am happy to confirm that it has always been our intention that that will be the case. During Committee stage in another place my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, James Clappison, made it clear that introductory tenants would enjoy the same rights as secure tenants in relation to the right to repair. Clause 130, as drafted, enables the necessary regulations to be made for that to be effected.
We will be making regulations to apply those rights to introductory tenants. They will come into force at the same time as the provisions on introductory tenancies are commenced. The amendments proposed are therefore unnecessary; we will be doing what the noble Lord urges us to do. If he were to ask why we are not

421
prepared to put the provisions on the face of the Bill, I should reply that I am advised that they would be too lengthy. In the context of amendments that I have proposed today and those that I shall be proposing at Third Reading, the noble Lord may think that that is a thin excuse but, nonetheless, I hold to it.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for making that clear and for giving me the assurance that, whatever is not on the face of the Bill, the effect of these amendments will be carried out. I derive some amusement from his reluctance to put forward a lengthy explanation, given all the others that we have heard at some length. I detect a certain inconsistency there, but not for the first time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 178B not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 179:
After Clause 132, insert the following new clause—

JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURT
(".—(1) A county court has jurisdiction to determine questions arising under this Part and to entertain proceedings brought under this Part and claims, for whatever amount, in connection with an introductory tenancy.
(2) That jurisdiction includes jurisdiction to entertain proceedings as to whether a statement supplied in pursuance of section 131(2)(b) (written statement of certain terms of tenancy) is accurate notwithstanding that no other relief is sought than a declaration.
(3) If a person takes proceedings in the High Court which, by virtue of this section, he could have taken in the county court, he is not entitled to recover any costs.
(4) The Lord Chancellor may make such rules and give such directions as he thinks fit for the purpose of giving effect to this section.
(5) The rules and directions may provide—

(a) for the exercise by a district judge of a county court of any jurisdiction exercisable under this section, and

(b) for the conduct of proceedings in private.

(6) The power to make rules is exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause imports similar provisions to those for the secure tenancy regime in Sections 110 and 111 of the Housing Act 1985 to make it clear that the county court deals with any disputes that arise about introductory tenancies.
The clause provides that for introductory tenancies the county court has jurisdiction to determine questions, deal with claims and entertain possession proceedings. In addition, it provides that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor may make rules and give directions in relation to the handling of introductory tenancy cases in county courts. This mirrors similar provisions in existing legislation for secure tenancies. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 135 [Consequential amendments: introductory tenancies]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 87, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State may by order make such other amendments or repeals of any enactment as appear to him necessary or expedient in consequence of the provisions of this Chapter.
( ) Any such order—

(a) may contain such transitional provisions and savings as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and

(b) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 135 provides that consequential amendments to the introductory tenancy provisions are set out in Schedule 13. Amendment No. 180 provides an order-making power so that any consequential amendments that have not already been identified in the Bill can be made when Chapter 1 of Part V is brought into force.
There is an extensive list of pieces of legislation that contain references to secure tenancies. Each of these references must be scrutinised to decide whether a reference to introductory tenancies should also be made. For example, in the Family Law Act 1996 it will be necessary to add a reference to introductory tenancies alongside that to secure tenancies. This sort of detailed provision is more sensibly dealt with by secondary legislation.
I emphasise that the use of this amendment will be strictly limited to minor consequential amendments. Clause 55 of the Bill contains a similar provision in the case of registered social landlords by providing a power to make an order for minor or consequential amendments. As under Clause 55, the order would be subject to negative resolution. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Introductory tenancies: consequential amendments]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 181 and 182:
Page 178, line 12, leave out from ("Part") to ("Chapter") in line 13 and insert (""introductory tenancy" has the same meaning as in").
Page 178, line 24, at end insert ("or
(b) by virtue of the tenant, or in the case of a joint tenancy every tenant, ceasing to occupy the dwelling-house as his only or principal home.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 181 with Amendment No. 25 and Amendment No. 182 with Amendment No.168. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 136 [Index of defined expressions: introductory tenancies]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 183 and 184:
Page 87, line 35, after ("tenancy") insert ("and introductory tenant").
Page 87, line 39, after ("tenancy") insert ("and secure tenant").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 137 [Extension of ground of nuisance or annoyance to neighbours, &c.]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 184A:
Page 88, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) When considering whether to grant possession under this Ground on the basis that conduct is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance and where there is no direct evidence adduced to the court that any person has been caused a nuisance or annoyance then, in deciding whether it is reasonable to make an order for possession, the court shall take into account any evidence provided by the landlord that witnesses are being or may be intimidated and the extent (if any) to which the court has used its powers effectively to protect any such witnesses from such intimidation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 184B. These amendments are concerned with what might be called "professional witnesses".
That is to say, they would allow a local authority to provide evidence that witnesses have been intimidated and would ensure that the court considers all its powers to protect witnesses.
The amendment would apply when a local authority was seeking possession on the ground that conduct was likely to cause a nuisance and could not prove that there was an actual nuisance, because no tenants or neighbours were prepared to come forward. That situation, where there are threats and there is some element of intimidation is, regrettably, not uncommon. Therefore, tenants or neighbours are reluctant to come forward to testify. The amendment has the effect that when this occurs, in deciding whether it is reasonable to make an order for possession, the court has to take into account the degree of intimidation that exists and whether it can protect witnesses. In other words, it must take account of the difficulties that the local authority has had in bringing the case to court in deciding whether to make possession based on a likelihood of nuisance rather than actual nuisance. The more powers that the court has exercised to protect witnesses, the more reasonable it is to expect the local authority to produce those witnesses in court.
It is agreed that this can be a difficult situation where there can be threats and intimidation and it is difficult for the local authority to produce the witnesses who would provide the evidence that is necessary. On the other hand, one ought not to have a system which, in a sense, encourages intimidation because, if witnesses are intimidated and do not appear, people will say "Well, we have succeeded and we can go on behaving in an anti-social way towards other people living near us".
The purpose of the amendment is therefore to provide a safeguard against such goings-on. I think it would be helpful. It would certainly make dealing with such difficulties a little easier. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Lucas: Clause 137 amends Ground 2 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985. The schedule sets out the grounds for possession of dwelling houses let under secure tenancies.
Clause 137 strengthens the existing ground for possession based on nuisance and annoyance to neighbours in three ways. First, so that it applies to behaviour in the locality of the tenant's property; secondly, so that it covers behaviour by visitors to properties; and, thirdly, so that it covers the situation where the tenant, a person living with him or a visitor has been convicted of an arrestable offence in the locality of a house or flat.
For the purposes of Amendment No. 184A the key part of Clause 137 is that it will also enable local authorities to evict a tenant for behaviour which is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance. The purpose of this new provision is that the victim of the behaviour may not have to give evidence. Instead, this might be provided by a professional witness.
As I indicated when we discussed a similar amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, at Committee stage, the Government believe that Clause 137 achieves the intention of the amendment that is before us now which is to enable a local authority to secure an eviction on the basis of evidence given by a professional witness, rather than by the victims themselves. We know that some local authorities have already found themselves able to proceed successfully in such cases. Sunderland is a prime example. Other authorities have not fared so well.
Clause 137 makes it clear to the courts that there is statutory backing for the use of professional witnesses to prove that particular conduct is likely to cause nuisance. Ultimately we cannot tell the courts how to deal with individual cases—and that is right. But in the Government's opinion Clause 137 puts it beyond doubt that evidence from a professional witness can be accepted as grounds for eviction.
There are, of course, steps that can and should be taken to protect witnesses. For example, local authorities can apply for a non-molestation order. Where there is an adjournment the authority can ask for an undertaking from the defendant not to harass or interfere with the witness in the meantime. We have included such advice on the protection of witnesses in the Department of Environment's guidance Getting the best out of the court system in possession cases, which was prepared in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor's Department and which was sent to all local authorities in England and Wales in March this year. A number of practical steps can be taken to reassure and protect vulnerable witnesses when they attend the court, such as the use of screens or video evidence, and the provision of separate waiting areas.
The provisions of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 enable hearsay evidence to be admitted as evidence. The weight to be given to the evidence is for the courts to determine and will depend on the facts of each case, but the Act (which is due to come into force in the autumn) does say that one of the matters for consideration is whether

425
it would be reasonable to have called the witness. Clearly, the likelihood of the intimidation of the witness would be a relevant consideration.
To sum up, we feel that in this Bill and related legislation we have created sufficient new powers to overcome the problems which these amendments are designed to solve. We therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 184A.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has said, but I am not totally convinced that all is as clear cut as he suggested. Obviously, there is provision for professional witnesses—I had thought that my amendments would make that clearer—but the phrase, "likely to cause a nuisance", in Clause 137 bothers me. I wonder whether the courts would think that the phrase "likely to cause" is as clear cut as the Minister suggests. It would be up to the courts to decide how to interpret the phrase—and that might not give the whole procedure the clarity and certainty that the Minister has suggested. Certainly, the court would have the discretion to interpret the matter rather differently. I had assumed that my amendments would make the position clearer, both as regards protecting witnesses and using professional witnesses. The phrase "likely to cause" therefore creates some doubt. I wonder whether, with the leave of the House, the Minister could clarify that because I am unhappy lest the consequence be not what he said that it would be.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am not happy that the noble Lord is unhappy. I shall discuss the matter again with my officials and doubtless they will do so with their legal advisers. As so far today I have managed to avoid promising to write to anybody, I hope that they will forgive me for promising to write to the noble Lord to allay his fears about how that phrase will be interpreted.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that, especially as it puts me in the unique position of receiving a letter from him as a result of today's proceedings. This is an important matter and I appreciate the fact that the noble Lord is attempting to be helpful. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 184B not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 185:
After Clause 138, insert the following new clause—

EXTENSION OF GROUND THAT GRANT OF TENANCY INDUCED BY FALSE STATEMENT
(". In Ground 5 in Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985 (grant of tenancy induced by false statement) for "by the tenant" substitute "by—

(a) the tenant, or

(b) a person acting at the tenant's instigation".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed this with Amendment No. 133. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 185A:
After Clause 140, insert the following new clause—

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN
(".—(1) This section applies to an injunction granted by a county court or by the High Court—

(a) in possession proceedings;

(b) in any proceedings for breach of tenancy relating to residential premises;

(c) in proceedings brought by a registered social landlord or a public sector landlord as defined in section 80 of the Housing Act 1985 for trespass or nuisance;

(d) in any proceedings brought by a local authority using its powers under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972;

(e) in any proceedings brought by a local authority for a public protection order under this Act; or

(f) which is a witness protection order granted under the provisions of this Act.

(2) Where a young person is in contempt of court by reason of a breach of any injunction to which this section applies that court shall have the equivalent powers of sentence and punishment which would be available to any criminal court had the defendant been convicted of an offence liable to imprisonment for up to two years.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to young persons under the age of 18 and the use of injunctions against them granted by a county court or by the High Court in possession proceedings or in any proceedings for breach of tenancy relating to residential premises. The purpose of the amendment is to deal with the possibility of imposing sentences of detention on young persons for a period of up to two years. I believe that it is right there should be safeguards against the detention of young persons, although young persons can cause a nuisance and behave towards others living near them in an anti-social way. Nevertheless, young persons are more vulnerable than older ones and it is right that there should be certain safeguards.
My interpretation of the amendment is that the use of custody for those under 18 years of age will be resorted to reluctantly and that the powers suggested for the county court do not affect that: custody should be resorted to only for young offenders who commit serious offences or persistently offend. There would be no change to the nature of the circumstances in which young people might be given custody orders. The county court would have a discretion which it would use in the same way as a magistrates' court or juvenile court. The court would take into account the level of maturity and welfare needs of the young person.
Therefore, the amendment is not out of line with the principles that I have mentioned. Under the amendment, a court would not have power to impose a sentence of detention for up to two years on a 15 year-old unless that could also be done by a magistrates' court or juvenile court in similar circumstances. The provision would therefore act as a constraint. The practice of a magistrates' court or juvenile court would be that which would prevail for the county court or High Court. It is a safeguard. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this amendment has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in substitution for his noble friend Lady Hollis, in the sincere hope that it

427
will address the problem of young people who make life a misery for others on some local authority housing estates. As I said in response to the noble Baroness in Committee, there is no easy answer to this problem.
The Government do not believe that the answer is to be found in this amendment. The noble Baroness acknowledged this herself at Committee stage, when she said she was stumped as to the best way forward on such an intractable problem. She called for organisations outside and beyond this Chamber to come forward with ideas. The Government, too, would welcome those ideas. As I indicated when we discussed this in Committee, this issue straddles the responsibilities of several government departments: the Department of the Environment, the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment.
The Department of the Environment has made what the Government believe to be a significant step forward in addressing anti-social behaviour on public sector housing estates by the measures in Part V of the Bill. Many of these provisions have resulted directly from working with the local authority associations, and that work will continue. As the noble Baroness suggested, ideas from other sources would also be welcomed. There is more to be done between departments and with the local authority associations before we can offer a comprehensive solution to this problem.
I turn to the substance of the amendment. The amendment would allow the county court or High Court to impose on a young person—a 14 to 17 year-old—who breached an injunction granted by the court in certain types of proceedings any penalty which would have been available if the young person had been convicted of a criminal offence which carried a sentence of imprisonment of up to two years. In effect, a young person who committed such a breach would be eligible for a range of penalties, from a financial penalty to a community or custodial sentence, depending on age. The use of custody is not something which we advocate generally for young offenders. It is reserved for those who commit serious offences or who offend persistently, to reflect the principle that the courts should take into account the level of maturity and the welfare needs of the offender. The amendment does not rest easily with that principle. For example, the county court would have power to impose a sentence of detention on a 15 year-old for up to two years to prevent the escalation of a relatively minor breach of a tenancy agreement.
We believe that there are more appropriate ways to deal with young people. To recap what I said at Committee stage, these are the youth court (rather than the county court), where magistrates can bring particular expertise to bear on the needs of young people, and a wide range of penalties for young people over 10 who commit serious anti-social acts amounting to a criminal offence (for example racial harassment), including fines, community sentences and the binding over of parents to take proper care and control of the child. At the extreme, custodial sentences are available for the serious and persistent offender and the period of detention has recently been doubled from one to two years. A new sentence of secure training orders is to be introduced.
428
This will be available for the small but significant group of 12 to 14 year-olds who are already experienced and regular offenders and who have failed to respond positively to a community penalty.
This issue goes wider even than how young offenders should be punished. I do not believe that it can be solved here tonight by means of this amendment. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, on the mutual understanding that this is a matter which the Government and others—evidently including the noble Lord—are addressing actively. However, sadly, we feel that there is not yet a solution.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I fully understand the difficulty that the Minister has described. How we deal with young persons who behave in an anti-social and unlawful way is a very difficult problem which probably cannot be resolved at the end of a long day in relation to a particular provision in the Housing Bill. It is a much wider social problem than we can solve here and now, though we recognise that the manner in which young persons behave on council estates and elsewhere can be very upsetting to others. We must all struggle to find answers to these difficulties. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 186:
Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—

POWER TO GRANT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
(".—(1) The High Court or a county court may, on an application by a local authority, grant an injunction prohibiting a person from—

(a) engaging in or threatening to engage in conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to a person residing in, visiting or otherwise engaging in a lawful activity in residential premises to which this section applies or in the locality of such premises,

(b) using or threatening to use residential premises to which this section applies for immoral or illegal purposes, or

(c) entering residential premises to which this section applies or being found in the locality of any such premises.

(2) This section applies to residential premises of the following descriptions—

(a) dwelling-houses held under secure or introductory tenancies from the local authority;

(b) accommodation provided by that authority under Part VII of this Act or Part III of the Housing Act 1985 (homelessness).

(3) The court shall not grant an injunction under this section unless it is of the opinion that—

(a) the respondent has used or threatened to use violence against any person of a description mentioned in subsection (1)(a), and

(b) there is a significant risk of harm to that person or a person of a similar description if the injunction is not granted.

(4) An injunction under this section may—

(a) in the case of an injunction under subsection (1)(a) or (b), relate to particular acts or to conduct, or types of conduct, in general or to both, and

(b) in the case of an injunction under subsection (1)(c), relate to particular premises or a particular locality;

and may be made for a specified period or until varied or discharged.
(5) An injunction under this section may be varied or discharged by the court on an application by—

429

(a) the respondent, or

(b) the local authority which made the original application.

(6) The court may attach a power of arrest to one or more of the provisions of an injunction which it intends to grant under this section.
(7) The court may, in any case where it considers that it is just and convenient to do so, grant an injunction under this section, or vary such an injunction, even though the respondent has not been given such notice of the proceedings as would otherwise be required by rules of court.
If the court does so, it must afford the respondent an opportunity to make representations relating to the injunction or variation as soon as just and convenient at a hearing of which notice has been given to all the parties in accordance with rules of court.
(8) In this section "local authority" has the same meaning as in the Housing Act 1985.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 186 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 194 and 195. Amendment No. 186 introduces a new clause which provides local authorities with a specific power to obtain an injunction to restrain the anti-social behaviour of non-tenants on council estates. The existing Clause 145 enables a local authority to ask the courts to attach a power of arrest to an injunction obtained by the council to restrain a person whose anti-social behaviour affects its estates. It relies on a local authority using the general power under Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 to take legal action,
"for the promotion or protection of the interest of the inhabitants of their area".
In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, tabled an amendment to clarify that councils were able to use Section 222 for the purposes of curbing anti-social behaviour. It transpired that some local authorities which used Section 222 had obtained legal advice that they would be unwise to rely on that power to restrain anti-social behaviour in premises owned by themselves on the basis that there might not be sufficient public interest to justify its use.
The Government believe that Section 222 is fully effective but we did promise to consider further any evidence to the contrary that was put to us. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, kindly arranged for us to see briefing material. From consideration of that it is clear that this matter has not yet been fully tested in the courts. Until that happens, local authorities and their advisers are reluctant to use Section 222 to take action against troublemakers on their estates.
Clause 144, in the same way as Clause 145, allows social landlords to request the court to attach a power of arrest to injunctions taken out to stop tenants behaving anti-socially where violence or threats of violence are involved. It is essential that local authorities also have an effective way of dealing with those who are not tenants and cause trouble on estates. As it is now clear that there are doubts among local authorities that Section 222 enables them to do that, we are bringing forward these amendments which do so.
The new clause contains an express power to allow councils to obtain an injunction in either the High Court or the county court to restrain anyone from engaging in anti-social behaviour on council estates. This power is supplemented, like Clause 144, with a power for the
430
local authority to request the court to attach a power of arrest. This will enable councils to take effective action. The amendments will be welcomed by local authorities in their battle against anti-social behaviour. We are most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for having brought the matter to our attention. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he said. Perhaps I may raise two points. First, it is my understanding that Amendment No. 186 does not cover damage to property. Is there a point that I have missed in that or related amendments, or has that matter been deliberately omitted? The amendment certainly deals with conduct likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to persons and a variety of other types of behaviour. However, damage to property is also relevant and I wonder whether the Minister would care to comment on that.
Secondly, the phrase "or likely to cause" appears in subsection (1)(a). Perhaps, when the Minister writes to me in relation to the appearance of that phrase in an earlier amendment, he will consider the effect of it in this amendment. What will be the position if the court has to interpret that phrase given its relationship to professional witnesses? It is the same argument we had previously. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to deal with the matter when he writes to me. In the meantime, I await his comment about damage to property.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, to allay the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on both points, "causing a nuisance" must include damage to property, and damage to property is therefore covered under that heading. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord on the use of the phrase "likely to cause" in this amendment and also as related to previous parts of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 145 [Power of arrest for breach of other local authority injunctions]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 187:
Leave out Clause 145.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have just spoken to Amendments Nos. 187 to 191. I beg to move Amendment No. 187.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 146 [Ex-parte applications for injunctions]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 188:
Page 94, line 22, leave out from ("its") to first ("to") in line 23 and insert ("power under section (Power to grant injunctions against anti-social behaviour)(6) or section 144 to attach a power of arrest").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 94, line 32, leave out (" 144(5)(a) or 145(3)(a)") and insert ("(Power to grant injunctions against anti-social behaviour)(1)(a) or section 144(5)(a)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 147 [Arrest and remand]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No.190:
Page 94, line 41, leave out (" 144 or 145") and insert ("(Power to grant injunctions against anti-social behaviour)(6) or section 144").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 95, line 9, leave out (" 144 or 145") and insert ("(Power to grant injunctions against anti-social behaviour)(6) or section 144").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 192:
Page 95, line 24, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) Schedule (Arrest for anti-social behaviour: powers of High Court and county court to remand) (which makes provision corresponding to that applying in magistrates' courts in civil cases under sections 128 and 129 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980) applies in relation to the powers of the High Court and a county court to remand a person under this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 192 and to speak to Amendment No. 193. Clause 147 deals with the power of a court to arrest and remand for a breach of an injunction. It is consequential on earlier Clauses 144 and 145, which allow a power of arrest for breach of injunctions involving anti-social behaviour where violence has occurred or is threatened.
Amendments Nos. 192 and 193 contain nothing new. They replace previous references in Clause 147 to the power of arrest provisions in the Family Law Act 1996 by substituting ancillary provisions about the power of a court to remand where a person is arrested for breaching an injunction for anti-social behaviour. We consider it preferable, on consideration, to have these provisions set out on the face of the Housing Bill rather than the landlord having to look to another statute for detail on this particular aspect of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 193:
After Schedule 13, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE

  ARREST FOR ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR: POWERS OF HIGH COURT AND COUNTY COURT TO REMAND
  Introductory
  1.—(1) The provisions of this Schedule apply where the court has power to remand a person under section 147(2) or (5) (arrest for breach of injunction, &c.).
  (2) In this Schedule "the court" means the High Court or a county court and includes—

  (a) in relation to the High Court, a judge of that court, and

  (b) in relation to a county court, a judge or district judge of that court.

  Remand in custody or on bail
  2.—(1) The court may—

  (a) remand him in custody, that is, commit him to custody to he brought before the court at the end of the period of remand or at such earlier time as the court may require, or

  432

  (b) remand him on bail, in accordance with the following provisions.

  (2) The court may remand him on bail—

  (a) by taking from him a recognizance, with or without sureties, conditioned as provided in paragraph 3, or

  (b) by fixing the amount of the recognizances with a view to their being taken subsequently, and in the meantime committing him to custody as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a).

  (3) Where a person is brought before the court after remand, the court may further remand him.
  3.—(1) Where a person is remanded on bail, the court may direct that his recognizance be conditioned for his appearance—

  (a) before that court at the end of the period of remand, or

  (b) at every time and place to which during the course of the proceedings the hearing may from time to time be adjourned.

  (2) Where a recognizance is conditioned for a person's appearance as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b), the fixing of any time for him next to appear shall be deemed to be a remand.
  (3) Nothing in this paragraph affects the power of the court at any subsequent hearing to remand him afresh.
  4.—(1) The court shall not remand a person for a period exceeding 8 clear days, except that—

  (a) if the court remands him on bail, it may remand him for a longer period if he and the other party consent, and

  (b) if the court adjourns a case under section 148(1) (remand for medical examination and report), the court may remand him for the period of the adjournment.

  (2) Where the court has power to remand a person in custody it may, if the remand is for a period not exceeding 3 clear days, commit him to the custody of a constable.
  Further remand
  5.—(1) If the court is satisfied that a person who has been remanded is unable by reason of illness or accident to appear or be brought before the court at the expiration of the period for which he was remanded, the court may, in his absence, remand him for a further time.
  This power may, in the case of a person who was remanded on bail, be exercised by enlarging his recognizance and those of any sureties for him to a later time.
  (2) Where a person remanded on bail is bound to appear before the court at any time and the court has no power to remand him under sub-paragraph (1), the court may in his absence enlarge his recognizance and those of any sureties for him to a later time.
  The enlargement of his recognizance shall be deemed to be a further remand.
  (3) Paragraph 4(1) (limit of period of remand) does not apply to the exercise of the powers conferred by this paragraph.
  Postponement of taking of recognizance
  6. Where under paragraph 2(2)(b) the court fixes the amount in which the principal and his sureties, if any, are to be bound, the recognizance may afterwards be taken by such person as may be prescribed by rules of court, with the same consequences as if it had been entered into before the court.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have just spoken to Amendment No. 193. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 149 [The power of arrest: supplementary provisions]:
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 194 and 195:
  Page 96, line 7, leave out (" 144 or 145") and insert ("(Power to grant injunctions against anti-social behaviour)(6) or section 144").
  Page 96, line 15, leave out (" 144 or 145") and insert ("(Power to grant injunctions against anti-social behaviour)(6) or section 144").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these with Amendment No. 186. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 en bloc.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  Allied Irish Banks Bill
  Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
  Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.

  City of London (Approved Premises for Marriage) Bill [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past eleven o'clock.

  BBC World Service: Restructuring
  BBC World Service: Restructuring
  South-East Turkey: Protection of Non-combatants
  South-East Turkey: Protection of Non-combatants
  Turkey: Mr Abdullah Yildrim
  Turkey: Mr Abdullah Yildrim
  UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
  UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
  Turkey: Security Agreement with Israel
  Turkey: Security Agreement with Israel
  EU and NATO Enlargement: Costs
  EU and NATO Enlargement: Costs
  Asylum Cases: Statistics
  Asylum Cases: Statistics
  Immigration Appeals
  Immigration Appeals
  Rent Arrears: Civil Legal Aid
  Rent Arrears: Civil Legal Aid
  Mental Incapacity: Draft Legislation
  Mental Incapacity: Draft Legislation
  Prisons: Visiting Ministers
  Prisons: Visiting Ministers
  Income Tax and National Insurance: Integration
  Income Tax and National Insurance: Integration
  Wallingford Conservation Area: Development Proposals
  Wallingford Conservation Area: Development Proposals
  Overwork
  Overwork
  BSE: Ruminant Feed Ban
  BSE: Ruminant Feed Ban
  BSE: Maternal Transmission
  BSE: Maternal Transmission
  Organophosphate Exposure: Effects on Calf Foetuses
  Organophosphate Exposure: Effects on Calf Foetuses
  "Sea Empress" Oil Spill: Clean-up Operation
  "Sea Empress" Oil Spill: Clean-up Operation
  Track Access and Freight Facility Grant Budget
  Track Access and Freight Facility Grant Budget
  Track Access Grant to Freightliner: Lorry Mile Valuations
  Track Access Grant to Freightliner: Lorry Mile Valuations
  Transport and Works Act 1992: Applications
  Transport and Works Act 1992: Applications